Re: UDP and data retention

[Smuggler <smuggler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 08:23:40AM -0500, phobos@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:24:01AM +0100, eugen@xxxxxxxxx wrote 0.1K bytes in 3 lines about:
>> : 
>> : This is off-topic, but isn't UDP making data retention more difficult
>> : than TCP/IP.
>>
>> How would UDP make data retention more difficult?
> 
> That was posed as a question, but I accidently dropped the question mark.
> 
> The idea is that UDP is a connectionless protocol, while the bulk of
> off-shelf lawful interception software and intent behind the data
> retention legislation as well as ISP-side financial investment into 
> interception infrastructure will be initially mostly focused on HTTP, SMTP,
> POP3 and its ilk. This might open up a loophole which could take
> several years to close.
> 
> That's the hypothesis. What do you think?
> 

I think it is missleading to talk about "connectionless" here, it is
"stateless". There is a relationship between sender and recipient as is
for TCP, however the state and handshake are missing.
UDP can be observed just as well as TCP unless you go for an extra mile
by using random source/destination ports which however still leaves the
sender/recipient relationship. Which however you could break by
falsifying the sender address...... getting some bad thoughts here.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFJS+HyOMmnRrmEoQkRAvl0AJ0ckadcyoD+xXsLkeEt8HcWQYaYQACbBMWy
0rdUVvcIALN8yfYf0Jf/Byc=
=TVvZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----