[Search] [pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01                                                         
Network Working Group                                           J. Arkko
Internet-Draft                                                  Ericsson
Intended status: Informational                                S. Farrell
Expires: May 7, 2021                              Trinity College Dublin
                                                        November 3, 2020


       Internet Threat Model Evolution: Background and Principles
               draft-arkko-farrell-arch-model-t-redux-00

Abstract

   Communications security has been at the center of many security
   improvements in the Internet.  The goal has been to ensure that
   communications are protected against outside observers and attackers.

   This memo suggests that the existing RFC 3552 threat model, while
   important and still valid, is no longer alone sufficient to cater for
   the pressing security and privacy issues seen on the Internet today.
   For instance, it is often also necessary to protect against endpoints
   that are compromised, malicious, or whose interests simply do not
   align with the interests of users.  While such protection is
   difficult, there are some measures that can be taken and we argue
   that investigation of these issues is warranted.

   It is particularly important to ensure that as we continue to develop
   Internet technology, non-communications security related threats, and
   privacy issues, are properly understood.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 7, 2021.






Arkko & Farrell            Expires May 7, 2021                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       Internet Threat Model Evolution       November 2020


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Attack Landscape  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  Communications Security Improvements  . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  Beyond Communications Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.3.  Types of Attacks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.3.1.  Misuse of Accidental Vulnerabilities  . . . . . . . .   7
       2.3.2.  Misbehaving Applications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.3.3.  Network Infrastructure Attacks  . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.3.4.  Untrustworthy Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.3.5.  Tracking  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   3.  Principles  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     3.1.  Trusting Devices  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.2.  Protecting Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.3.  Tracking  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.4.  Role of End-to-End  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   6.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Appendix A.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   Appendix B.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26

1.  Introduction

   Communications security has been at the center of many security
   improvements in the Internet.  The goal has been to ensure that
   communications are protected against outside observers and attackers.
   At the IETF, this approach has been formalized in BCP 72 [RFC3552],
   which defined the Internet threat model in 2003.





Arkko & Farrell            Expires May 7, 2021                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       Internet Threat Model Evolution       November 2020


   The purpose of a threat model is to outline what threats exist in
   order to assist the protocol designer.  But RFC 3552 also ruled some
   threats to be in scope and of primary interest, and some threats out
   of scope [RFC3552]:

      The Internet environment has a fairly well understood threat
      model.  In general, we assume that the end-systems engaging in a
      protocol exchange have not themselves been compromised.
      Protecting against an attack when one of the end-systems has been
      compromised is extraordinarily difficult.  It is, however,
      possible to design protocols which minimize the extent of the
      damage done under these circumstances.

      By contrast, we assume that the attacker has nearly complete
      control of the communications channel over which the end-systems
      communicate.  This means that the attacker can read any PDU
      (Protocol Data Unit) on the network and undetectably remove,
      change, or inject forged packets onto the wire.

   However, the communications-security -only threat model is becoming
   outdated.  Some of the causes for this are:

   o  Success!  Advances in protecting most of our communications with
      strong cryptographic means.  This has resulted in much improved
      communications security, but also highlights the need for
      addressing other, remaining issues.  This is not to say that
      communications security is not important, it still is:
      improvements are still needed.  Not all communications have been
      protected, and even out of the already protected communications,
      not all of their aspects have been fully protected.  Fortunately,
      there are ongoing projects working on improvements.

   o  Adversaries have increased their pressure against other avenues of
      attack, from supply-channel attacks, to compromising devices to
      legal coercion of centralized endpoints in conversations.

   o  New adversaries and risks have arisen, e.g., due to creation of
      large centralized information sources.

   o  While communications-security does seem to be required to protect
      privacy, more is needed, especially if endpoints choose to act
      against the interests of their peers or users.

   In short, attacks are migrating towards the currently easier targets,
   which no longer necessarily include direct attacks on traffic flows.
   In addition, trading information about users and ability to influence
   them has become a common practice for many Internet services, often
   without users understanding those practices.



Arkko & Farrell            Expires May 7, 2021                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       Internet Threat Model Evolution       November 2020


   This memo suggests that the existing threat model, while important
   and still valid, is no longer alone sufficient to cater for the
   pressing security and privacy issues on the Internet.  For instance,
   while it continues to be very important to protect Internet
   communications against outsiders, it is also necessary to protect
   systems against endpoints that are compromised, malicious, or whose
   interests simply do not align with the interests of the users.

   Of course, there are many trade-offs in the Internet on who one
   chooses to interact with and why or how.  It is not the role of this
   memo to dictate those choices.  But it is important that we
   understand the implications of different practices.  It is also
   important that when it comes to basic Internet infrastructure, our
   chosen technologies lead to minimal exposure with respect to the non-
   communications threats.

   It is particularly important to ensure that non-communications
   security related threats are properly understood for any new Internet
   technology.  While the consideration of these issues is relatively
   new in the IETF, this memo provides some initial ideas about
   potential broader threat models to consider when designing protocols
   for the Internet or when trying to defend against pervasive
   monitoring.  Further down the road, updated threat models could
   result in changes in BCP 72 [RFC3552] (guidelines for writing
   security considerations) and BCP 188 [RFC7258] (pervasive
   monitoring), to include proper consideration of non-communications
   security threats.

   It may also be necessary to have dedicated guidance on how systems
   design and architecture affect security.  The sole consideration of
   communications security aspects in designing Internet protocols may
   lead to accidental or increased impact of security issues elsewhere.
   For instance, allowing a participant to unnecessarily collect or
   receive information may lead to a similar effect as described in
   [RFC8546] for protocols: over time, unnecessary information will get
   used with all the associated downsides, regardless of what deployment
   expectations there were during protocol design.

   This memo does not stand alone.  To begin with, it is a continuation
   of earlier work by the two authors [I-D.farrell-etm]
   [I-D.arkko-arch-internet-threat-model]
   [I-D.arkko-farrell-arch-model-t].  There are also other documents
   discussing this overall space, e.g.
   [I-D.lazanski-smart-users-internet] [I-D.arkko-arch-dedr-report].

