draft-iab-privsec-confidentiality-threat-00.txt

Network Working Group                                          R. Barnes
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Informational                               B. Schneier
Expires: March 15, 2015
                                                             C. Jennings

                                                               T. Hardie

                                                             B. Trammell

                                                              C. Huitema

                                                             D. Borkmann

                                                      September 11, 2014


 Confidentiality in the Face of Pervasive Surveillance: A Threat Model
                         and Problem Statement
              draft-iab-privsec-confidentiality-threat-00

Abstract

   Documents published in 2013 have revealed several classes of
   "pervasive" attack on Internet communications.  In this document we
   develop a threat model that describes these pervasive attacks.  We
   start by assuming a completely passive adversary with an interest in
   indiscriminate eavesdropping that can observe network traffic, then
   expand the threat model with a set of verified attacks that have been
   published.  Based on this threat model, we discuss the techniques
   that can be employed in Internet protocol design to increase the
   protocols robustness to pervasive attacks.

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 http://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."




Barnes, et al.           Expires March 15, 2015                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft        Confidentiality Threat Model        September 2014


   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 15, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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
   (http://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.

1.  Introduction

   Starting in June 2013, documents released to the press by Edward
   Snowden have revealed several operations undertaken by intelligence
   agencies to exploit Internet communications for intelligence
   purposes.  These attacks were largely based on protocol
   vulnerabilities that were already known to exist.  The attacks were
   nonetheless striking in their pervasive nature, both in terms of the
   amount of Internet communications targeted, and in terms of the
   diversity of attack techniques employed.

   To ensure that the Internet can be trusted by users, it is necessary
   for the Internet technical community to address the vulnerabilities
   exploited in these attacks [RFC7258].  The goal of this document is
   to describe more precisely the threats posed by these pervasive
   attacks, and based on those threats, lay out the problems that need
   to be solved in order to secure the Internet in the face of those
   threats.

   The remainder of this document is structured as follows.  In
   Section 3, we describe an idealized passive adversary, one which
   could completely undetectably compromise communications at Internet
   scale.  In Section 4, we provide a brief summary of some attacks that
   have been disclosed, and use these to expand the assumed capabilities
   of our idealized adversary.  Section 5 describes a threat model based
   on these attacks, focusing on classes of attack that have not been a
   focus of Internet engineering to date.  Section 6 provides some high-
   level guidance on how Internet protocols can defend against the
   threats described here.





Barnes, et al.           Expires March 15, 2015                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft        Confidentiality Threat Model        September 2014


2.  Terminology

   This document makes extensive use of standard security and privacy
   terminology; see [RFC4949] and [RFC6973].  In addition, we use a few
   terms that are specific to the attacks discussed here:

   Pervasive Attack:  An attack on Internet protocols that makes use of
      access at a large number of points in the network, or otherwise
      provides the attacker with access to a large amount of Internet
      traffic.

   Observation:  Information collected directly from communications by
      an eavesdropper or observer.  For example, the knowledge that
      <alice@example.com> sent a message to <bob@example.com> via SMTP
      taken from the headers of an observed SMTP message would be an
      observation.

   Inference: :Information extracted from analysis of information
   collected directly from communications by an eavesdropper or
   observer.  For example, the knowledge that a given web page was
   accessed by a given IP address, by comparing the size in octets of
   measured network flow records to fingerprints derived from known
   sizes of linked resources on the web servers involved, would be an
   inference.

   Collaborator:  An entity that is a legitimate participant in a
      protocol, but who provides information about that interaction
      (keys or data) to an attacker.

   Key Exfiltration:  The transmission of keying material for an
      encrypted communication from a collaborator to an attacker

   Content Exfiltration:  The transmission of the content of a
      communication from a collaborator to an attacker

   Unwitting Collaborator:  A collaborator that provides information to
      the attacker not deliberately, but because the attacker has
      exploited some technology used by the collaborator.

3.  An Idealized Pervasive Passive Adversary

   We assume a pervasive passive adversary, an indiscriminate
   eavesdropper on an Internet-attached computer network that

   o  can observe every packet of all communications at any or every hop
      in any network path between an initiator and a recipient; and





Barnes, et al.           Expires March 15, 2015                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft        Confidentiality Threat Model        September 2014


   o  can observe data at rest in intermediate systems between the
      endpoints controlled by the initiator and recipient; but

   o  takes no other action with respect to these communications (i.e.,
      blocking, modification, injection, etc.).

   This adversary is less capable than those which we know to have
   compromised the Internet from press reports, elaborated in Section 4,
   but represents the threat to communications privacy by a single
   entity interested in remaining undetectable.

   The techniques available to our ideal adversary are direct
   observation and inference.  Direct observation involves taking
   information directly from eavesdropped communications - e.g., URLs
   identifying content or email addresses identifying individuals from
   application-layer headers.  Inference, on the other hand, involves
   analyzing eavesdropped information to derive new information from it;
   e.g., searching for application or behavioral fingerprints in
   observed traffic to derive information about the observed individual
   from them, in absence of directly-observed sources of the same
   information.  The use of encryption to protect confidentiality is
   generally enough to prevent direct observation, assuming
   uncompromised encryption implementations and key material, but
   provides less complete protection against inference, especially
   inference based only on unprotected portions of communications (e.g.
   IP and TCP headers for TLS).

3.1.  Information subject to direct observation

   Protocols which do not encrypt their payload make the entire content
   of the communication available to a PPA along their path.  Following
   the advice in [RFC3365], most such protocols have a secure variant
   which encrypts payload for confidentiality, and these secure variants
   are seeing ever-wider deployment.  A noteworthy exception is DNS
   [RFC1035], as DNSSEC [RFC4033] does not have confidentiality as a
   requirement.  This implies that all DNS queries and answers generated
   by the activities of any protocol are available to a the adversary.

