<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><br><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>Em 2 de ago. de 2023, à(s) 19:28, Jeff Schmidt via NCAP-Discuss <ncap-discuss@icann.org> escreveu:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div><meta charset="UTF-8"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">This reminded me about SSL/certificate issues. Has been discussed before, but here it is again so folks can think about it before we meet.</span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>If I understood correctly the idea of a minimal honeypot, no connection will ever be established… either due to it being RST or never answered. </div><div>So no certificates will ever be presented or requested from either side. </div><div><br></div><div>But it provides no visible notification, just like CI… it only gathers more data. If it answers anything, then it’s not a minimal honeypot, it’s a plain honeypot. Considering what you mentioned about most collisions causing M2M traffic, with no humans actually seeing the result, the minimal honeypot sounds like a better data privacy x data collection trade-off. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Rubens</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>