   The rest of this memo is organized as follows.  Section 2 makes some
   observations about the situation, with respect to communications




Arkko & Farrell            Expires May 7, 2021                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       Internet Threat Model Evolution       November 2020


   security and beyond.  The section also provides a number of real-
   world examples.

   Section 3 discusses some high-level principles that relate to these
   changes, and could be used to tackle some of the emerging issues.

   Comments are solicited on these and other aspects of this document.
   The best place for discussion is on the model-t list.
   (https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/model-t)

2.  Attack Landscape

   This section discusses the evolving landscape of security
   vulnerabilities, threats, and attacks.

2.1.  Communications Security Improvements

   Being able to ask about threat model improvements is due to progress
   already made: The fraction of Internet traffic that is
   cryptographically protected has grown tremendously in the last few
   years.  Several factors have contributed to this change, from Snowden
   revelations to business reasons and to better available technology
   such as HTTP/2 [RFC7540], TLS 1.3 [RFC8446], QUIC
   [I-D.ietf-quic-transport].

   In many networks, the majority of traffic has flipped from being
   cleartext to being encrypted.  Reaching the level of (almost) all
   traffic being encrypted is no longer something unthinkable but rather
   a likely outcome in a few years.

   At the same time, technology developments and policy choices have
   driven the scope of cryptographic protection from protecting only the
   pure payload to protecting much of the rest as well, including far
   more header and meta-data information than was protected before.  For
   instance, efforts are ongoing in the IETF to assist encrypting
   transport headers [I-D.ietf-quic-transport], server domain name
   information in TLS [I-D.ietf-tls-esni], and domain name queries
   [RFC8484].

   There have also been improvements to ensure that the security
   protocols that are in use actually have suitable credentials and that
   those credentials have not been compromised, see, for instance, Let's
   Encrypt [RFC8555], HSTS [RFC6797], HPKP [RFC7469], and Expect-CT
   [I-D.ietf-httpbis-expect-ct].

   This is not to say that all problems in communications security have
   been resolved - far from it.  But the situation is definitely
   different from what it was a few years ago.  Remaining issues will be



Arkko & Farrell            Expires May 7, 2021                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       Internet Threat Model Evolution       November 2020


   and are worked on; the fight between defense and attack will also
   continue.  Communications security will stay at the top of the agenda
   in any Internet technology development.

2.2.  Beyond Communications Security

   There are, however, significant issues beyond communications security
   in the Internet.

   To begin with, it is not necessarily clear that one can trust all the
   endpoints in any protocol interaction, including the user's own
   devices.  Managed or closed ecosystems with multiple layers of
   hardware and software have made it harder to understand or influence
   what your devices do.

   The situation is different, but not necessarily better on the side of
   servers.  Even for applications that are for user-to-user
   communication, a typical pattern of communications is almost always
   via an intermediary that has at least as much information as the
   other parties have.  For instance, these intermediaries are typically
   endpoints for any transport layer security connections, and able to
   see much communications or other messaging in cleartext.  There are
   some exceptions, of course, e.g., messaging applications with end-to-
   end confidentiality protection.

   For instance, while e-mail transport security [RFC7817] has become
   much more widely deployed in recent years, progress in securing
   e-mail messages between users has been much slower.  This has lead to
   a situation where e-mail content is considered a critical resource by
   some mail service providers who use the content for machine learning,
   advertisement targeting, and other purposes unrelated to message
   delivery.  Equally however, it is unclear how some useful anti-spam
   techniques could be deployed in an end-to-end encrypted mail universe
   (with today's end-to-end mail security protocols) and there are many
   significant challenges should one desire to deploy end-to-end email
   security at scale.

   Services that are not about user-to-user to communication often
   collect information about the user.

   Even services that are part of the infrastructure may have security
   issues.  For instance, despite progress in protecting DNS query
   protocols with encryption (see, e.g., [RFC7858] and [RFC8484]), DNS
   resolver services themselves may be targets for attack or sources for
   leaks.  For instance, the services may collect information or be
   vulnerable targets of denial-of-service attacks, attacks to steal
   user browsing history information, or be the target of surveillance
   activities and government information requests.  Infrastructure



Arkko & Farrell            Expires May 7, 2021                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       Internet Threat Model Evolution       November 2020


   services with information about a large number of users is collected
   in small number of services are particularly attractive targets for
   these attacks.

   With the growth of trading users' information by many of these
   parties, it becomes necessary to take precautions against endpoints
   that are compromised, malicious, or whose interests simply do not
   align with the interests of the users.

   In general, many recent attacks relate more to information than
   communications.  For instance, personal information leaks typically
   happen via information stored on a compromised server rather than
   capturing communications.  There is little hope that such attacks can
   be prevented entirely.  Again, the best course of action seems to be
   avoid the disclosure of information in the first place, or at least
   to not perform that in a manner that makes it possible that others
   can readily use the information.

2.3.  Types of Attacks

   This section discusses a few classes of attacks that are relevant for
   our consideration.

2.3.1.  Misuse of Accidental Vulnerabilities

   Not all adversarial behaviour starts as deliberate, some is initiated
   due to various levels of carelessness and/or due to erroneous
   assumptions about the environments in which those applications
   currently run at.  Nevertheless, a leak or vulnerability can be
   exploited by others that misuse the data for their own purposes.

   Some attacks in this category include:

   o  Virtualisation exposing secrets, for example, Meltdown and Spectre
      [MeltdownAndSpectre] [Kocher2019] [Lipp2018] and other similar
      side-channel attacks.

   o  Compromised badly-maintained web sites or services, e.g.,
      [Passwords] or Amazon S3 leaks.

   o  Supply-chain attacks, for example, the [TargetAttack] or malware
      within pre-installed applications on Android phones [Bloatware].

   o  Breaches of major service providers, that many of us might have
      assumed would be sufficiently capable to be the best large-scale
      "Identity providers", for example, Yahoo
      (https://www.wired.com/story/yahoo-breach-three-billion-
      accounts/), Facebook (https://www.pcmag.com/news/367319/facebook-



Arkko & Farrell            Expires May 7, 2021                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       Internet Threat Model Evolution       November 2020


      stored-up-to-600m-user-passwords-in-plain-text and
      https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-breach-affected-50-million-
      people/), Telcos (https://www.zdnet.com/article/us-telcos-caught-
      selling-your-location-data-again-senator-demands-new-laws/ and
      https://www.zdnet.com/article/millions-verizon-customer-records-
      israeli-data/), Google (https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-
      exposed-user-data-feared-repercussions-of-disclosing-to-public-
      1539017194), and Microsoft
      (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ywyz3x/hackers-could-
      read-your-hotmail-msn-outlook-microsoft-customer-support).