   Protocols which imply the storage of some data at rest in
   intermediaries leave this data subject to observation by an adversary
   that has compromised these intermediaries, unless the data is
   encrypted end-to-end by the application layer protocol, or the
   implementation uses an encrypted store for this data.








Barnes, et al.           Expires March 15, 2015                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft        Confidentiality Threat Model        September 2014


3.2.  Information useful for inference

   Inference is information extracted from later analysis of an observed
   communication, and/or correlation of observed information with
   information available from other sources.  Indeed, most useful
   inference performed by a our ideal adversary falls under the rubric
   of correlation.  The simplest example of this is the observation of
   DNS queries and answers from and to a source and correlating those
   with IP addresses with which that source communicates.  This can give
   access to information otherwise not available from encrypted
   application payloads (e.g., the Host: HTTP/1.1 request header when
   HTTP is used with TLS).

   Protocols which encrypt their payload using an application- or
   transport-layer encryption scheme (e.g.  TLS [RFC5246]) still expose
   all the information in their network and transport layer headers to a
   PPA, including source and destination addresses and ports.  IPsec
   ESP[RFC4303] further encrypts the transport-layer headers, but still
   leaves IP address information unencrypted; in tunnel mode, these
   addresses correspond to the tunnel endpoints.  Features of the
   cryptographic protocols themselves, e.g. the TLS session identifier,
   may leak information that can be used for correlation and inference.
   While this information is much less semantically rich than the
   application payload, it can still be useful for the inferring an
   individual's activities.

   Inference can also leverage information obtained from sources other
   than direct traffic observation.  Geolocation databases, for example,
   have been developed map IP addresses to a location, in order to
   provide location-aware services such as targeted advertising.  This
   location information is often of sufficient resolution that it can be
   used to draw further inferences toward identifying or profiling an
   individual.

   Social media provide another source of more or less publicly
   accessible information.  This information can be extremely
   semantically rich, including information about an individual's
   location, associations with other individuals and groups, and
   activities.  Further, this information is generally contributed and
   curated voluntarily by the individuals themselves: it represents
   information which the individuals are not necessarily interested in
   protecting for privascy reasons.  However, correlation of this social
   networking data with information available from direct observation of
   network traffic allows the creation of a much richer picture of an
   individual's activities than either alone.  We note with some alarm
   that there is little that can be done from the protocol design side
   to limit such correlation by a PPA, and that the existence of such




Barnes, et al.           Expires March 15, 2015                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft        Confidentiality Threat Model        September 2014


   data sources in many cases greatly complicates the problem of
   protecting privacy by hardening protocols alone.

3.3.  An illustration of an ideal passive attack

   To illustrate how capable even this limited adversary is, we explore
   the non-anonymity of even encrypted IP traffic by examining in detail
   some inference techniques for associating a set of addresses with an
   individual, in order to illustrate the difficulty of defending
   communications against a PPA.  Here, the basic problem is that
   information radiated even from protocols which have no obvious
   connection with personal data can be correlated with other
   information which can paint a very rich behavioral picture, that only
   takes one unprotected link in the chain to associate with an
   identity.

3.3.1.  Analysis of IP headers

   Internet traffic can be monitored by tapping Internet links, or by
   installing monitoring tools in Internet routers.  Of course, a single
   link or a single router only provides access to a fraction of the
   global Internet traffic.  However, monitoring a number of high
   capacity links or a set of routers placed at strategic locations
   provides access to a good sampling of Internet traffic.

   Tools like IPFIX [RFC7011] allow administrators to acquire statistics
   about sequences of packets with some common properties that pass
   through a network device.  The most common set of properties used in
   flow measurement is the "five-tuple"of source and destination
   addresses, protocol type, and source and destination ports.  These
   statistics are commonly used for network engineering, but could
   certainly be used for other purposes.

   Let's assume for a moment that IP addresses can be correlated to
   specific services or specific users.  Analysis of the sequences of
   packets will quickly reveal which users use what services, and also
   which users engage in peer-to-peer connections with other users.
   Analysis of traffic variations over time can be used to detect
   increased activity by particular users, or in the case of peer-to-
   peer connections increased activity within groups of users.

3.3.2.  Correlation of IP addresses to user identities

   The correlation of IP addresses with specific users can be done in
   various ways.  For example, tools like reverse DNS lookup can be used
   to retrieve the DNS names of servers.  Since the addresses of servers
   tend to be quite stable and since servers are relatively less




Barnes, et al.           Expires March 15, 2015                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft        Confidentiality Threat Model        September 2014


   numerous than users, a PPA could easily maintain its own copy of the
   DNS for well-known or popular servers, to accelerate such lookups.

   On the other hand, the reverse lookup of IP addresses of users is
   generally less informative.  For example, a lookup of the address
   currently used by one author's home network returns a name of the
   form "c-192-000-002-033.hsd1.wa.comcast.net".  This particular type
   of reverse DNS lookup generally reveals only coarse-grained location
   or provider information.

   In many jurisdictions, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are required
   to provide identification on a case by case basis of the "owner" of a
   specific IP address for law enforcement purposes.  This is a
   reasonably expedient process for targeted investigations, but
   pervasive surveillance requires something more efficient.  This
   provides an incentive for the adversary to secure the cooperation of
   the ISP in order to automate this correlation.

3.3.3.  Monitoring messaging clients for IP address correlation

   Even if the ISP does not cooperate, user identity can often be
   obtained via inference.  POP3 [RFC1939] and IMAP [RFC3501] are used
   to retrieve mail from mail servers, while a variant of SMTP [RFC5321]
   is used to submit messages through mail servers.  IMAP connections
   originate from the client, and typically start with an authentication
   exchange in which the client proves its identity by answering a
   password challenge.  The same holds for the SIP protocol [RFC3261]
   and many instant messaging services operating over the Internet using
   proprietary protocols.

   The username is directly observable if any of these protocols operate
   in cleartext; the username can then be directly associated with the
   source address.

