On 10/07/17 16:30, Ackermann, Michael wrote: > Given the above scenario, I do not understand how this can be construed as > "Wiretapping". 2804 seems to make this clear.
TLS is much more widely used that you seem to imagine. Please see the comments to the effect that there is no way to control to location of the wiretap/TLS-decrypter in the protocol. If that's not obvious, I don't know how to explain it further. See also text in 2804 wrt tools being used for more than initially envisaged. And if coercion of a server to comply with a wiretap scheme like this stills fanciful to you, please check out the history of lavabit - had there been a standard wiretap API as envisaged here it's pretty certain that would have been the device of choice in a case like that. While it's easy enough to envisage many other abuses that could be based on this wiretap scheme, that one is a good match and a real one. > Such critical colloquy, with significant long term > impact, should not be prematurely terminated, IMHO "Premature" is nonsense, this debate has gone on too long already. S.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