2.3.2.  Misbehaving Applications

   There are many examples of application developers doing their best to
   protect the security and privacy of their users or customers.  That's
   just the same as the case today where we need to consider in-network
   actors as potential adversaries despite the many examples of network
   operators who both act in the best interests of their users and
   succeed in defending against attacks from others.

   In short, there are applications that do not act in the best
   interests of their users.

   This can also happen indirectly.  Despite the best efforts of
   curators, so-called App-Stores frequently distribute malware of many
   kinds and one recent study [Curated] claims that simple obfuscation
   enables malware to avoid detection by even sophisticated operators.
   Given the scale of these deployments, distribution of even a small
   percentage of malware-infected applications can affect a large number
   of people.  The end result is an application that

   Applications may also mislead users.  Many web sites today provide
   some form of privacy policy and terms of service, that are known to
   be mostly unread [Unread].  This implies that, legal fiction aside,
   users of those sites have not in reality agreed to the specific terms
   published and so users are therefore highly exposed to being
   exploited by web sites, for example [Cambridge] is a recent well-
   publicised case where a service provider abused the data of 87
   million users via a partnership.  While many web site operators claim
   that they care deeply about privacy, it seems prudent to assume that
   some do not in fact care about user privacy in ways with which many
   of their users would agree.

2.3.3.  Network Infrastructure Attacks

   The network infrastructure may also work in an inappropriate manner.
   For instance, a Virtual Private Network (VPN) may misrepresent how it
   carries the users' traffic, for example misrepresenting the countries



Arkko & Farrell            Expires May 7, 2021                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       Internet Threat Model Evolution       November 2020


   in which they provide vantage points [Vpns].  A user's home network
   equipment may also be malicous or compromised.  For example, one
   study [Home] reports on a 2011 attack that affected 4.5 million DSL
   modems in Brazil.  The absence of software update [RFC8240] has been
   a major cause of these issues and rises to the level that considering
   this as intentional behaviour by device vendors who have chosen this
   path is warranted.

2.3.4.  Untrustworthy Devices

   Traditionally, there's been an implied trust in various parts of the
   system - such as the user's own device, nodes inside a particular
   network perimeter, or nodes under a single administrative control.

   Client endpoint implementations were never fully trusted, but the
   environments in which those endpoints exist are changing.  Users may
   not have as much control over their own devices as they used to, due
   to manufacturer-controlled operating system installations and locked
   device ecosystems.  And within those ecosystems, even the
   applications that are available tend to have privileges that users by
   themselves might not desire those applications be granted, such as
   excessive rights to media, location, and peripherals.  There are also
   designated efforts by various authorities to hack end-user devices as
   a means of intercepting data about the user.

   Examples of these issues are too many to list, for instance, so-
   called "smart" televisions spying on their owners and one survey of
   user attitudes [SmartTV].

   There are similar issues with larger, networked systems.  As these
   systems evolve over time, they get used and connected in different
   ways, run in virtual environments, and expanded for new functions.
   Old assumptions and security mechanisms may no longer be applicable
   in these new environments, leading to security vulnerabilities.

   Even in a closed network with carefully managed components there may
   be compromised components, as evidenced in the most extreme way by
   the Stuxnet worm that operated in an airgapped network.

   Every system runs large amount of software, and it is often not
   practical or even possible to prevent compromised code even in a
   high-security setting, let alone in commercial or private networks.
   Installation media, physical ports, both open source and proprietary
   programs, firmware, or even innocent-looking components on a circuit
   board can be suspect [TinyChip].  In addition, complex underlying
   computing platforms, such as modern CPUs with underlying security and
   management tools are prone to problems.  Analysis for the security of
   many interesting real-world systems now commonly needs to include



Arkko & Farrell            Expires May 7, 2021                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft       Internet Threat Model Evolution       November 2020


   cross-component attacks, e.g., the use of car radios and other
   externally communicating devices as part of attacks launched against
   the control components such as brakes in a car [Savage].

   Untrustworthy systems can also cause damage to other parties.
   Examples of this range from attacks of badly constructed IoT devices
   [DynDDoS] to large Internet services that become single points of
   failure [I-D.arkko-arch-infrastructure-centralisation].

2.3.5.  Tracking

   One of the biggest threats to user privacy on the Web is ubiquitous
   tracking.  This is often done to support advertising based business
   models.

   While some people may be sanguine about this kind of tracking, others
   consider this behaviour unwelcome, when or if they are informed that
   it happens, [Attitude] though the evidence here seems somewhat harder
   to interpret and many studies (that we have found to date) involve
   small numbers of users.  Historically, browsers have not made this
   kind of tracking visible and have enabled it by default, though some
   recent browser versions are starting to enable visibility and
   blocking of some kinds of tracking.  Browsers are also increasingly
   imposing more stringent requirements on plug-ins for varied security
   reasons.

   Third party tracking

   One form of tracking is by third parties.  HTTP header fields (such
   as cookies, [RFC6265]) are commonly used for such tracking, as are
   structures within the content of HTTP responses such as links to 1x1
   pixel images and (ab)use of Javascript APIs offered by browsers
   [Tracking].

   Whenever a resource is loaded from a server, that server can include
   a cookie which will be sent back to the server on future loads.  This
   includes situations where the resource is loaded as a resource on a
   page, such as an image or a JavaScript module.  When loading a
   resource, the server is aware of the top-level page that the resource
   is used on, through the use of the Referer HTTP header [RFC7231].
   those loads include a Referer header which contains the top-level
   page from which that subresource is being loaded.

