- From: Philipp Pfeiffenberger <philippp@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 14:16:15 -0800
- To: Chris Wood <chriswood@cloudflare.com>
- Cc: Dimitris Theodorakis <dth@humansecurity.com>, public-antifraud@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAHSzL-R-n_ReC21r8gfaUKFHa0Okrpc8-3y9MUveMmFWRX5Q7Q@mail.gmail.com>
There are also human-driven attacks, for example 100 people who are each clicking on the same 100 ads, that are affected by privacy changes. In this example, defenders may currently rely on cross-site/app activity graphs to detect such cliques. Could an enumeration of "detection capabilities at risk" help us be comprehensive in our coverage? It's a bit of the converse of the list of problems, but a map of "detection capabilities at risk" to the threat vectors (or common problems) they relate to may help inform prioritization (e.g. identify which detection technique is relevant to several high-impact problems). On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:01 PM Chris Wood <chriswood@cloudflare.com> wrote: > Thanks for breaking out the use cases into a separate document! I think > listing different attack scenarios is valuable. > > However, I'm not sure the current framing, which seems to suggest that > only certain attack scenarios would be in scope, is the best path forward. > Some of these attacks seem to stem from a common (set of) problem(s), e.g., > ease of automation. It might be useful to try and tease out the core > properties that enable each attack, and then determine if addressing those > properties is in scope. > > For example, we might say that preventing attacks which can be easily > automated at the application layer -- including credential stuffing, > payment transactions, content scraping, etc -- are in scope. (I am > certainly not an expert here, but I don't think attacking account creation > would be included in this list.) We might also say that attacks that can be > automated at the network layer -- including volumetric DoS attacks -- are > in scope. But the solutions to these problems could very well be quite > different. > > What do folks think? > > Best, > Chris > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 11:01 AM Dimitris Theodorakis < > dth@humansecurity.com> wrote: > >> As a follow up from our last meeting we've moved the use cases proposal >> to this doc >> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GXX3QkQQCT0h75K5LdML8ap4qZTMSD6tDPWz16dUDno/edit#> >> to encourage collaboration. Everyone should have comment/suggest access. >> >> Thanks, >> Dimitris >> >
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2022 22:16:41 UTC