[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Definitions: Authentication and Anonymity
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Thu May 18 19:14:28 UTC 2017
I recently attended the International Working Group on Data Protection
in Telecommunications and reiterated that the DPAs would be most welcome
both on the working group and in Johannesburg.
Stephanie Perrin
On 2017-05-18 14:53, Gomes, Chuck via gnso-rds-pdp-wg wrote:
>
> We are definitely not intending to do our work in a vacuum. That is
> why we cooperated in scheduling the sessions in Copenhagen with Data
> Protection experts and send those experts a long list of questions.
> All of them assured us that they would continue to work with us as
> needed.
>
> Peter – If you have not already done so, please feel free to make sure
> that the Data Protection Commissioners and experts you know are aware
> that they would be welcome to join our WG.
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:* Paul Keating [mailto:paul at law.es]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2017 12:32 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>
> *Cc:* gca at icginc.com; lisa at corecom.com; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Definitions:
> Authentication and Anonymity
>
> Thanks, my proposal is to do an outreach program. It does us little
> good to design systems and policy in a vacuum.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> On 18 May 2017, at 14:44, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com
> <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> They would of course be welcome. I would like to point out that
> Peter Kimpian is one of them and is a WG member.
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:* Paul Keating [mailto:Paul at law.es]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2017 6:25 AM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com
> <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>; gca at icginc.com
> <mailto:gca at icginc.com>; lisa at corecom.com
> <mailto:lisa at corecom.com>; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Definitions:
> Authentication and Anonymity
>
> Chuck,
>
> I may be going out on a limb here but wouldn’t it be appropriate
> to have the privacy authorities actually participating in this WG?
>
> There are many opinions floating around in the emails and I see a
> continuing pattern of confusion.
>
> Given the importance of the governmental authorities here is it
> not rationale to have their direct participation so we can reach a
> workable solution?
>
> Paul
>
> *From: *<gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of "Gomes,
> Chuck via gnso-rds-pdp-wg" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
> *Reply-To: *"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com
> <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>
> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 3:14 AM
> *To: *"gca at icginc.com <mailto:gca at icginc.com>" <gca at icginc.com
> <mailto:gca at icginc.com>>, "lisa at corecom.com
> <mailto:lisa at corecom.com>" <lisa at corecom.com
> <mailto:lisa at corecom.com>>, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Definitions: Authentication and
> Anonymity
>
> Greg,
>
> Considering that we already have rough consensus that
> requestor does not have to be identified, what would need to
> be authenticated? In other words, why would we need to add
> ‘without authentication’?
>
> It would be helpful if you could respond to these questions on
> Tuesday before our WG meeting on Wednesday considering you
> will not be able to attend the WG call.
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:*Greg Aaron [mailto:gca at icginc.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, May 15, 2017 8:14 PM
> *To:* Lisa Phifer <lisa at corecom.com
> <mailto:lisa at corecom.com>>; Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com
> <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: Definitions: Authentication and
> Anonymity
>
> Thanks you, Lisa.
>
> I will be unable to make the next meeting because the 05:00
> UTC meeting time.
>
> Based on last week’s meeting, I I think we are aiming for
> something like:
>
> "Thin data elements must be accessible to anonymous
> requestors, without authentication.”
>
> If we say:
>
> "Thin data elements must be accessible without requestor
> authentication"
>
> then that means consumers of registration data might or might
> not be anonymous.
>
> For example, a registry operator could make me register my IP
> address, from which I can query registration data. Those
> queries could be made without authentication (a
> username/password), and so the registry’s registration program
> could be allowed. But arguably I would not be anonymous.
>
> Whatever policy language is proposed must be examined for how
> it can be interpreted and possibly bypassed. Both the intent
> of the WG and the specific language will eventually need to be
> laid out.
>
> So I also suggest it be made explicit that access to
> registration data remain free, without charge.
>
> All best,
>
> --Greg
>
> *From:*Lisa Phifer [mailto:lisa at corecom.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 10, 2017 12:04 PM
> *To:* Greg Aaron <gca at icginc.com <mailto:gca at icginc.com>>;
> Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com
> <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Definitions: Authentication and Anonymity
>
> All,
>
> Starting a new thread to pursue Greg's suggestion to agree
> upon definitions for "authentication" and "anonymity" to help
> the WG address the charter question now under deliberation.
>
> Below are a few definitions copied verbatim from RFC 4949
> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4949
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4949>) as a starting point for
> WG discussion of these and other possible sources/definitions.
>
> Lisa
>
> From RFC 4949:
>
> $ anonymity
>
> (I) The condition of an identity being
>
> unknown or concealed. (See:
>
> alias, anonymizer, anonymous credential,
>
> anonymous login,
>
> identity, onion routing, persona
>
> certificate. Compare: privacy.)
