Skip to content

Commit c88801d

Browse files
authoredDec 12, 2023
Merge pull request #38 from IRTF-PEARG/refactor36
Refactor to separate uses of IP
2 parents ea8e11b + ff5f604 commit c88801d

File tree

1 file changed

+73
-66
lines changed

1 file changed

+73
-66
lines changed
 

Diff for: ‎draft-irtf-pearg-ip-address-privacy-considerations.md

+73-66
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -112,7 +112,8 @@ informative:
112112

113113
This document provides an overview of privacy considerations related to user IP
114114
addresses. It includes an analysis of some current use cases for tracking of
115-
user IP addresses, mainly in the context of anti-abuse. It discusses the
115+
user IP addresses, grouping them into two categories: personalization and
116+
anti-abuse. This document also discusses the
116117
privacy issues associated with such tracking and provides input on mechanisms
117118
to improve the privacy of this existing model. It then captures requirements
118119
for proposed 'replacement signals' for IP addresses from this analysis. In
@@ -130,17 +131,18 @@ related to user IP addresses (informally, IP privacy). The draft is likely to
130131
evolve significantly over time and may well split into multiple drafts as
131132
content is added.
132133

133-
Tracking of IP addresses is common place on the Internet today, and is
134-
particularly widely used in the context of anti-abuse, e.g. anti-fraud, DDoS
135-
management, and child protection activities. IP addresses are currently used in
136-
determining "reputation" {{!RFC5782}} in conjunction with other signals to
134+
Tracking of IP addresses is common place on the Internet today, and falls
135+
roughly into two broad categories. The first is personalization, the tailoring
136+
of content for a given user. The second is anti-abuse: e.g. anti-fraud, DDoS
137+
management, and child protection activities. The latter includes uses of IP
138+
addresses to determine "reputation" {{!RFC5782}} in conjunction with other signals to
137139
protect against malicious traffic, since these addresses are usually a
138140
relatively stable identifier of a request's origin. Servers use these
139141
reputations in determining whether or not a given packet, connection, or flow
140142
likely corresponds to malicious traffic. In addition, IP addresses are used in
141143
investigating past events and attributing responsibility.
142144

143-
However, identifying the activity of users based on IP addresses has clear
145+
Personalizing content based on the user's IP address has clear
144146
privacy implications ({{WEBTRACKING1}}, {{WEBTRACKING2}}), e.g. user
145147
fingerprinting and cross-site identity linking. Many technologies exist today
146148
that allow users to obfuscate their external IP address to avoid such tracking,
@@ -151,8 +153,9 @@ Relay {{APPLEPRIV}}, Gnatcatcher {{GNATCATCHER}}, and Oblivious technologies
151153

152154
General consideration about privacy for Internet protocols can be found in
153155
{{!RFC6973}}. This document builds upon {{!RFC6973}} and more specifically
154-
attempts to capture the following aspects of the tension between valid use
155-
cases for user identification and the related privacy concerns, including:
156+
attempts to capture the following aspects of the tension between use of IP
157+
addresses to prevent abuse, and some users' desire to prevent overzealous
158+
personalization:
156159

157160
* An analysis of the current use cases, attempting to categorize/group such use
158161
cases where commonalities exist.
@@ -225,11 +228,59 @@ Consumption:
225228
: An interaction where one party primarily receives information from other
226229
parties.
227230

