wdiff rfc8165v1.txt rfc8165.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Hardie
Request for Comments: 8165 May 2017
Category: Informational
ISSN: 2070-1721

Design Considerations for Metadata Insertion

Abstract

The IAB published RFC 7624 in response to several revelations of
pervasive attacks on Internet communications. This document
considers the implications of protocol designs that associate
metadata with encrypted flows. In particular, it asserts that
designs that do so share metadata only by explicit actions at the host are
preferable to designs in which middleboxes insert them. metadata.

Status of This Memo

This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8165.

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.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Design Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Contributors . .
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1. Introduction

To minimize the risks associated with pervasive surveillance, it is
necessary for the Internet technical community to address the
vulnerabilities exploited in the attacks document documented in [RFC7258] and
the threats described in [RFC7624]. The goal of this document is to
address a common design pattern that emerges from the increase in
encryption: explicit association of metadata that would previously
have been inferred from the plaintext protocol.

2. Terminology

This document makes extensive use of standard security and privacy
terminology; see [RFC4949] and [RFC6973]. Terms used from [RFC6973]
include Readers should be familiar
with the terms defined in [RFC6973], including "Eavesdropper",
"Observer", "Initiator", "Intermediary", "Recipient", "Attack" (in a
privacy context), "Correlation", "Fingerprint", "Traffic Analysis",
and "Identifiability" (and related terms). In addition, we use Readers should also be
familiar with terms that are specific to the attacks discussed in
[RFC7624], including "Pervasive Attack", "Passive Pervasive Attack",
"Active Pervasive Attack", "Observation", "Inference", and
"Collaborator".

3. Design Pattern

One of the core mitigations for the loss of confidentiality in the
presence of pervasive surveillance is data minimization, which limits
the amount of data disclosed to those elements absolutely required to
complete the relevant protocol exchange. When data minimization is
in effect, some information that was previously available may be
removed from specific protocol exchanges. The information may be
removed explicitly (for example, by a browser suppressing cookies
during private modes) or by other means. As noted in [RFC7624], some
topologies that aggregate or alter the network path also act to
reduce the ease with which metadata is available to eavesdroppers.

In some cases, other actors within a protocol context will continue
to have access to the information that has been thus withdrawn from
specific protocol exchanges. If those actors attach the information
as metadata to those protocol exchanges, the confidentiality effect
of data minimization is lost.

The restoration of

Restoring information is particularly tempting for at systems
for which providing confidentiality is not the primary function.
primarily deployed to increase confidentiality. A proxy providing
compression, for example, may wish to restore the identity of the
requesting party; similarly, a VPN system used to provide channel
security may believe that the origin IP should be restored. Actors
considering restoring metadata may believe that they understand the
relevant privacy considerations or believe that
none exist that, because the primary
purpose of the service was not
privacy-related. privacy-related, none exist. Examples
of this design pattern include [RFC7239] and [RFC7871].

4. Advice

Avoid inserting metadata to restore information that would otherwise
be unavailable to later participants in a protocol exchange. It
contributes to the overall loss of confidentiality for the Internet
and trust in the Internet as a medium. Do not add metadata to flows
at intermediary devices unless a positive affirmation of approval for
restoration has been received from the actor whose data will be
added.

Instead, design the protocol so that the actor can add such metadata
themselves so that it flows end to end, rather than requiring the
action of other parties. In addition to improving privacy, this
approach ensures consistent availability between the communicating
parties, no matter what path is taken. (Note that this document does
not attempt to describe how an actor sets policies on providing this
metadata, as the range of systems that might be implied is very
broad).

As an example, RFC 7871 describes a method that had already been
deployed and notes that it is unlikely that a clean-slate design
would result in this mechanism. If a clean-slate design were built
to follow the advice in this document, that design would likely not
use a core element of RFC 7871: rather than adding metadata at a
proxy, it would provide facilities for end systems to add it to their
initial queries. In the case in of RFC 7871, the relevant metadata is
relatively easy for an end system to derive, as Session Traversal
Utilities for NAT (STUN) [RFC5389] provides a method for learning the
reflexive transport address from which a client subnet could be
derived. This would allow clients to populate this data themselves,
thus affirming their consent and providing data at a granularity with
which they are were comfortable. As in RFC 7871, the addition of this
data would require confirmation that the upstream DNS resolver
understands what to do with it, but the same negotiation mechanism,
an Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0)) option [RFC6891], could be
used. Because of this negotiation, there would be a new variability
in responses that would change the caching behavior for data supplied
by participating servers. This is not a major change from the
current design, however, as the same considerations set out in
Sections 7.3.2 and 7.5 of RFC 7871 would apply to client-supplied
subnets as well as to proxy-supplied subnets.