>
> Tutorial: An application may require
>
> security services that
>
> maintain anonymity of users or other
>
> system entities, perhaps to
>
> preserve their privacy or hide them from
>
> attack. To hide an
>
> entity's real name, an alias may be used;
>
> for example, a financial
>
> institution may assign account numbers.
>
> Parties to transactions
>
> can thus remain relatively anonymous, but
>
> can also accept the
>
> transactions as legitimate. Real names of
>
> the parties cannot be
>
> easily determined by observers of the
>
> transactions, but an
>
> authorized third party may be able to map
>
> an alias to a real name,
>
> such as by presenting the institution with
>
> a court order. In other
>
> applications, anonymous entities may be
>
> completely untraceable.
>
> From RFC 4949:
>
> $ anonymous login
>
> (I) An access control feature (actually,
>
> an access control
>
> vulnerability) in many Internet hosts that
>
> enables users to gain
>
> access to general-purpose or public
>
> services and resources of a
>
> host (such as allowing any user to
>
> transfer data using FTP)
>
> without having a pre-established,
>
> identity-specific account (i.e.,
>
> user name and password). (See:
>
> anonymity.)
>
> Tutorial: This feature exposes a system to
>
> more threats than when
>
> all the users are known, pre-registered
>
> entities that are
>
> individually accountable for their
>
> actions. A user logs in using a
>
> special, publicly known user name (e.g.,
>
> "anonymous", "guest", or
>
> "ftp"). To use the public login
>
> name, the user is not required to
>
> know a secret password and may not be
>
> required to input anything
>
> at all except the name. In other cases, to
>
> complete the normal
>
> sequence of steps in a login protocol, the
>
> system may require the
>
> user to input a matching, publicly known
>
> password (such as
>
> "anonymous") or may ask the user
>
> for an e-mail address or some
>
> other arbitrary character string.
>
> From RFC 4949:
>
> $ authenticate
>
> (I) Verify (i.e., establish the truth of)
>
> an attribute value
>
> claimed by or for a system entity or
>
> system resource. (See:
>
> authentication, validate vs. verify,
>
> "relationship between data
>
> integrity service and authentication
>
> services" under "data
>
> integrity service".)
>
> Deprecated Usage: In general English
>
> usage, this term is used with
>
> the meaning "to prove genuine"
>
> (e.g., an art expert authenticates
>
> a Michelangelo painting); but IDOCs should
>
> restrict usage as
>
> follows:
>
> - IDOCs SHOULD NOT use this term to
>
> refer to proving or checking
>
> that data has not been
>
> changed, destroyed, or lost in an
>
> unauthorized or
>
> accidental manner. Instead, use "verify".
>
> - IDOCs SHOULD NOT use this term to
>
> refer to proving the truth or
>
> accuracy of a fact or
>
> value such as a digital signature.
>
> Instead, use
>
> "verify".
>
> - IDOCs SHOULD NOT use this term to
>
> refer to establishing the
>
> soundness or correctness
>
> of a construct, such as a digital
>
> certificate. Instead,
>
> use "validate".
>
> From RFC 4949:
>
> $ authentication
>
> (I) The process of verifying a claim that
>
> a system entity or
>
> system resource has a certain attribute
>
> value. (See: attribute,
>
> authenticate, authentication exchange,
>
> authentication information,
>
> credential, data origin authentication,
>
> peer entity
>
> authentication, "relationship between
>
> data integrity service and
>
> authentication services" under
>
> "data integrity service", simple
>
> authentication, strong authentication,
>
> verification, X.509.)
>
> Tutorial: Security services frequently
>
> depend on authentication of
>
> the identity of users, but authentication
>
> may involve any type of
>
> attribute that is recognized by a system.
>
> A claim may be made by a
>
> subject about itself (e.g., at login, a
>
> user typically asserts its
>
> identity) or a claim may be made on behalf
>
> of a subject or object
>
> by some other system entity (e.g., a user
>
> may claim that a data
>
> object originates from a specific source,
>
> or that a data object is
>
> classified at a specific security level).
>
> An authentication process consists of two
>
> basic steps:
>
> - Identification step: Presenting
>
> the claimed attribute value
>
> (e.g., a user
>
> identifier) to the authentication subsystem.
>
> - Verification step: Presenting or
>
> generating authentication
>
> information (e.g., a
>
> value signed with a private key) that acts
>
> as evidence to prove the
>
> binding between the attribute and that
>
> for which it is claimed.
>
> (See: verification.)
>
> ---------
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170518/fbba4a0f/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list