228-
# IP address tracking
229231

230-
## IP address use cases
232+
# Mitigations for IP address tracking
231233

232-
### Anti-abuse {#antiabuse}
234+
The ability to track individual people by IP address has been well understood
235+
for decades. Due to the prevalence of systems that profile users using their IP
236+
addresses, countermeasures have been developed. Commercial VPNs and Tor are the
237+
most common methods of mitigating IP address-based tracking.
238+
239+
- Commercial VPNs offer a layer of indirection between the user and the
240+
destination, however if the VPN endpoint's IP address is static then this
241+
simply substitutes one address for another. In addition, commercial VPNs
242+
replace tracking across sites with a single company that may track their
243+
users' activities.
244+
245+
- Tor is another mitigation option due to its dynamic path selection and
246+
distributed network of relays, however its current design suffers from
247+
degraded performance. In addition, correct application integration is
248+
difficult and not common.
249+
250+
- Address anonymization (e.g. {{GNATCATCHER}} and similar):
251+
252+
- {{GNATCATCHER}} is a single-hop proxy system providing more protection
253+
against third-party tracking than a traditional commercial VPN. However,
254+
its design maintains the industry-standard reliance on IP addresses for
255+
anti-abuse purposes and it provides near backwards compatibility for select
256+
services that submit to periodic audits.
257+
258+
- {{APPLEPRIV}} iCloud Private Relay is described as using two proxies
259+
between the client and server, and it would provide a level of protection
260+
somewhere between a commercial VPN and Tor.
261+
262+
- Recent interest has resulted in new protocols such as Oblivious DNS
263+
([ODoH]({{?I-D.pauly-dprive-oblivious-doh}})) and Oblivious HTTP
264+
([OHTTP]({{?I-D.thomson-ohai-ohttp}})). While they both prevent tracking by
265+
individual parties, they are not intended for the general-purpose web
266+
browsing use case.
267+
268+
- The use of temporary addresses is another way to limit IP address-based
269+
tracking. Changing addresses over time reduces the window of time during
270+
which it is possible to easily correlate network activity when the same
271+
address is employed for multiple transactions by the same host. Temporary
272+
addresses have been introduced only for IPv6, as an extension of its
273+
Stateless Address Configuration mechanism ({{?RFC8981}}). However, since the
274+
network prefix remains the same, in many cases it remains possible to
275+
identify a cellular user or a household.
276+
277+
# Accepted Uses of IP Addresses
278+
279+
The mitigations described above are often designed to prevent unwanted uses of
280+
IP addresses such as profiling users. However, they often prevent other uses of
281+
IP addresses that users did not necessarily want or intend to disrupt.
282+
283+
## Anti-abuse {#antiabuse}
233284

234285
IP addresses are a passive identifier used in defensive operations. They allow
235286
correlating requests, attribution, and recognizing numerous attacks, including:
@@ -248,7 +299,7 @@ correlating requests, attribution, and recognizing numerous attacks, including:
248299
Malicious activity recognized by one service provider may be shared with other
249300
services {{!RFC5782}} as a way of limiting harm.
250301

251-
### DDoS and Botnets
302+
## DDoS and Botnets
252303

253304
Cyber-attackers can leverage the good reputation of an IP address to carry out
254305
specific attacks that wouldn't work otherwise. Main examples are Distributed
@@ -259,7 +310,7 @@ to the attackers trigger (i.e., spoofed packets). Similarly botnets may use
259310
spoofed addresses in order to gain access and attack services that otherwise
260311
would not be reachable.
261312

262-
### Multi-platform threat models
313+
## Multi-platform threat models
263314

264315
As siloed (single-platform) abuse defenses improve, abusers have moved to
265316
multi-platform threat models. For example, a public discussion platform with a
@@ -274,15 +325,15 @@ addresses are commonly used to investigate, understand and communicate these
274325
cross-platform threats. There are very few alternatives for cross-platform
275326
signals.
276327

277-
### Rough Geolocation
328+
## Rough Geolocation
278329

279330
A rough geolocation can be inferred from a client's IP address, which is
280331
commonly known as either IP-Geo or Geo-IP. This information can have several
281332
useful implications. When abuse extends beyond attacks in the digital space, IP
282333
addresses may help identify the physical location of real-world harm, such as
283334
child exploitation.
284335

285-
#### Legal compliance
336+
## Legal compliance
286337

287338
Legal and regulatory compliance often needs to take the jurisdiction of the
288339
client into account. This is especially important in cases where regulations
@@ -291,13 +342,13 @@ universally). Because Geo-IP is often bound to the IP addresses a given ISP
291342
uses, and ISPs tend to operate within national borders, Geo-IP tends to be a
292343
good fit for server operators to comply with local laws and regulations
293344

294-
#### Contractual obligations
345+
## Contractual obligations
295346

296347
Similar to legal compliance, some content and media has licensing terms that
297348
are valid only for certain locations. The rough geolocation derived from IP
298349
addresses allow this content to be hosted on the web.
299350

