Subject: RE: [nemo] Re: location privacy (was: Re: aboutdraft-ietf-nemo-requirements-00.txt)

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:27:01 -0000

Hi Greg!

> > 
> > 1) If people around me can listen to my RAs then they hear the 
> > prefixes I advertises. For instance, fixed antennas listening to 
> > passerbys can know who has been around. On the other hand, crypting 
> > the RAs limits nested solutions.
> 
> While this is a security issue, I'm not sure that it is 
> really a location privacy issue, since to receive the RA you 
> need to be able to receive radiation/sound from the NEMO.  
> This in most situations requires that the eavesdropper is 
> present at the location.
> 

Right, just like in the example. You can now place fixed tracers that
registers whoever passes by. 

> Also, as an example, in wireless LAN, link-layer encryption 
> solves this issue, except for the L2 Identity of the access 
> points.  Link Access controls who gains access to more 
> sensitive information. (Of course, I'm not saying that all 
> WLAN encryption systems are secure for this purpose).
> 

Now, it's also a policy thing. In one hand, you'd like to open up the MN
to accept anonymous visitors and optimize everybody's chance to connect
to the infrastructure. On the other hand you have to close it down
because of security threats at L2 (mostly at Neighbor Discovery level)
and L3, and because of privacy. I'm looking for a model of anonymous
access that would allow visitor to gain a limited L2 access (eg VLAN),
and limited L3 access (only  the visitors Route Optimized tunnel through
with no access to the home tunnel) to get connectivity in a harmless
way. Then comes the privacy issue.

> > 2) If my home is my ISP, I may not want them to know where I am, 
> > either. As you mention, my CareOf gives that away to them, 
> even if the 
> > MIP protocol is encrypted.
> 
> If the MNN can get a CoA on the visited fixed network, maybe 
> they can get a HMIPv6 regional CoA, which they can use to 
> provide some location privacy from the HA.
> 

Greg, I expected you'd be proposing that solution. :) Yes, the concept
of HMIP MAPs could be extended for privacy proxying purposes. Alex: you
may accept to trade closeness for privacy and register to a MAP that's
actually in a different country.

> Greg

---

From: Greg Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 07:56:59 +1100

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
[part snipped]
> actually in a different country.

You can't blame me for trying ;)

I like HMIPv6.

Greg