3.3.4.  Retrieving IP addresses from mail headers

   SMTP [RFC5321] requires that each successive SMTP relay adds a
   "Received" header to the mail headers.  The purpose of these headers
   is to enable audit of mail transmission, and perhaps to distinguish
   between regular mail and spam.  Here is an extract from the headers
   of a message recently received from the "perpass" mailing list:

   "Received: from 192-000-002-044.zone13.example.org (HELO
   ?192.168.1.100?) (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) by lvps192-000-002-219.example.net
   with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 27 Oct
   2013 21:47:14 +0100 Message-ID: <526D7BD2.7070908@example.org> Date:
   Sun, 27 Oct 2013 20:47:14 +0000 From: Some One <some.one@example.org>
   "



Barnes, et al.           Expires March 15, 2015                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft        Confidentiality Threat Model        September 2014


   This is the first "Received" header attached to the message by the
   first SMTP relay; for privacy reasons, the field values have been
   anonymized.  We learn here that the message was submitted by "Some
   One" on October 27, from a host behind a NAT (192.168.1.100)
   [RFC1918] that used the IP address 192.0.2.44.  The information
   remained in the message, and is accessible by all recipients of the
   "perpass" mailing list, or indeed by any PPA that sees at least one
   copy of the message.

   An idealized adversary that can observe sufficient email traffic can
   regularly update the mapping between public IP addresses and
   individual email identities.  Even if the SMTP traffic was encrypted
   on submission and relaying, the adversary can still receive a copy of
   public mailing lists like "perpass".

3.3.5.  Tracking address usage with web cookies

   Many web sites only encrypt a small fraction of their transactions.
   A popular pattern was to use HTTPS for the login information, and
   then use a "cookie" to associate following clear-text transactions
   with the user's identity.  Cookies are also used by various
   advertisement services to quickly identify the users and serve them
   with "personalized" advertisements.  Such cookies are particularly
   useful if the advertisement services want to keep tracking the user
   across multiple sessions that may use different IP addresses.

   As cookies are sent in clear text, a PPA can build a database that
   associates cookies to IP addresses for non-HTTPS traffic.  If the IP
   address is already identified, the cookie can be linked to the user
   identify.  After that, if the same cookie appears on a new IP
   address, the new IP address can be immediately associated with the
   pre-determined identity.

3.3.6.  Graph-based approaches to address correlation

   An adversary can track traffic from an IP address not yet associated
   with an individual to various public services (e.g. websites, mail
   servers, game servers), and exploit patterns in the observed traffic
   to correlate this address with other addresses that show similar
   patterns.  For example, any two addresses that show connections to
   the same IMAP or webmail services, the same set of favorite websites,
   and game servers at similar times of day may be associated with the
   same individual.  Correlated addresses can then be tied to an
   individual through one of the techniques above, walking the "network
   graph" to expand the set of attributable traffic.






Barnes, et al.           Expires March 15, 2015                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft        Confidentiality Threat Model        September 2014


4.  Reported Instances of Large-Scale Attacks

   The situation in reality is more bleak than that suggested by an
   analysis of our idealized adversary.  Through revelations of
   sensitive documents in several media outlets, the Internet community
   has been made aware of several intelligence activities conducted by
   US and UK national intelligence agencies, particularly the US
   National Security Agency (NSA) and the UK Government Communications
   Headquarters (GCHQ).  These documents have revealed methods that
   these agencies use to attack Internet applications and obtain
   sensitive user information.

   First, they have confirmed that these agencies have capabilities in
   line with those of our idealized adversary, thorugh the large-scale
   passive collection of Internet traffic [pass1][pass2][pass3][pass4].
   For example: * The NSA XKEYSCORE system accesses data from multiple
   access points and searches for "selectors" such as email addresses,
   at the scale of tens of terabytes of data per day.
   * The GCHQ Tempora system appears to have access to around 1,500
   major cables passing through the UK.  * The NSA MUSCULAR program
   tapped cables between data centers belonging to major service
   providers.  * Several programs appear to perform wide-scale
   collection of cookies in web traffic and location data from location-
   aware portable devices such as smartphones.

   However, the capabilities described go beyond those available to our
   idealized adversary, including:

   o  Decryption of TLS-protected Internet sessions [dec1][dec2][dec3].
      For example, the NSA BULLRUN project appears to have had a budget
      of around $250M per year to undermine encryption through multiple
      approaches.

   o  Insertion of NSA devices as a man-in-the-middle of Internet
      transactions [TOR1][TOR2].  For example, the NSA QUANTUM system
      appears to use several different techniques to hijack HTTP
      connections, ranging from DNS response injection to HTTP 302
      redirects.

   o  Direct acquisition of bulk data and metadata from service
      providers [dir1][dir2][dir3].  For example, the NSA PRISM program
      provides the agency with access to many types of user data (e.g.,
      email, chat, VoIP).

   o  Use of implants (covert modifications or malware) to undermine
      security and anonymity features [dec2][TOR1][TOR2].  For example:





Barnes, et al.           Expires March 15, 2015                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft        Confidentiality Threat Model        September 2014


      *  NSA appears to use the QUANTUM man-in-the-middle system to
         direct users to a FOXACID server, which delivers an implant to
         compromise the browser of a user of the Tor anonymous
         communications network.

      *  The BULLRUN program mentioned above includes the addition of
         covert modifications to software as one means to undermine
         encryption.

      *  There is also some suspicion that NSA modifications to the
         DUAL_EC_DRBG random number generator were made to ensure that
         keys generated using that generator could be predicted by NSA.
         These suspicions have been reinforced by reports that RSA
         Security was paid roughly $10M to make DUAL_EC_DRBG the default
         in their products.

   We use the term "pervasive attack" to collectively describe these
   operations.  The term "pervasive" is used because the attacks are
   designed to indiscriminately gather as much data as possible and to
   apply selective analysis on targets after the fact.  This means that
   all, or nearly all, Internet communications are targets for these
   attacks.  To achieve this scale, the attacks are physically
   pervasive; they affect a large number of Internet communications.
   They are pervasive in content, consuming and exploiting any
   information revealed by the protocol.  And they are pervasive in
   technology, exploiting many different vulnerabilities in many
   different protocols.