300-
#### Locally relevant content
351+
## Locally relevant content
301352

302353
Rough geolocation can also be useful to tailor content to the client's location
303354
simply to improve their experience. A search for "coffee shop" can include
@@ -307,9 +358,9 @@ brick and mortar stores near the user and a news site can surface locally
307358
relevant news stories that wouldn't be as interesting to visitors from other
308359
locations.
309360

310-
## Implications of IP addresses
361+
# Implications of IP addresses
311362

312-
### Next-User Implications
363+
## Next-User Implications
313364

314365
When an attacker uses IP addresses with "good" reputations, the collateral
315366
damage poses a serious risk to legitimate service providers, developers, and
@@ -318,7 +369,7 @@ temporal abuse, and legitimate users may be affected by blocklists as a result.
318369
This unintended impact may hurt the reputation of a service or an end user
319370
{{!RFC6269}}.
320371

321-
### Privacy Implications
372+
## Privacy Implications
322373

323374
IP addresses are sent in the clear throughout the packet journey over the
324375
Internet. As such, any observer along the path can pick it up and use it for
@@ -352,7 +403,7 @@ about user, device, and network that can be obtained via the IP address.
352403
which, in turn, could be the subject of further requests for subscriber
353404
information.
354405

355-
### Cross-site vs Same-site
406+
## Cross-site vs Same-site
356407

357408
In a web context, IP Addresses can be used to link a user's activity both
358409
within a single site and across multiple sites. Users may want to have a single
@@ -377,7 +428,7 @@ discussion uses the web and browsers as a concrete example, but this
377428
generalizes to other contexts such as linking user identity across VoIP
378429
solutions, DNS resolvers, video streaming platforms etc.
379430

380-
## IP Privacy Protection and Law
431+
# IP Privacy Protection and Law
381432

382433
Various countries, in the last decade, have adopted, or updated, laws that aim
383434
at protecting citizens privacy, which includes IP addresses. Very often, these
@@ -408,50 +459,6 @@ state, IP addresses may not be considered as personally identifiable
408459
information {{IP2009}}.
409460

410461

411-
## Mitigations for IP address tracking
412-
413-
The ability to track individual people by IP address has been well understood
414-
for decades. Commercial VPNs and Tor are the most common methods of mitigating
415-
IP address-based tracking.
416-
417-
- Commercial VPNs offer a layer of indirection between the user and the
418-
destination, however if the VPN endpoint's IP address is static then this
419-
simply substitutes one address for another. In addition, commercial VPNs
420-
replace tracking across sites with a single company that may track their
421-
users' activities.
422-
423-
- Tor is another mitigation option due to its dynamic path selection and
424-
distributed network of relays, however its current design suffers from
425-
degraded performance. In addition, correct application integration is
426-
difficult and not common.
427-
428-
- Address anonymization (e.g. {{GNATCATCHER}} and similar):
429-
430-
- {{GNATCATCHER}} is a single-hop proxy system providing more protection
431-
against third-party tracking than a traditional commercial VPN. However,
432-
its design maintains the industry-standard reliance on IP addresses for
433-
anti-abuse purposes and it provides near backwards compatibility for select
434-
services that submit to periodic audits.
435-
436-
- {{APPLEPRIV}} iCloud Private Relay is described as using two proxies
437-
between the client and server, and it would provide a level of protection
438-
somewhere between a commercial VPN and Tor.
439-
440-
- Recent interest has resulted in new protocols such as Oblivious DNS
441-
([ODoH]({{?I-D.pauly-dprive-oblivious-doh}})) and Oblivious HTTP
442-
([OHTTP]({{?I-D.thomson-ohai-ohttp}})). While they both prevent tracking by
443-
individual parties, they are not intended for the general-purpose web
444-
browsing use case.
445-
446-
- The use of temporary addresses is another way to limit IP address-based
447-
tracking. Changing addresses over time reduces the window of time during
448-
which it is possible to easily correlate network activity when the same
449-
address is employed for multiple transactions by the same host. Temporary
450-
addresses have been introduced only for IPv6, as an extension of its
451-
Stateless Address Configuration mechanism ({{?RFC8981}}). However, since the
452-
network prefix remains the same, in many cases it remains possible to
453-
identify a cellular user or a household.
454-
455462
# Replacement signals for IP addresses
456463

457464
Fundamentally, the current ecosystem operates by making the immediate peer of a

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)
Please sign in to comment.