   The combination of these features makes it possible to track a user
   across the Web. The tracker convinces a number of content sites
   ("first parties") to include a resource from the tracker site.  This
   resource can perform some function such as displaying an
   advertisement or providing analytics to the first party site.  But



Arkko & Farrell            Expires May 7, 2021                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft       Internet Threat Model Evolution       November 2020


   the resource may also be simply a tracker.  When the user visits one
   of the content sites, the tracker receives both a Referer header and
   the cookie.  For an individual user with a particular browser, the
   cookie is the same regardless of which site the tracker is on.  This
   allows the tracker to observe what pages within the set of content
   sites the user visits.  The resulting information is commonly used
   for targeting advertisements, but it can also be used for other
   purposes.

   This capability itself constitutes a major threat to user privacy.
   Additional techniques such as cookie syncing, identifier correlation,
   and fingerprinting make the problem even worse.

   As a given tracker will not be on all sites, that tracker has
   incomplete coverage.  However, trackers often collude (a practice
   called "cookie syncing") to combine the information from different
   tracking cookies.

   Sometimes trackers will be embedded on a site which collects a user
   identifier, such as social media identity or an e-mail address.  If
   the site can inform the tracker of the identifier, that allows the
   tracker to tie the identifier to the cookie.

   While a browser may block cookies, fingerprinting browsers often
   allows tracking the users.  For instance, features such as User-Agent
   string, plugin and font support, screen resolution, and timezone can
   yield a fingerprint that is sometimes unique to a single user
   [AmIUnique] and which persists beyond cookie scope and lifetime.
   Even in cases where this fingerprint is not unique, the anonymity set
   may be sufficiently small that, coupled with other data, this yields
   a unique, per-user identifier.  Fingerprinting of this type is more
   prevalent on systems and platforms where data-set features are
   flexible, such as desktops, where plugins are more commonly in use.
   Fingerprinting prevention is an active research area; see [Boix2018]
   for more information.

   Other types of tracking linked to web tracking

   Third party web tracking is not the only concern.  An obvious
   tracking danger exists also in popular ecosystems - such as social
   media networks - that house a large part of many users' online
   existence.  There is no need for a third party to track the user's
   browsing as all actions are performed within a single site, where
   most messaging, viewing, and sharing activities happen.

   Browsers themselves or services used by the browser can also become a
   potential source of tracking users.  For instance, the URL/search bar




Arkko & Farrell            Expires May 7, 2021                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft       Internet Threat Model Evolution       November 2020


   service may leak information about the user's actions to a search
   provider via an "autocomplete" feature.  [Leith2020]

   Tracking through users' IP addresses or DNS queries is also a danger.
   This may happen by directly observing the cleartext IP or DNS
   traffic, though DNS tracking may be preventable via DNS protocols
   that are secured end-to-end.  But the DNS queries are also (by
   definition) seen by the used DNS recursive resolver service, which
   may accidentally or otherwise track the users' activities.  This is
   particularly problematic if a large number of users employ either a
   commonly used ISP service or an Internet-based resolver service
   [I-D.arkko-arch-infrastructure-centralisation].  In contrast, use of
   a DNS recursive that sees little traffic could equally be used for
   tracking.  Similarly, other applications, such an mail or instant
   messaging protocols, that can carry HTML content can be integrated
   with web tracking.  For instance, intentional tracking are also seen
   many times per day by email users - in one study [Mailbug] the
   authors estimated that 62% of leakage to third parties was
   intentional, for example if leaked data included a hash of the
   recipient email address.

   Tracking happens through other systems besides the web, of course.
   For instance, some mail user agents (MUAs) render HTML content by
   default (with a subset not allowing that to be turned off, perhaps
   particularly on mobile devices) and thus enable the same kind of
   adversarial tracking seen on the web.  Attempts at such intentional
   tracking are also seen many times per day by email users - in one
   study [Mailbug] the authors estimated that 62% of leakage to third
   parties was intentional, for example if leaked data included a hash
   of the recipient email address.

3.  Principles

   Based on the above issues, it is necessary to pay attention to the
   following aspects:

   o  Security of devices, including the user's own devices.

   o  Security of data at rest, in various parts of the system.

   o  Tracking and identification of users and their devices.

   o  Role of intermediaries, and in particular information passing
      through them.

   These topics are discussed below.  There are obviously many detailed
   technical questions and approaches to tackling them.  However, in




Arkko & Farrell            Expires May 7, 2021                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft       Internet Threat Model Evolution       November 2020


   this memo we wish to focus on higher level architectural principles
   that might guide us in thinking about about the topics.

3.1.  Trusting Devices

   In general, this means that one cannot entirely trust even a closed
   system where you picked all the components yourself, let alone
   typical commercial, networked and Internet-connected systems.

   PRINCIPLE:  Consider all system components as potentially
      untrustworthy, and consider the implications of their compromise.

   There may also be ways to mitigate damages, should a compromise
   occur.

3.2.  Protecting Information

   Data leaks have become the primary concern.  Even trusted, well-
   managed parties can be problematic, such as when large data stores
   attract attempts to use that data in a manner that is not consistent
   with the users' interests.

   Mere encryption of communications is not sufficient to protect
   information.

   PRINCIPLE:  Consider information passed to another party as a
      publication to at least some number of entities.

   This principle applies even if the communications that carry that
   information are encrypted.

3.3.  Tracking

   Information leakage is particularly harmful in situations where the
   information can be traced to an individual, such as is the case with
   any information that users would consider private, be it about
   messages to another users, browsing history, or even user's medical
   information.

   PRINCIPLE:  Assume that every interaction with another party can
      result in fingerprinting or identification of the user in
      question.

   In many cases there are readily available user identifiers in data
   that is leaked, such as was the case with a recent medical
   information leak in Finland [Vastaamo].  But even when such
   identifiers are not present, in many communication methods, there is
   ample opportunity for narrowing down which entity is connecting,



Arkko & Farrell            Expires May 7, 2021                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft       Internet Threat Model Evolution       November 2020


   through geolocation, fingerprinting, and correlation with other
   information.