   It's important to note that although the attacks mentioned above were
   executed by NSA and GCHQ, there are many other organizations that can
   mount pervasive attacks.  Because of the resources required to
   achieve pervasive scale, pervasive attacks are most commonly
   undertaken by nation-state actors.  For example, the Chinese Internet
   filtering system known as the "Great Firewall of China" uses several
   techniques that are similar to the QUANTUM program, and which have a
   high degree of pervasiveness with regard to the Internet in China.

5.  Threat Model

   Given these disclosures, we must consider broader threat model.

   Pervasive surveillance aims to collect information across a large
   number of Internet communications, observing the collected
   communications to identify information of interest within individual
   communications, or inferring information from correlated
   communications.  This analysis sometimes benefits from decryption of
   encrypted communications and deanonymization of anonymized
   communications.  As a result, these attackers desire both access to



Barnes, et al.           Expires March 15, 2015                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft        Confidentiality Threat Model        September 2014


   the bulk of Internet traffic and to the keying material required to
   decrypt any traffic that has been encrypted (though the presence of a
   communication and the fact that it is encrypted may both be inputs to
   an analysis, even if the attacker cannot decrypt the communication).

   The attacks listed above highlight new avenues both for access to
   traffic and for access to relevant encryption keys.  They further
   indicate that the scale of surveillance is sufficient to provide a
   general capability to cross-correlate communications, a threat not
   previously thought to be relevant at the scale of all Internet
   communications.

5.1.  Attacker Capabilities

    +--------------------------+-------------------------------------+
    | Attack Class             | Capability                          |
    +--------------------------+-------------------------------------+
    | Passive observation      | Directly capture data in transit    |
    |                          |                                     |
    | Passive inference        | Infer from reduced/encrypted data   |
    |                          |                                     |
    | Active                   | Manipulate / inject data in transit |
    |                          |                                     |
    | Static key exfiltration  | Obtain key material once / rarely   |
    |                          |                                     |
    | Dynamic key exfiltration | Obtain per-session key material     |
    |                          |                                     |
    | Content exfiltration     | Access data at rest                 |
    +--------------------------+-------------------------------------+

   Security analyses of Internet protocols commonly consider two classes
   of attacker: Passive attackers, who can simply listen in on
   communications as they transit the network, and "active attackers",
   who can modify or delete packets in addition to simply collecting
   them.

   In the context of pervasive attack, these attacks take on an even
   greater significance.  In the past, these attackers were often
   assumed to operate near the edge of the network, where attacks can be
   simpler.  For example, in some LANs, it is simple for any node to
   engage in passive listening to other nodes' traffic or inject packets
   to accomplish active attacks.  In the pervasive attack case, however,
   both passive and active attacks are undertaken closer to the core of
   the network, greatly expanding the scope and capability of the
   attacker.

   A passive attacker with access to a large portion of the Internet can
   analyze collected traffic to create a much more detailed view of user



Barnes, et al.           Expires March 15, 2015                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft        Confidentiality Threat Model        September 2014


   behavior than an attacker that collects at a single point.  Even the
   usual claim that encryption defeats passive attackers is weakened,
   since a pervasive passive attacker can infer relationships from
   correlations over large numbers of sessions, e.g., pairing encrypted
   sessions with unencrypted sessions from the same host, or performing
   traffic fingerprinting between known and unknown encrypted sessions.
   The reports on the NSA XKEYSCORE system would make it an example of
   such an attacker.

   A pervasive active attacker likewise has capabilities beyond those of
   a localized active attacker.  Active attacks are often limited by
   network topology, for example by a requirement that the attacker be
   able to see a targeted session as well as inject packets into it.  A
   pervasive active attacker with multiple accesses at core points of
   the Internet is able to overcome these topological limitations and
   apply attacks over a much broader scope.  Being positioned in the
   core of the network rather than the edge can also enable a pervasive
   active attacker to reroute targeted traffic.  Pervasive active
   attackers can also benefit from pervasive passive collection to
   identify vulnerable hosts.

   While not directly related to pervasiveness, attackers that are in a
   position to mount a pervasive active attack are also often in a
   position to subvert authentication, the traditional response to
   active attack.  Authentication in the Internet is often achieved via
   trusted third party authorities such as the Certificate Authorities
   (CAs) that provide web sites with authentication credentials.  An
   attacker with sufficient resources for pervasive attack may also be
   able to induce an authority to grant credentials for an identity of
   the attacker's choosing.  If the parties to a communication will
   trust multiple authorities to certify a specific identity, this
   attack may be mounted by suborning any one of the authorities (the
   proverbial "weakest link").  Subversion of authorities in this way
   can allow an active attack to succeed in spite of an authentication
   check.

   Beyond these three classes (observation, inference, and active),
   reports on the BULLRUN effort to defeat encryption and the PRISM
   effort to obtain data from service providers suggest three more
   classes of attack:

   o  Static key exfiltration

   o  Dynamic key exfiltration

   o  Content exfiltration





Barnes, et al.           Expires March 15, 2015                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft        Confidentiality Threat Model        September 2014


   These attacks all rely on a "collaborator" endpoint providing the
   attacker with some information, either keys or data.  These attacks
   have not traditionally been considered in security analyses of
   protocols, since they happen outside of the protocol.

   The term "key exfiltration" refers to the transfer of keying material
   for an encrypted communication from the collaborator to the attacker.
   By "static", we mean that the transfer of keys happens once, or
   rarely, typically of a long-lived key.  For example, this case would
   cover a web site operator that provides the private key corresponding
   to its HTTPS certificate to an intelligence agency.

