Subject: FW: security text in LINK

From: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 16:14:13 -0400

While I guess the current wording isn't wrong, in that I presume there are some people who think that subnet security is, except for the protection of the subnet, a bad thing, I favor security in depth. If you have to choose one kind of security for user data, end-to-end is best. But only link or subnet security can protect from some kinds of traffic analysis. What if your local subnet or some upstream transit subnet with lots of your traffic on it are easily tappable. Then, even if you only speak securely to remote sites and so are always using end-to-end security, someone can still easily tell what hosts your are communicating with, which could be embarrassing or worse. And always using end-to-end security just isn't possible in today's world where, for example, many web sites only secure a few of their pages with the most sensitive financial/personal data but leave in plain text info on what products you are browsing, etc.

I don't think we should be saying things that would discourage link, subnet, or end-to-end security.

Donald