3.4.  Role of End-to-End

   [RFC1958] notes that "end-to-end functions can best be realised by
   end-to-end protocols":

      The basic argument is that, as a first principle, certain required
      end-to-end functions can only be performed correctly by the end-
      systems themselves.  A specific case is that any network, however
      carefully designed, will be subject to failures of transmission at
      some statistically determined rate.  The best way to cope with
      this is to accept it, and give responsibility for the integrity of
      communication to the end systems.  Another specific case is end-
      to-end security.

   The "end-to-end argument" was originally described by Saltzer et al
   [Saltzer].  They said:

      The function in question can completely and correctly be
      implemented only with the knowledge and help of the application
      standing at the endpoints of the communication system.  Therefore,
      providing that questioned function as a feature of the
      communication system itself is not possible.

   These functional arguments align with other, practical arguments
   about the evolution of the Internet under the end-to-end model.  The
   endpoints evolve quickly, often with simply having one party change
   the necessary software on both ends.  Whereas waiting for network
   upgrades would involve potentially a large number of parties from
   application owners to multiple network operators.  The end-to-end
   model supports permissionless innovation where new innovation can
   flourish in the Internet without excessive wait for other parties to
   act.

   But the details matter.  What is considered an endpoint?  What
   characteristics of Internet are we trying to optimize?

   There is a significant difference between actual endpoints from a
   user's interaction perspective (e.g., another user) and from a system
   perspective (e.g., a third party relaying a message).  Such
   intermediaries can provide a useful service.  As [I-D.thomson-tmi]
   points out, networks themselves would not exist without
   intermediaries that can forward communications to others.

   PRINCIPLE:  Limit the use of intermediaries, and what they can do.




Arkko & Farrell            Expires May 7, 2021                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft       Internet Threat Model Evolution       November 2020


   PRINCIPLE:  Pass information only between the "real ends" of a
      conversation, unless the information is necessary for a useful
      function in an intermediary.

   For instance, a transport connection between two components of a
   system is not an end-to-end connection even if it encompasses all the
   protocol layers up to the application layer.  It is not end-to-end,
   if the information or control function it carries actually extends
   beyond those components.  For instance, just because an e-mail server
   can read the contents of an e-mail message does not make it a
   legitimate recipient of the e-mail.

   This memo also proposes to focus on the "need to know" aspect in
   systems.  Information should not be disclosed, stored, or routed in
   cleartext through parties that do not absolutely need to have that
   information.  This relates to the discussion in [I-D.thomson-tmi], in
   that the valuable functions provided by intermediaries need to be
   balanced against the information that they need to perform their
   function.  And, in a lot of cases unnecessary information is provided
   to intermediaries, which leads to privacy and other problems.

4.  Security Considerations

   The entire memo covers the security considerations.

5.  IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA considerations in this work.

6.  Informative References

   [AbuseCases]
              McDermott, J. and C. Fox, "Using abuse case models for
              security requirements analysis", IEEE Annual Computer
              Security Applications Conference (ACSAC'99),
              https://www.acsac.org/1999/papers/wed-b-1030-john.pdf ,
              1999.

   [AmIUnique]
              INRIA, ., "Am I Unique?", https://amiunique.org , 2020.

   [Attitude]
              "User Perceptions of Sharing, Advertising, and Tracking",
              Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS),
              https://www.usenix.org/conference/soups2015/proceedings/
              presentation/chanchary , 2015.





Arkko & Farrell            Expires May 7, 2021                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft       Internet Threat Model Evolution       November 2020


   [avleak]   Cox, J., "Leaked Documents Expose the Secretive Market for
              Your Web Browsing Data",
              https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qjdkq7/
              avast-antivirus-sells-user-browsing-data-investigation ,
              2020.

   [BgpHijack]
              Sermpezis, P., Kotronis, V., Dainotti, A., and X.
              Dimitropoulos, "A survey among network operators on BGP
              prefix hijacking", ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication
              Review 48, no. 1 (2018): 64-69,
              https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.02918.pdf , 2018.

   [Bloatware]
              Gamba, G., Rashed, M., Razaghpanah, A., Tapiado, J., and
              N. Vallina, "An Analysis of Pre-installed Android
              Software", arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.02713 (2019) , 2019.

   [Boix2018]
              Gomez-Boix, A., Laperdrix, P., and B. Baudry, "Hiding in
              the crowd: an analysis of the effectiveness of browser
              fingerprinting at large scale", Proceedings of the 2018
              world wide web conference , 2018.

   [Cambridge]
              Isaak, J. and M. Hanna, "User Data Privacy: Facebook,
              Cambridge Analytica, and Privacy Protection", Computer
              51.8 (2018): 56-59, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/
              stamp.jsp?arnumber=8436400 , 2018.

   [CommandAndControl]
              Botnet, ., "Creating botnet C&C server. What architecture
              should I use? IRC? HTTP?", Stackexchange.com question,
              https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/100577/
              creating-botnet-cc-server-what-architecture-should-i-use-
              irc-http , 2014.

   [Curated]  Hammad, M., Garcia, J., and S. MaleK, "A large-scale
              empirical study on the effects of code obfuscations on
              Android apps and anti-malware products", ACM International
              Conference on Software Engineering 2018,
              https://www.ics.uci.edu/~seal/
              publications/2018ICSE_Hammad.pdf , 2018.








Arkko & Farrell            Expires May 7, 2021                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft       Internet Threat Model Evolution       November 2020


   [DeepDive]
              Krebs on Security, ., "A Deep Dive on the Recent
              Widespread DNS Hijacking Attacks", krebsonsecurity.com
              blog, https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/02/a-deep-dive-on-
              the-recent-widespread-dns-hijacking-attacks/ , 2019.

   [DoubleKey]
              Witte, D., "Thirdparty",
              https://wiki.mozilla.org/Thirdparty , June 2010.

   [DynDDoS]  York, K., "Dyn's Statement on the 10/21/2016 DNS DDoS
              Attack", Company statement: https://dyn.com/blog/
              dyn-statement-on-10212016-ddos-attack/ , 2016.

   [GDPRAccess]
              EU, ., "Right of access by the data subject", Article 15,
              GDPR, https://gdpr-info.eu/art-15-gdpr/ , n.d..