   "Dynamic" key exfiltration, by contrast, refers to attacks in which
   the collaborator delivers keying material to the attacker frequently,
   e.g., on a per-session basis.  This does not necessarily imply
   frequent communications with the attacker; the transfer of keying
   material may be virtual.  For example, if an endpoint were modified
   in such a way that the attacker could predict the state of its
   psuedorandom number generator, then the attacker would be able to
   derive per-session keys even without per-session communications.

   Finally, content exfiltration is the attack in which the collaborator
   simply provides the attacker with the desired data or metadata.
   Unlike the key exfiltration cases, this attack does not require the
   attacker to capture the desired data as it flows through the network.
   The risk is to data at rest as opposed to data in transit.  This
   increases the scope of data that the attacker can obtain, since the
   attacker can access historical data - the attacker does not have to
   be listening at the time the communication happens.

   Exfiltration attacks can be accomplished via attacks against one of
   the parties to a communication, i.e., by the attacker stealing the
   keys or content rather than the party providing them willingly.  In
   these cases, the party may not be aware that they are collaborating,
   at least at a human level.  Rather, the subverted technical assets
   are "collaborating" with the attacker (by providing keys/content)
   without their owner's knowledge or consent.

   Any party that has access to encryption keys or unencrypted data can
   be a collaborator.  While collaborators are typically the endpoints
   of a communication (with encryption securing the links),
   intermediaries in an unencrypted communication can also facilitate
   content exfiltration attacks as collaborators by providing the
   attacker access to those communications.  For example, documents
   describing the NSA PRISM program claim that NSA is able to access
   user data directly from servers, where it was stored unencrypted.  In
   these cases, the operator of the server would be a collaborator
   (wittingly or unwittingly).  By contrast, in the NSA MUSCULAR



Barnes, et al.           Expires March 15, 2015                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft        Confidentiality Threat Model        September 2014


   program, a set of collaborators enabled attackers to access the
   cables connecting data centers used by service providers such as
   Google and Yahoo.  Because communications among these data centers
   were not encrypted, the collaboration by an intermediate entity
   allowed NSA to collect unencrypted user data.

5.2.  Attacker Costs

     +--------------------------+-----------------------------------+
     | Attack Class             | Cost / Risk to Attacker           |
     +--------------------------+-----------------------------------+
     | Passive observation      | Passive data access               |
     |                          |                                   |
     | Passive inference        | Passive data access + processing  |
     |                          |                                   |
     | Active                   | Active data access + processing   |
     |                          |                                   |
     | Static key exfiltration  | One-time interaction              |
     |                          |                                   |
     | Dynamic key exfiltration | Ongoing interaction / code change |
     |                          |                                   |
     | Content exfiltration     | Ongoing, bulk interaction         |
     +--------------------------+-----------------------------------+

   In order to realize an attack of each of the types discussed above,
   the attacker has to incur certain costs and undertake certain risks.
   These costs differ by attack, and can be helpful in guiding response
   to pervasive attack.

   Depending on the attack, the attacker may be exposed to several types
   of risk, ranging from simply losing access to arrest or prosecution.
   In order for any of these negative consequences to happen, however,
   the attacker must first be discovered and identified.  So the primary
   risk we focus on here is the risk of discovery and attribution.

   A passive attack is the simplest attack to mount in some ways.  The
   base requirement is that the attacker obtain physical access to a
   communications medium and extract communications from it.  For
   example, the attacker might tap a fiber-optic cable, acquire a mirror
   port on a switch, or listen to a wireless signal.  The need for these
   taps to have physical access or proximity to a link exposes the
   attacker to the risk that the taps will be discovered.  For example,
   a fiber tap or mirror port might be discovered by network operators
   noticing increased attenuation in the fiber or a change in switch
   configuration.  Of course, passive attacks may be accomplished with
   the cooperation of the network operator, in which case there is a
   risk that the attacker's interactions with the network operator will
   be exposed.



Barnes, et al.           Expires March 15, 2015                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft        Confidentiality Threat Model        September 2014


   In many ways, the costs and risks for an active attack are similar to
   those for a passive attack, with a few additions.  An active attacker
   requires more robust network access than a passive attacker, since
   for example they will often need to transmit data as well as
   receiving it.  In the wireless example above, the attacker would need
   to act as an transmitter as well as receiver, greatly increasing the
   probability the attacker will be discovered (e.g., using direction-
   finding technology).  Active attacks are also much more observable at
   higher layers of the network.  For example, an active attacker that
   attempts to use a mis-issued certificate could be detected via
   Certificate Transparency [RFC6962].

   In terms of raw implementation complexity, passive attacks require
   only enough processing to extract information from the network and
   store it.  Active attacks, by contrast, often depend on winning race
   conditions to inject pakets into active connections.  So active
   attacks in the core of the network require processing hardware to
   that can operate at line speed (roughly 100Gbps to 1Tbps in the core)
   to identify opportunities for attack and insert attack traffic in a
   high-volume traffic.

   Key exfiltration attacks rely on passive attack for access to
   encrypted data, with the collaborator providing keys to decrypt the
   data.  So the attacker undertakes the cost and risk of a passive
   attack, as well as additional risk of discovery via the interactions
   that the attacker has with the collaborator.

   In this sense, static exfiltration has a lower risk profile than
   dynamic.  In the static case, the attacker need only interact with
   the collaborator a small number of times, possibly only once, say to
   exchange a private key.  In the dynamic case, the attacker must have
   continuing interactions with the collaborator.  As noted above these
   interactions may real, such as in-person meetings, or virtual, such
   as software modifications that render keys available to the attacker.
   Both of these types of interactions introduce a risk that they will
   be discovered, e.g., by employees of the collaborator organization
   noticing suspicious meetings or suspicious code changes.

