To suggest that I or my industry does not take security seriously, is 
inaccurate and immaterial to this discussion.

I would put the comment  that anyone or any industry is attempting to lay costs 
for anything off on IETF,  in the same unfortunate bucket.

These types of subjectively negative statements are not at all constructive, 
germane nor worthy of response.

From: Ted Lemon [mailto:mel...@fugue.com]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 1:45 PM
To: Ackermann, Michael <mackerm...@bcbsm.com>
Cc: Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com>; tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Publication of draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility-00

On Oct 23, 2017, at 1:30 PM, Ackermann, Michael 
<mackerm...@bcbsm.com<mailto:mackerm...@bcbsm.com>> wrote:
The WHY you ask is in the answer.
It is a huge proposition requiring change to virtually every platform and 
application.    Not to mention all the management,  monitoring and security 
platforms.
It would be very expensive and time consuming.
And when they ask why this is necessary,  it is because the new version of the 
existing protocol is not backwards compatible,  which is something we have come 
to expect.

I really tried to have sympathy for you about this in Prague.   I know what 
it's like to get unreasonable pushes from management (not based on recent 
experience, fortunately).   But this exact form of reasoning is why we're 
suffering from attacks on the internet like the Mirai botnet and the Reaper 
botnet, the Equifax hack, et cetera.

You have come to a group of people who take these issues extremely seriously 
and asked them to bless you in going forward to create another problem of the 
same magnitude.   I know you don't think that's what you're asking, but that 
really is what you are asking.   It might not be on your network—maybe you will 
operate this technology securely.   But you are asking us to create an attack 
surface, and it will be used.

When you make requests like this, what you are really doing is pushing off 
costs your management doesn't want to pay on the users of the Internet as a 
whole.   130 million Americans are now doomed for life to suffer from attacks 
on their credit because of this kind of thinking.

Stop asking us to take security less seriously, and start taking it more 
seriously.   You work for BCBS: you are responsible for protecting the privacy 
of a similar number of Americans.   I know this is hard, but it's time to stop 
imagining that you can lay costs off on us and start planning how you are going 
to migrate to a more secure architecture.



The information contained in this communication is highly confidential and is 
intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom this communication is 
directed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 
any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information is 
prohibited. Please notify the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any 
unintended receipt and delete the original message without making any copies.
 
 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan are 
nonprofit corporations and independent licensees of the Blue Cross and Blue 
Shield Association.
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

Reply via email to