   [HijackDet]
              Schlamp, J., Holz, R., Gasser, O., Korste, A., Jacquemart,
              Q., Carle, G., and E. Biersack, "Investigating the nature
              of routing anomalies: Closing in on subprefix hijacking
              attacks", International Workshop on Traffic Monitoring and
              Analysis, pp. 173-187. Springer, Cham,
              https://www.net.in.tum.de/fileadmin/bibtex/publications/
              papers/schlamp_TMA_1_2015.pdf , 2015.

   [Home]     Nthala, N. and I. Flechais, "Rethinking home network
              security", European Workshop on Usable Security
              (EuroUSEC), https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/
              uuid:e2460f50-579b-451b-b14e-b7be2decc3e1/download_file?sa
              fe_filename=bare_conf_EuroUSEC2018.pdf&file_format=applica
              tion%2Fpdf&type_of_work=Conference+item , 2018.

   [I-D.arkko-arch-dedr-report]
              Arkko, J. and T. Hardie, "Report from the IAB workshop on
              Design Expectations vs. Deployment Reality in Protocol
              Development", draft-arkko-arch-dedr-report-00 (work in
              progress), November 2019.

   [I-D.arkko-arch-infrastructure-centralisation]
              Arkko, J., "Centralised Architectures in Internet
              Infrastructure", draft-arkko-arch-infrastructure-
              centralisation-00 (work in progress), November 2019.







Arkko & Farrell            Expires May 7, 2021                 [Page 17]


Internet-Draft       Internet Threat Model Evolution       November 2020


   [I-D.arkko-arch-internet-threat-model]
              Arkko, J., "Changes in the Internet Threat Model", draft-
              arkko-arch-internet-threat-model-01 (work in progress),
              July 2019.

   [I-D.arkko-farrell-arch-model-t]
              Arkko, J. and S. Farrell, "Challenges and Changes in the
              Internet Threat Model", draft-arkko-farrell-arch-model-
              t-04 (work in progress), July 2020.

   [I-D.farrell-etm]
              Farrell, S., "We're gonna need a bigger threat model",
              draft-farrell-etm-03 (work in progress), July 2019.

   [I-D.iab-protocol-maintenance]
              Thomson, M., "The Harmful Consequences of the Robustness
              Principle", draft-iab-protocol-maintenance-04 (work in
              progress), November 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-httpbis-expect-ct]
              estark@google.com, e., "Expect-CT Extension for HTTP",
              draft-ietf-httpbis-expect-ct-08 (work in progress),
              December 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-mls-architecture]
              Omara, E., Beurdouche, B., Rescorla, E., Inguva, S., Kwon,
              A., and A. Duric, "The Messaging Layer Security (MLS)
              Architecture", draft-ietf-mls-architecture-05 (work in
              progress), July 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-quic-transport]
              Iyengar, J. and M. Thomson, "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed
              and Secure Transport", draft-ietf-quic-transport-32 (work
              in progress), October 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-rats-eat]
              Mandyam, G., Lundblade, L., Ballesteros, M., and J.
              O'Donoghue, "The Entity Attestation Token (EAT)", draft-
              ietf-rats-eat-04 (work in progress), August 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-teep-architecture]
              Pei, M., Tschofenig, H., Thaler, D., and D. Wheeler,
              "Trusted Execution Environment Provisioning (TEEP)
              Architecture", draft-ietf-teep-architecture-12 (work in
              progress), July 2020.






Arkko & Farrell            Expires May 7, 2021                 [Page 18]


Internet-Draft       Internet Threat Model Evolution       November 2020


   [I-D.ietf-teep-protocol]
              Tschofenig, H., Pei, M., Wheeler, D., Thaler, D., and A.
              Tsukamoto, "Trusted Execution Environment Provisioning
              (TEEP) Protocol", draft-ietf-teep-protocol-03 (work in
              progress), July 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-tls-esni]
              Rescorla, E., Oku, K., Sullivan, N., and C. Wood, "TLS
              Encrypted Client Hello", draft-ietf-tls-esni-08 (work in
              progress), October 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-tls-grease]
              Benjamin, D., "Applying GREASE to TLS Extensibility",
              draft-ietf-tls-grease-04 (work in progress), August 2019.

   [I-D.lazanski-smart-users-internet]
              Lazanski, D., "An Internet for Users Again", draft-
              lazanski-smart-users-internet-00 (work in progress), July
              2019.

   [I-D.mcfadden-smart-endpoint-taxonomy-for-cless]
              McFadden, M., "Endpoint Taxonomy for CLESS", draft-
              mcfadden-smart-endpoint-taxonomy-for-cless-02 (work in
              progress), July 2020.

   [I-D.nottingham-for-the-users]
              Nottingham, M., "The Internet is for End Users", draft-
              nottingham-for-the-users-09 (work in progress), July 2019.

   [I-D.taddei-smart-cless-introduction]
              Taddei, A., Wueest, C., Roundy, K., and D. Lazanski,
              "Capabilities and Limitations of an Endpoint-only Security
              Solution", draft-taddei-smart-cless-introduction-03 (work
              in progress), July 2020.

   [I-D.thomson-tmi]
              Thomson, M., "Principles for the Involvement of
              Intermediaries in Internet Protocols", draft-thomson-
              tmi-00 (work in progress), July 2020.

   [I-D.wood-pearg-website-fingerprinting]
              Goldberg, I., Wang, T., and C. Wood, "Network-Based
              Website Fingerprinting", draft-wood-pearg-website-
              fingerprinting-00 (work in progress), November 2019.







Arkko & Farrell            Expires May 7, 2021                 [Page 19]


Internet-Draft       Internet Threat Model Evolution       November 2020


   [Jager2015]
              Jager, T., Schwenk, J., and J. Somorovsky, "On the
              Security of TLS 1.3 and QUIC Against Weaknesses in PKCS#1
              v1.5 Encryption", Proceedings of ACM CCS 2015, DOI
              10.1145/2810103.2813657, https://www.nds.rub.de/media/nds/
              veroeffentlichungen/2015/08/21/Tls13QuicAttacks.pdf ,
              October 2015.

