Re: [Ace] EST over CoAP: Randomness

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 15 May 2019 14:10 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8235C1202BE for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2019 07:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GiNre6ekSEhU for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2019 07:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 798A31202D0 for <ace@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2019 07:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 080693826E for <ace@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2019 10:09:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id B1F58E3B; Wed, 15 May 2019 10:10:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA36A2 for <ace@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2019 10:10:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "ace\@ietf.org" <ace@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <0a75faf6-0968-d266-b99e-cf400b311477@cisco.com>
References: <DBBPR08MB45393CDF71E7DB02F6C6938CFA330@DBBPR08MB4539.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <0a75faf6-0968-d266-b99e-cf400b311477@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 10:10:41 -0400
Message-ID: <15730.1557929441@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/NkIJxZ_dBoEtlsRZwi7C9jqa5Uk>
Subject: Re: [Ace] EST over CoAP: Randomness
X-BeenThere: ace@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments \(ace\)" <ace.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ace/>
List-Post: <mailto:ace@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 14:10:52 -0000

My understanding of the use case for server generated keys is for existing,
deployed systems where the system can easily get a firmware update, but the
hardware TPM itself is unable/unwilling to generate new keys, and can't be
upgraded, but keys can be loaded.

Systems like Hannes' company produces, where the TPM is really a TEE don't
suffer from the upgrade problem, but there are many other systems out there
based upon older designs.

And, it's an optional part of the protocol; one I don't intend to support.
I don't see why it should bother anyone.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>;, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-