RE: Advantages and disadvantages of using CB64 type of identifiers
"Christian Huitema" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.multi6 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <DAC3FCB50E31C54987CD10797DA511BA09D46E65@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> |
> My understanding is that SeND chose different IIDs for different prefixes > but that might be overkill. If the IID is not a function of the prefix > it would enable redirection by a resourceful attacker > by precomputing 2^64 public/private keys that hash to all 2^64 IIDs. > If the content of the packets are encrypted the redirection would not > provide access to the content; it could only be used for DoS or for > gathering the content for cryptoanalysis. There are two issues: catalog attacks and privacy implications. I have already expressed my reservations about the privacy effects of having unique identifiers in addresses. I would certainly not recommend that my company ships anything like that. > A while back Jari Arkko computed the amount of space needed to store > 2^64 precomputed keys, and the storage space was a few buildings the size > of the former world trade center buildings I think. You do not need to compute 2^64 keys to start having an effect. Suppose that there are N users in the system, and that the bad guys have computed a catalog of M keys. The average number of hits that a catalog of size N will achieve is approximately NxM/2^64. There are currently at least 500M Internet users, it is reasonable to expect some growth, so we can set N to about 1 billion -- 2^30. This means you need M=2^34 to get at least one hit. That is probably less than a Terabyte of data, i.e. pretty soon a single hard disk. Everybody should be convinced that, when it comes to cryptography, 2^64 is actually a small number. SEND alleviates this risk by cryptographically link a public key to the entire 128 bits of the address. This is NOT overkill. -- Christian Huitema