   [Kocher2019]
              Kocher, P., Horn, J., Fogh, A., Genkin, D., Gruss, D.,
              Haas, W., Hamburg, M., Lipp, M., Mangard, S., Prescher,
              T., Schwarz, M., and Y. Yarom, "Spectre Attacks:
              Exploiting Speculative Execution", 40th IEEE Symposium on
              Security and Privacy (S&P'19) , 2019.

   [LeakyBuckets]
              Chickowski, E., "Leaky Buckets: 10 Worst Amazon S3
              Breaches", Bitdefender blog,
              https://businessinsights.bitdefender.com/
              worst-amazon-breaches , 2018.

   [Leith2020]
              Leith, D., "Web Browser Privacy: What Do Browsers Say When
              They Phone Home?", In submission,
              https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/
              browser_privacy.pdf , March 2020.

   [Lipp2018]
              Lipp, M., Schwarz, M., Gruss, D., Prescher, T., Haas, W.,
              Fogh, A., Horn, J., Mangard, S., Kocher, P., Genkin, D.,
              Yarom, Y., and M. Hamburg, "Meltdown: Reading Kernel
              Memory from User Space", 27th USENIX Security Symposium
              (USENIX Security 18) , 2018.

   [Mailbug]  Englehardt, S., Han, J., and A. Narayanan, "I never signed
              up for this! Privacy implications of email tracking",
              Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies 2018.1
              (2018): 109-126, https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/
              popets.2018.2018.issue-1/popets-2018-0006/
              popets-2018-0006.pdf , 2018.

   [MeltdownAndSpectre]
              CISA, ., "Meltdown and Spectre Side-Channel Vulnerability
              Guidance", Alert (TA18-004A),
              https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/alerts/TA18-004A , 2018.






Arkko & Farrell            Expires May 7, 2021                 [Page 20]


Internet-Draft       Internet Threat Model Evolution       November 2020


   [Mozilla2019]
              Camp, D., "Firefox Now Available with Enhanced Tracking
              Protection by Default Plus Updates to Facebook Container,
              Firefox Monitor and Lockwise", The Mozilla Blog,
              https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/06/04/firefox-now-
              available-with-enhanced-tracking-protection-by-default/ ,
              June 2019.

   [Passwords]
              com, haveibeenpwned., "Pwned Passwords", Website
              https://haveibeenpwned.com/Passwords , 2019.

   [RFC1958]  Carpenter, B., Ed., "Architectural Principles of the
              Internet", RFC 1958, DOI 10.17487/RFC1958, June 1996,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1958>.

   [RFC3552]  Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
              Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3552>.

   [RFC3935]  Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF",
              BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3935>.

   [RFC4655]  Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
              Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.

   [RFC6265]  Barth, A., "HTTP State Management Mechanism", RFC 6265,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6265, April 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6265>.

   [RFC6454]  Barth, A., "The Web Origin Concept", RFC 6454,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6454, December 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6454>.

   [RFC6480]  Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support
              Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, DOI 10.17487/RFC6480,
              February 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6480>.

   [RFC6749]  Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
              RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>.






Arkko & Farrell            Expires May 7, 2021                 [Page 21]


Internet-Draft       Internet Threat Model Evolution       November 2020


   [RFC6797]  Hodges, J., Jackson, C., and A. Barth, "HTTP Strict
              Transport Security (HSTS)", RFC 6797,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6797, November 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6797>.

   [RFC6819]  Lodderstedt, T., Ed., McGloin, M., and P. Hunt, "OAuth 2.0
              Threat Model and Security Considerations", RFC 6819,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6819, January 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6819>.

   [RFC6962]  Laurie, B., Langley, A., and E. Kasper, "Certificate
              Transparency", RFC 6962, DOI 10.17487/RFC6962, June 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6962>.

   [RFC6973]  Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
              Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
              Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6973>.

   [RFC7231]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.

   [RFC7258]  Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
              Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, DOI 10.17487/RFC7258, May
              2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7258>.

   [RFC7469]  Evans, C., Palmer, C., and R. Sleevi, "Public Key Pinning
              Extension for HTTP", RFC 7469, DOI 10.17487/RFC7469, April
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7469>.

   [RFC7540]  Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7540>.

   [RFC7817]  Melnikov, A., "Updated Transport Layer Security (TLS)
              Server Identity Check Procedure for Email-Related
              Protocols", RFC 7817, DOI 10.17487/RFC7817, March 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7817>.

   [RFC7830]  Mayrhofer, A., "The EDNS(0) Padding Option", RFC 7830,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7830, May 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7830>.





Arkko & Farrell            Expires May 7, 2021                 [Page 22]


Internet-Draft       Internet Threat Model Evolution       November 2020


   [RFC7858]  Hu, Z., Zhu, L., Heidemann, J., Mankin, A., Wessels, D.,
              and P. Hoffman, "Specification for DNS over Transport
              Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 7858, DOI 10.17487/RFC7858, May
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7858>.

   [RFC8240]  Tschofenig, H. and S. Farrell, "Report from the Internet
              of Things Software Update (IoTSU) Workshop 2016",
              RFC 8240, DOI 10.17487/RFC8240, September 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8240>.

   [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.

   [RFC8484]  Hoffman, P. and P. McManus, "DNS Queries over HTTPS
              (DoH)", RFC 8484, DOI 10.17487/RFC8484, October 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8484>.

   [RFC8546]  Trammell, B. and M. Kuehlewind, "The Wire Image of a
              Network Protocol", RFC 8546, DOI 10.17487/RFC8546, April
              2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8546>.

   [RFC8555]  Barnes, R., Hoffman-Andrews, J., McCarney, D., and J.
              Kasten, "Automatic Certificate Management Environment
              (ACME)", RFC 8555, DOI 10.17487/RFC8555, March 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8555>.

   [Saltzer]  Saltzer, J., Reed, D., and D. Clark, "End-To-End Arguments
              in System Design", ACM TOCS, Vol 2, Number 4, pp 277-288 ,
              November 1984.

   [Savage]   Savage, S., "Modern Automotive Vulnerabilities: Causes,
              Disclosures, and Outcomes", USENIX , 2016.

