1 / 13

A Research Agenda for the PrivSec WG

A Research Agenda for the PrivSec WG. Dirk Trossen. Objectives for Today. Put together thoughts on how we worked in the past Distil commonalities Derive principles for working in the future Determines areas of interest for studies and work

cloris
Download Presentation

A Research Agenda for the PrivSec WG

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Research Agenda for the PrivSec WG Dirk Trossen

  2. Objectives for Today • Put together thoughts on how we worked in the past • Distil commonalities • Derive principles for working in the future • Determines areas of interest for studies and work Most importantly: stimulate discussion on all of this today

  3. What Have We Got So Far?

  4. Locator-Identifier Split Discussions • Implication of locator-identifier split on authentication schemes, addressing schemes, … • Looked at examples in SIP, RADIUS, I3, HIP, ... as to how authentication and identity is split between components ->architectural principles • understanding of placement of authentication and identity functionality between endpoint and network ->case study driven • Work performed through mix of sponsor- and MIT-driven contributions

  5. T2T Discussions • Principles around circles of trust and the implications to E2E • Discussion just started but is seen as highly relevant to this WG ->architectural implications Possibly in the future: ->case study driven ->experimentally grounded

  6. Tussle Space Discussions • Larger issue of tussle space design (from PrivSec point of view) • Original tussle paper identifies security and identity as a good example for tussle to happen ->architectural implications Possibly in the future: ->case study driven ->experimentally grounded

  7. Privacy Discussions • Intel’s interest in privacy • See presentation that just happened ->case study of interest to (at least) one sponsor

  8. LivingTheFuture • Security & Privacy in the environment of end-user driven innovation • Hands-on approach for trying out things -> experimentally grounded Possibly in the future: ->architectural implications ->case studies being implemented and validated

  9. What to Take Into Account for a Future Research Agenda? • Tackle the larger picture -> Derive relevant principles for trust & privacy • Tie into architecture issues -> Architecture WG relation • Be concrete -> Case studies of importance to sponsors • Be grounded -> Experimental verification, if possible

  10. Architectures Principles Case Studies LTF From Case Studies over Experiments to Concepts Create a virtuous cycle of • Deriving principles and architectures through case studies and experiments and • Verifying principles and architectural approaches in case studies and experiments

  11. Potential Outcomes • Principles • High profile paper(s) possible • Case studies • Reports and papers on the case studies themselves (similar to VCDWG) • Code? • Depending on LTF governance • The Book • Contribution to the bigger picture on Open Communications

  12. Potential Case Studies • Privacy (Intel) • More concrete info needed • Tussle space of publish-subscribe (BT) • Security and privacy is one of the key driver for pubsub solutions • LTF (MIT) • Study on privacy and security solutions for LTF plus implementation • Case study on T2T (anybody?) • Relation to tussle design, E2E • Derivation of T2T principles • Driven by concrete examples

  13. Prerequisite for Implementation The proposed model requires active partner participation! We’ve got so far: • Intel • BT • NSN? • ?

More Related