   Content exfiltration has a similar risk profile to dynamic key
   exfiltration.  In a content exfiltration attack, the attacker saves
   the cost and risk of conducting a passive attack.  The risk of
   discovery through interactions with the collaborator, however, is
   still present, and may be higher.  The content of a communication is
   obviously larger than the key used to encrypt it, often by several
   orders of magnitude.  So in the content exfiltration case, the
   interactions between the collaborator and the attacker need to be
   much higher-bandwidth than in the key exfiltration cases, with a




Barnes, et al.           Expires March 15, 2015                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft        Confidentiality Threat Model        September 2014


   corresponding increase in the risk that this high-bandwidth channel
   will be discovered.

   It should also be noted that in these latter three exfiltration
   cases, the collaborator also undertakes a risk that his collaboration
   with the attacker will be discovered.  Thus the attacker may have to
   incur additional cost in order to convince the collaborator to
   participate in the attack.  Likewise, the scope of these attacks is
   limited to case where the attacker can convince a collaborator to
   participate.  If the attacker is a national government, for example,
   it may be able to compel participation within its borders, but have a
   much more difficult time recruiting foreign collaborators.

   As noted above, the "collaborator" in an exfiltration attack can be
   unwitting; the attacker can steal keys or data to enable the attack.
   In some ways, the risks of this approach are similar to the case of
   an active collaborator.  In the static case, the attacker needs to
   steal information from the collaborator once; in the dynamic case,
   the attacker needs to continued presence inside the collaborators
   systems.  The main difference is that the risk in this case is of
   automated discovery (e.g., by intrusion detection systems) rather
   than discovery by humans.

6.  Responding to Pervasive Attack

   Given this threat model, how should the Internet technical community
   respond to pervasive attack?

   The cost and risk considerations discussed above can provide a guide
   to response.  Namely, responses to passive attack should close off
   avenues for attack that are safe, scalable, and cheap, forcing the
   attacker to mount attacks that expose it to higher cost and risk.

   In this section, we discuss a collection of high-level approaches to
   mitigating pervasive attacks.  These approaches are not meant to be
   exhaustive, but rather to provide general guidance to protocol
   designers in creating protocols that are resistant to pervasive
   attack.













Barnes, et al.           Expires March 15, 2015                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft        Confidentiality Threat Model        September 2014


   +--------------------------+----------------------------------------+
   | Attack Class             | High-level mitigations                 |
   +--------------------------+----------------------------------------+
   | Passive observation      | Encryption for confidentiality         |
   |                          |                                        |
   | Passive inference        | ???                                    |
   |                          |                                        |
   | Active                   | Authentication, monitoring             |
   |                          |                                        |
   | Static key exfiltration  | Encryption with per-session state      |
   |                          | (PFS)                                  |
   |                          |                                        |
   | Dynamic key exfiltration | Transparency, validation of end        |
   |                          | systems                                |
   |                          |                                        |
   | Content exfiltration     | Object encryption, distributed systems |
   +--------------------------+----------------------------------------+

   The traditional mitigation to passive attack is to render content
   unintelligible to the attacker by applying encryption, for example,
   by using TLS or IPsec [RFC5246][RFC4301].  Even without
   authentication, encryption will prevent a passive attacker from being
   able to read the encrypted content.  Exploiting unauthenticated
   encryption requires an active attack (man in the middle); with
   authentication, a key exfiltration attack is required.

   The additional capabilities of a pervasive passive attacker, however,
   require some changes in how protocol designers evaluate what
   information is encrypted.  In addition to directly collecting
   unencrypted data, a pervasive passive attacker can also make
   inferences about the content of encrypted messages based on what is
   observable.  For example, if a user typically visits a particular set
   of web sites, then a pervasive passive attacker observing all of the
   user's behavior can track the user based on the hosts the user
   communicates with, even if the user changes IP addresses, and even if
   all of the connections are encrypted.

   Thus, in designing protocols to be resistant to pervasive passive
   attacks, protocol designers should consider what information is left
   unencrypted in the protocol, and how that information might be
   correlated with other traffic.  Information that cannot be encrypted
   should be anonymized, i.e., it should be dissociated from other
   information.  For example, the Tor overlay routing network anonymizes
   IP addresses by using multi-hop onion routing [TOR].

   As with traditional, limited active attacks, the basic mitigation to
   pervasive active attack is to enable the endpoints of a communication
   to authenticate each other.  However, as noted above, attackers that



Barnes, et al.           Expires March 15, 2015                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft        Confidentiality Threat Model        September 2014


   can mount pervasive active attacks can often subvert the authorities
   on which authentication systems rely.  Thus, in order to make
   authentication systems more resilient to pervasive attack, it is
   beneficial to monitor these authorities to detect misbehavior that
   could enable active attack.  For example, DANE and Certificate
   Transparency both provide mechanisms for detecting when a CA has
   issued a certificate for a domain name without the authorization of
   the holder of that domain name [RFC6962][RFC6698].

   While encryption and authentication protect the security of
   individual sessions, these sessions may still leak information, such
   as IP addresses or server names, that a pervasive attacker can use to
   correlate sessions and derive additional information about the
   target.  Thus, pervasive attack highlights the need for anonymization
   technologies, which make correlation more difficult.  Typical
   approaches to anonymization against traffic analysis include:

   o  Aggregation: Routing sessions for many endpoints through a common
      mid-point (e.g., an HTTP proxy).  Since the midpoint appears as
      the end of the communication, individual endpoints cannot be
      distinguished.

   o  Onion routing: Routing a session through several mid-points,
      rather than directly end-to-end, with encryption that guarantees
      that each node can only see the previous and next hops [TOR].
      This ensures that the source and destination of a communication
      are never revealed simultaneously.

   o  Multi-path: Routing different sessions via different paths (even
      if they originate from the same endpoint).  This reduces the
      probability that the same attacker will be able to collect many
      sessions.

   An encrypted, authenticated session is safe from content-monitoring
   attacks in which neither end collaborates with the attacker, but can
   still be subverted by the endpoints.  The most common ciphersuites
   used for HTTPS today, for example, are based on using RSA encryption
   in such a way that if an attacker has the private key, the attacker
   can derive the session keys from passive observation of a session.
   These ciphersuites are thus vulnerable to a static key exfiltration
   attack - if the attacker obtains the server's private key once, then
   they can decrypt all past and future sessions for that server.