   [SmartTV]  Malkin, N., Bernd, J., Johnson, M., and S. Egelman, "What
              Can't Data Be Used For? Privacy Expectations about Smart
              TVs in the U.S.", European Workshop on Usable Security
              (Euro USEC), https://www.ndss-symposium.org/wp-
              content/uploads/2018/06/
              eurousec2018_16_Malkin_paper.pdf" , 2018.

   [StackEvo]
              Trammell, B., Thomson, M., Howard, L., and T. Hardie,
              "What Is an Endpoint?", Unpublished work,
              https://github.com/stackevo/endpoint-draft/blob/master/
              draft-trammell-whats-an-endpoint.md , 2017.





Arkko & Farrell            Expires May 7, 2021                 [Page 23]


Internet-Draft       Internet Threat Model Evolution       November 2020


   [Sybil]    Viswanath, B., Post, A., Gummadi, K., and A. Mislove, "An
              analysis of social network-based sybil defenses", ACM
              SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 41(4), 363-374,
              https://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2010/papers/
              sigcomm/p363.pdf , 2011.

   [TargetAttack]
              Osborne, C., "How hackers stole millions of credit card
              records from Target", ZDNET,
              https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-hackers-stole-millions-
              of-credit-card-records-from-target/ , 2014.

   [TinyChip]
              Robertson, J. and M. Riley, "The Big Hack: How China Used
              a Tiny Chip to Infiltrate U.S. Companies",
              https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-
              big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-
              s-top-companies , October 2018.

   [Toys]     Chu, G., Apthorpe, N., and N. Feamster, "Security and
              Privacy Analyses of Internet of Things Childrens' Toys",
              IEEE Internet of Things Journal 6.1 (2019): 978-985,
              https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.02751.pdf , 2019.

   [Tracking]
              Ermakova, T., Fabian, B., Bender, B., and K. Klimek, "Web
              Tracking-A Literature Review on the State of Research",
              Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on
              System Sciences, https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/
              bitstream/10125/50485/paper0598.pdf , 2018.

   [Troll]    Stewart, L., Arif, A., and K. Starbird, "Examining trolls
              and polarization with a retweet network", ACM Workshop on
              Misinformation and Misbehavior Mining on the Web,
              https://faculty.washington.edu/kstarbi/
              examining-trolls-polarization.pdf , 2018.

   [Unread]   Obar, J. and A. Oeldorf, "The biggest lie on the
              internet{:} Ignoring the privacy policies and terms of
              service policies of social networking services",
              Information, Communication and Society (2018): 1-20 ,
              2018.









Arkko & Farrell            Expires May 7, 2021                 [Page 24]


Internet-Draft       Internet Threat Model Evolution       November 2020


   [Vastaamo]
              Redcross Finland, ., "Read this if your personal data was
              leaked in the Vastaamo data system break-in",
              https://www.redcross.fi/news/20201029/read-if-your-
              personal-data-was-leaked-vastaamo-data-system-break ,
              October 2020.

   [Vpns]     Khan, M., DeBlasio, J., Voelker, G., Snoeren, A., Kanich,
              C., and N. Vallina, "An empirical analysis of the
              commercial VPN ecosystem", ACM Internet Measurement
              Conference 2018 (pp. 443-456),
              https://eprints.networks.imdea.org/1886/1/
              imc18-final198.pdf , 2018.

Appendix A.  Contributors

   Eric Rescorla and Chris Wood provided much of the text in
   Section 2.3.5.  Martin Thomson's excellent document [I-D.thomson-tmi]
   also inspired some of the work in Section 3.

Appendix B.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank the IAB:

   Alissa Cooper, Wes Hardaker, Ted Hardie, Christian Huitema, Zhenbin
   Li, Erik Nordmark, Mark Nottingham, Melinda Shore, Jeff Tantsura,
   Martin Thomson, Brian Trammel, Mirja Kuhlewind, and Colin Perkins.

   The authors would also like to thank the participants of the IETF
   SAAG meeting where this topic was discussed:

   Harald Alvestrand, Roman Danyliw, Daniel Kahn Gilmore, Wes Hardaker,
   Bret Jordan, Ben Kaduk, Dominique Lazanski, Eliot Lear, Lawrence
   Lundblade, Kathleen Moriarty, Kirsty Paine, Eric Rescorla, Ali
   Rezaki, Mohit Sethi, Ben Schwartz, Dave Thaler, Paul Turner, David
   Waltemire, and Jeffrey Yaskin.

   The authors would also like to thank the participants of the IAB 2019
   DEDR workshop:

   Tuomas Aura, Vittorio Bertola, Carsten Bormann, Stephane Bortzmeyer,
   Alissa Cooper, Hannu Flinck, Carl Gahnberg, Phillip Hallam-Baker, Ted
   Hardie, Paul Hoffman, Christian Huitema, Geoff Huston, Konstantinos
   Komaitis, Mirja Kuhlewind, Dirk Kutscher, Zhenbin Li, Julien
   Maisonneuve, John Mattson, Moritz Muller, Joerg Ott, Lucas Pardue,
   Jim Reid, Jan-Frederik Rieckers, Mohit Sethi, Melinda Shore, Jonne
   Soininen, Andrew Sullivan, and Brian Trammell.




Arkko & Farrell            Expires May 7, 2021                 [Page 25]


Internet-Draft       Internet Threat Model Evolution       November 2020


   The authors would also like to thank the participants of the November
   2016 meeting at the IETF:

   Carsten Bormann, Randy Bush, Tommy C, Roman Danyliw, Ted Hardie,
   Christian Huitema, Ben Kaduk, Dirk Kutscher, Dominique Lazanski, Eric
   Rescorla, Ali Rezaki, Mohit Sethi, Melinda Shore, Martin Thomson, and
   Robin Wilton ... (missing many people... did we have minutes other
   than the list of actions?) ...

   Thanks for specific comments on this text to: Ronald van der Pol.

   Finally, the authors would like to thank numerous other people for
   insightful comments and discussions in this space.

Authors' Addresses

   Jari Arkko
   Ericsson
   Valitie 1B
   Kauniainen
   Finland

   Email: jari.arkko@piuha.net


   Stephen Farrell
   Trinity College Dublin
   College Green
   Dublin
   Ireland

   Email: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie



















Arkko & Farrell            Expires May 7, 2021                 [Page 26]