Subj : BINKP over TLS
To   : Alexey Fayans
From : Rob Swindell
Date : Wed Dec 18 2019 08:54 pm

  Re: BINKP over TLS
  By: Alexey Fayans to Alan Ianson on Wed Dec 18 2019 01:32 pm

 > Hello Alan!
 >
 > On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 at 15:02 -0800, you wrote to me:
 >
 >  AI> If you have ideas around security in binkd I would send them directly
 >  AI> to one of the binkd developers. Alexey Vissarionov is someone active
 >  AI> in Fidonet and is a binkd deveolper I think. That might be a good
 >  AI> place to start.
 >
 > I believe Michael Dukelsky (2:5020/1042) is the last active binkd developer.
 >
 > I've already expressed my ideas, but here's a summary:
 >
 > 1. STARTTLS is the best option because:
 > 1.1. It works on the same port and therefore will be adopted way faster.

binkps requires no protocol change, therefore will be adopted way faster.

 > 1.2. Can work out of the box without additional configuration.

Not sure what "box" you're referring to, but there's currently no BinkP mailers that support STARTTLS, so how could you possibly know what configuration will be needed?

 > 1.3. Requires significantly less software modified.

I actually implemented binkps is less than an 30 minutes. I took a working binkp implementation and made it binkps with less than 10 lines of added or changed code. Others have run completely unmodified BinkD over TLS already. So far, nobody has implemented STARTTLS, so there's nothing to compare it to, but comparing it to zero means binkps wins again.

 > 1.4. Not less secure than TLS on a dedicated port because it is possible to
 > announce TLS support via nodelist.

STARTTLS is well known to be less secure than Implicit TLS:
https://www.agwa.name/blog/post/starttls_considered_harmful

 > 2. For any kind of TLS something must be decided on certificate authority.

Nope. Self-signed certificates provide privacy via TLS just fine.

 > 2.1. We can use internet CAs, but this will require additional binding of
 > fidonet address to internet domain, probably, via nodelist. Doesn't look
 > shiny. 2.2. We can have own CA but this makes fidonet more centralized, we
 > will also have to define a secure way of issuing and delivering
 > certificates.

A CA is only needed if you're going to use TLS for trust. If you're only using TLS for privacy, then a CA-signed certificate is not needed.

                                            digital man

This Is Spinal Tap quote #41:
Ian Faith: It say's "Memphis show cancelled due to lack of advertising funds."
Norco, CA WX: 48.4øF, 42.0% humidity, 0 mph SW wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

.