   Static key exfiltration attacks are prevented by including ephemeral,
   per-session secret information in the keys used for a session.  Most
   IETF security protocols include modes of operation that have this
   property.  These modes are known in the literature under the heading
   "perfect forward secrecy" (PFS) because even if an adversary has all



Barnes, et al.           Expires March 15, 2015                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft        Confidentiality Threat Model        September 2014


   of the secrets for one session, the next session will use new,
   different secrets and the attacker will not be able to decrypt it.
   The Internet Key Exchange (IKE) protocol used by IPsec supports PFS
   by default [RFC4306], and TLS supports PFS via the use of specific
   ciphersuites [RFC5246].

   Dynamic key exfiltration cannot be prevent by protocol means.  By
   definition, any secrets that are used in the protocol will be
   transmitted to the attacker and used to decrypt what the protocol
   encrypts.  Likewise, no technical means will stop a willing
   collaborator from sharing keys with an attacker.  However, this
   attack model also covers "unwitting collaborators", whose technical
   resources are collaborating with the attacker without their owners'
   knowledge.  This could happen, for example, if flaws are built into
   products or if malware is injected later on.

   The best defense against becoming an unwitting collaborator is thus
   to assure that end systems are well-vetted and secure.  Transparency
   is a major tool in this process [secure].  Open source software is
   easier to evaluate for potential flaws than proprietary software, by
   a wider array of independent analysts.  Products that conform to
   standards for cryptography and security protocols are limited in the
   ways they can misbehave.  And standards processes that are open and
   transparent help ensure that the standards themselves do not provide
   avenues for attack.

   Standards can also define protocols that provide greater or lesser
   opportunity for dynamic key exfiltration.  Collaborators engaging in
   key exfiltration through a standard protocol will need to use covert
   channels in the protocol to leak information that can be used by the
   attacker to recover the key.  Such use of covert channels has been
   demonstrated for SSL, TLS, and SSH [key-recovery].  Any protocol bits
   that can be freely set by the collaborator can be used as a covert
   channel, including, for example, TCP options or unencrypted traffic
   sent before a STARTTLS message in SMTP or XMPP.  Protocol designers
   should consider what covert channels their protocols expose, and how
   those channels can be exploited to exfiltrate key information.

   Content exfiltration has some similarity to the dynamic exfiltration
   case, in that nothing can prevent a collaborator from revealing what
   they know, and the mitigations against becoming an unwitting
   collaborator apply.  In this case, however, applications can limit
   what the collaborator is able to reveal.  For example, the S/MIME and
   PGP systems for secure email both deny intermediate servers access to
   certain parts of the message [RFC5750][RFC2015].  Even if a server
   were to provide an attacker with full access, the attacker would
   still not be able to read the protected parts of the message.




Barnes, et al.           Expires March 15, 2015                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft        Confidentiality Threat Model        September 2014


   Mechanisms like S/MIME and PGP are often referred to as "end-to-end"
   security mechanisms, as opposed to "hop-by-hop" or "end-to-middle"
   mechanisms like the use of SMTP over TLS.  These two different
   mechanisms address different types of attackers: Hop-by-hop
   mechanisms protect from attackers on the wire (passive or active),
   while end-to-end mechansims protect against attackers within
   intermediate nodes.  Thus, neither of these mechanisms provides
   complete protection by itself.  For example:

   o  Two users messaging via Facebook over HTTPS are protected against
      passive and active attackers in the network between the users and
      Facebook.  However, if Facebook is a collaborator in an
      exfiltration attack, their communications can still be monitored.
      They would need to encrypt their messages end-to-end in order to
      protect themselves against this risk.

   o  Two users exchanging PGP-protected email have protected the
      content of their exchange from network attackers and intermediate
      servers, but the header information (e.g., To and From addresses)
      is unnecessarily exposed to passive and active attackers that can
      see communications among the mail agents handling the email
      messages.  These mail agents need to use hop-by-hop encryption and
      traffic analysis mitigation to address this risk.

   Mechanisms such as S/MIME and PGP are also known as "object-based"
   security mechanisms (as opposed to "communications security"
   mechanisms), since they operate at the level of objects, rather than
   communications sessions.  Such secure object can be safely handled by
   intermediaries in order to realize, for example, store and forward
   messaging.  In the examples above, the encrypted instant messages or
   email messages would be the secure objects.

   The mitigations to the content exfiltration case are thus to regard
   participants in the protocol as potential passive attackers
   themselves, and apply the mitigations discussed above with regard to
   passive attack.  Information that is not necessary for these
   participants to fulfill their role in the protocol can be encrypted,
   and other information can be anonymized.

   In summary, many of the basic tools for mitigating pervasive attack
   already exist.  As Edward Snowden put it, "properly implemented
   strong crypto systems are one of the few things you can rely on"
   [snowden].  The task for the Internet community is to ensure that
   applications are able to use the strong crypto systems we have
   defined - for example, TLS with PFS ciphersuites - and that these
   properly implemented.  (And, one might add, turned on!)  Some of this
   work will require architectural changes to applications, e.g., in
   order to limit the information that is exposed to servers.  In many



Barnes, et al.           Expires March 15, 2015                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft        Confidentiality Threat Model        September 2014


   other cases, however, the need is simply to make the best use we can
   of the cryptographic tools we have.

7.  Acknowledgements

   o  Thaler for list of attacks and taxonomy

   o  Security ADs for starting and managing the perpass discussion

   o  See PPA acks as well

8.  TODO

   o  Ensure all bases are covered WRT threats to confidentiality

   o  Consider moving mitigations to a separate document per program
      description

   o  Look at better alignment with draft-farrell-perpass-attack

   o  Better coverage of traffic analysis - PPA helped somewhat here but
      the problem is hard

   o  Terminology alignment (after the program agrees the structure is
      good)

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC6973]  Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
              Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
              Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973, July
              2013.