From a protocol perspective, in other words, this approach would be a
minor change from RFC 7871, would be as fully featured, and would
provide better privacy properties than the on-path update mechanism
RFC 7871 provides. The next section examines why, despite this,
deployment considerations have sometimes trumped cleaner designs.

5. Deployment Considerations

There are a few common tensions associated with the deployment of
systems that restore metadata. The first is the trade-off in speed
of deployment for different actors. The Forwarded HTTP Extension in
[RFC7239] provides an example of this. When used with a proxy, it
restores information related to the original requesting party, thus
allowing a responding server to tailor responses according to the
original party's region, network, or other characteristics associated
with the identity. It would, of course, be possible for the
originating client to add this data itself, after using STUN
[RFC5389] or a similar mechanism to first determine the information
to declare. This would require, however, full specification and
adoption of this mechanism by the end systems. It would not be
available at all during this period and would thereafter be limited
to systems that have been upgraded to include it. The long tail of
browser deployments indicates that many systems might go without
upgrades for a significant period of time. The proxy infrastructure,
in contrast, is commonly under more active management and represents
a much smaller number of elements; this impacts both the general
deployment difficulty and the number of systems that the origin
server must trust.

The second common tension is between metadata minimization and the
desire to tailor content responses. For origin servers whose content
is common across users, the loss of metadata may have limited impact
on the system's functioning. For other systems, which commonly
tailor content by region or network, the loss of metadata may imply a
loss of functionality. Where the user desires this functionality,
restoration can commonly be achieved by the use of other identifiers
or login procedures. Where the user does not desire this
functionality, but it is a preference of the server or a third party,
adjustment is more difficult. At the extreme, content blocking by
network origin may be a regulatory requirement. Trusting a network
intermediary to provide accurate data is, of course, fragile in this
case, but it may be a part of the regulatory framework.

There are also tensions with latency of operation. For example,
where the end system does not initially know the information that
would be added by on-path devices, it must engage the protocol
mechanisms to determine it. Determining a public IP address to
include in a locally supplied header might require a STUN exchange,
and the additional latency of this exchange discourages deployment of
host-based solutions. To minimize this latency, engaging those
mechanisms may need to be done in parallel with or in advance of the
core protocol exchanges with which this metadata would be supplied.

These tensions do not change the basic recommendation, but they
suggest that the parties who are introducing encryption and data
minimization for existing protocols consider carefully whether the
work also implies introducing mechanisms for the end-to-end
provisioning of metadata when a user has actively consented to
provide it.

6. IANA Considerations

This document makes no request of IANA.

7. Security Considerations

This memorandum describes a design pattern emerging from responses to
the attacks described in [RFC7258]. Continued use of this design
pattern, which uses mid-flow devices to restore metadata, lowers the
impact of mitigations to that attack.

Note that some emergency service recipients, notably PSAPs (Public
Safety Answering Points) may prefer data provided by a network to
data provided by an end system, because an end system could use false
data to attack others or consume resources. While this has the
consequence that the data available to the PSAP is often more coarse
than that available to the end system, the risk of false data being
provided involves a risk to the lives of those targeted.

8. References

8.1. Normative References

[RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2",
FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4949>.

[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6973>.

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

[RFC7624] Barnes, R., Schneier, B., Jennings, C., Hardie, T.,
Trammell, B., Huitema, C., and D. Borkmann,
"Confidentiality in the Face of Pervasive Surveillance: A
Threat Model and Problem Statement", RFC 7624,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7624, August 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7624>.

8.2. Informative References

[RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
"Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5389, October 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5389>.

[RFC6891] Damas, J., Graff, M., and P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms
for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6891, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6891>.

[RFC7239] Petersson, A. and M. Nilsson, "Forwarded HTTP Extension",
RFC 7239, DOI 10.17487/RFC7239, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7239>.

[RFC7687] Farrell, S., Wenning, R., Bos, B., Blanchet, M., and H.
Tschofenig, "Report from the Strengthening the Internet
(STRINT) Workshop", RFC 7687, DOI 10.17487/RFC7687,
December 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7687>.

[RFC7871] Contavalli, C., van der Gaast, W., Lawrence, D., and W.
Kumari, "Client Subnet in DNS Queries", RFC 7871,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7871, May 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7871>.

Contributors

Acknowledgements

This document is derived in part from the work initially done on the
perpass mailing list and at the STRINT workshop [RFC7687]. It has
been discussed with The text
was originally developed by the IAB's Privacy and Security Program, whose
review and input is gratefully acknowledged. Program
before submission to the IETF. The document also benefited from an
extensive review by Mohamed Boucadair.

Author's Address

Ted Hardie

Email: ted.ietf@gmail.com