9.2.  Informative References

   [pass1]    The Guardian, "How the NSA is still harvesting your online
              data", 2013,
              <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/27/
              nsa-online-metadata-collection>.

   [pass2]    The Guardian, "NSA's Prism surveillance program: how it
              works and what it can do", 2013,
              <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/08/
              nsa-prism-server-collection-facebook-google>.





Barnes, et al.           Expires March 15, 2015                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft        Confidentiality Threat Model        September 2014


   [pass3]    The Guardian, "XKeyscore: NSA tool collects 'nearly
              everything a user does on the internet'", 2013,
              <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/
              nsa-top-secret-program-online-data>.

   [pass4]    The Guardian, "How does GCHQ's internet surveillance
              work?", n.d., <http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/
              how-does-gchq-internet-surveillance-work>.

   [dec1]     The New York Times, "N.S.A. Able to Foil Basic Safeguards
              of Privacy on Web", 2013,
              <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/
              nsa-foils-much-internet-encryption.html>.

   [dec2]     The Guardian, "Project Bullrun - classification guide to
              the NSA's decryption program", 2013,
              <http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/sep/05/
              nsa-project-bullrun-classification-guide>.

   [dec3]     The Guardian, "Revealed: how US and UK spy agencies defeat
              internet privacy and security", 2013,
              <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/
              nsa-gchq-encryption-codes-security>.

   [TOR]      The Tor Project, "Tor", 2013,
              <https://www.torproject.org/>.

   [TOR1]     Schneier, B., "How the NSA Attacks Tor/Firefox Users With
              QUANTUM and FOXACID", 2013,
              <https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/10/
              how_the_nsa_att.html>.

   [TOR2]     The Guardian, "'Tor Stinks' presentation - read the full
              document", 2013,
              <http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/oct/04/
              tor-stinks-nsa-presentation-document>.

   [dir1]     The Guardian, "NSA collecting phone records of millions of
              Verizon customers daily", 2013,
              <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/
              nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order>.

   [dir2]     The Guardian, "NSA Prism program taps in to user data of
              Apple, Google and others", 2013,
              <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/
              us-tech-giants-nsa-data>.





Barnes, et al.           Expires March 15, 2015                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft        Confidentiality Threat Model        September 2014


   [dir3]     The Guardian, "Sigint - how the NSA collaborates with
              technology companies", 2013,
              <http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/sep/05/
              sigint-nsa-collaborates-technology-companies>.

   [secure]   Schneier, B., "NSA surveillance: A guide to staying
              secure", 2013,
              <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/
              nsa-how-to-remain-secure-surveillance>.

   [snowden]  Technology Review, "NSA Leak Leaves Crypto-Math Intact but
              Highlights Known Workarounds", 2013,
              <http://www.technologyreview.com/news/519171/nsa-leak-
              leaves-crypto-math-intact-but-highlights-known-
              workarounds/>.

   [key-recovery]
              Golle, P., "The Design and Implementation of Protocol-
              Based Hidden Key Recovery", 2003,
              <http://crypto.stanford.edu/~pgolle/papers/escrow.pdf>.

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

   [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
              E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP
              5, RFC 1918, February 1996.

   [RFC1939]  Myers, J. and M. Rose, "Post Office Protocol - Version 3",
              STD 53, RFC 1939, May 1996.

   [RFC2015]  Elkins, M., "MIME Security with Pretty Good Privacy
              (PGP)", RFC 2015, October 1996.

   [RFC2821]  Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821,
              April 2001.

   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              June 2002.

   [RFC3365]  Schiller, J., "Strong Security Requirements for Internet
              Engineering Task Force Standard Protocols", BCP 61, RFC
              3365, August 2002.

   [RFC3501]  Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION
              4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.



Barnes, et al.           Expires March 15, 2015                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft        Confidentiality Threat Model        September 2014


   [RFC3851]  Ramsdell, B., "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail
              Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.1 Message Specification",
              RFC 3851, July 2004.

   [RFC4033]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC
              4033, March 2005.

   [RFC4301]  Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.

   [RFC4303]  Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", RFC
              4303, December 2005.

   [RFC4306]  Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol", RFC
              4306, December 2005.

   [RFC4949]  Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2", RFC
              4949, August 2007.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.

   [RFC5321]  Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321,
              October 2008.

   [RFC5655]  Trammell, B., Boschi, E., Mark, L., Zseby, T., and A.
              Wagner, "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export
              (IPFIX) File Format", RFC 5655, October 2009.

   [RFC5750]  Ramsdell, B. and S. Turner, "Secure/Multipurpose Internet
              Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.2 Certificate
              Handling", RFC 5750, January 2010.

   [RFC6120]  Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
              Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 6120, March 2011.

   [RFC6962]  Laurie, B., Langley, A., and E. Kasper, "Certificate
              Transparency", RFC 6962, June 2013.

   [RFC6698]  Hoffman, P. and J. Schlyter, "The DNS-Based Authentication
              of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS)
              Protocol: TLSA", RFC 6698, August 2012.

   [RFC7011]  Claise, B., Trammell, B., and P. Aitken, "Specification of
              the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the
              Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77, RFC 7011, September
              2013.



Barnes, et al.           Expires March 15, 2015                [Page 24]

Internet-Draft        Confidentiality Threat Model        September 2014


   [RFC7258]  Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
              Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, May 2014.

Authors' Addresses

   Richard Barnes

   Email: rlb@ipv.sx


   Bruce Schneier

   Email: schneier@schneier.com


   Cullen Jennings

   Email: fluffy@cisco.com


   Ted Hardie

   Email: ted.ietf@gmail.com


   Brian Trammell

   Email: ietf@trammell.ch


   Christian Huitema

   Email: huitema@huitema.net


   Daniel Borkmann

   Email: dborkman@redhat.com













Barnes, et al.           Expires March 15, 2015                [Page 25]