Re: [Ace] Key IDs ... RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-02

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Tue, 26 June 2018 16:57 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.com>
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 C54AD130EF9; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 09:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 a1_tMoatwpBl; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 09:57:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EB851310C1; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 09:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Jude (151.127.12.101) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 09:54:20 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: 'Hannes Tschofenig' <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com>, 'Benjamin Kaduk' <kaduk@mit.edu>, 'Mike Jones' <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
CC: <draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession@ietf.org>, <ace@ietf.org>
References: <VI1PR0801MB2112C4D6D3CED7C15D9AE886FA750@VI1PR0801MB2112.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <20180622204344.GP64617@kduck.kaduk.org> <MW2PR00MB02986BC1E87754046C8CDC6AF5750@MW2PR00MB0298.namprd00.prod.outlook.com> <20180623212956.GE99689@kduck.kaduk.org> <027401d40b93$6b73b470$425b1d50$@augustcellars.com> <VI1PR0801MB2112611C298A9E68AC9B2402FA490@VI1PR0801MB2112.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR0801MB2112611C298A9E68AC9B2402FA490@VI1PR0801MB2112.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 18:57:19 +0200
Message-ID: <00e701d40d6e$c09b3db0$41d1b910$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AQJmkbQj82tMYvZUbCUZIMhlVFE4oQHH3wOzAp0N2z4AwuijgAIaIIxmAaqrEKejBlSkkA==
X-Originating-IP: [151.127.12.101]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/c4SKwGykdRKxbAn7F_Qf7w9iuUk>
Subject: Re: [Ace] Key IDs ... RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-02
X-BeenThere: ace@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 16:57:34 -0000

Hannes,

My worry is not about implementers getting this correct and picking random
key ids.  My worry is about an attacker seeing the key id of somebody and
trying to use it either with the same or a different AS and getting a key
and then getting permissions associated with the initial key that they
should not be doing.

This is about an attack not about getting things to generally work right.

Jim


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com>;
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 6:09 PM
> To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>;; 'Benjamin Kaduk'
> <kaduk@mit.edu>;; 'Mike Jones' <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>;
> Cc: draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession@ietf.org; ace@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Ace] Key IDs ... RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-
> possession-02
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> you are essentially proposing that we should not directly use the key id
that
> is in the CWT-PoP but rather use it as input in a key derivation function.
The
> details of that key derivation function are specified outside the CWT-POP
> document and most likely in the context of the various profiles.
> Your proposals below suggest to use, among other things, the session key
as
> input to that function. That sounds pretty straight forward but raises the
> question why we fail to trust the implementer to create random key ids but
> then still trust them to create random keys.
> 
> That's fine for me nevertheless.
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Schaad [mailto:ietf@augustcellars.com]
> Sent: 24 June 2018 10:15
> To: 'Benjamin Kaduk'; 'Mike Jones'
> Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession@ietf.org;
> ace@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Ace] Key IDs ... RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-
> possession-02
> 
> Thinking things through, I would be more comfortable with something like
> the
> following:
> 
> 1.  Create a confirmation called 'computed key id'.  This has two basic
> values:  What is the computation method?  What is the proof value?  You
can
> optionally have an unprotected KID value used to filter the set of keys on
the
> RS down to a reasonable set to enumerate (hopefully one).
> 
> 2.  For RPK and TLS:  Define a method called hash of SPKI which has a hash
> method as a parameter.  Given that this can be computed independently by
> all entities based on a Public Key value and it will be unique then you
have a
> key identifier that will not have collisions independent of who issues the
> CWT.
> 
> 3.  For PSK and TLS:  Define a method which takes some parameters
including
> the key value, the CWT issuer identity and perhaps some random string and
> compute a proof of possession value on the PSK.
> 
> 4.  For PSK and OSCORE: Define a similar method the question would be what
> the key value is to be used but that can be defined as part of OSCORE
> 
> When using the keys for TLS
> 
> For RPK the key is carried in the handshake and the server/client can
> generate the computed key id and compare it to what the AS distributed.
> The server can identify which CWTs are applicable by either comparison of
> the RPKs or the computed key id.  This means you have a high probability
> that you will not make a mistake and match to the wrong key.
> 
> For PSK the identifier is carried in the handshake which is used to look
up a
> key value and the handshake is performed.  By matching computed key ids
> with the secret value one can ensure to a high probably that only CWTs
that
> reference the same secret are going to be used for permissions even if
they
> come from different AS entities.
> 
> For OSCORE it is similar, the identifier is used to look up a key value
and by
> decrypting the CWT the key value is proofed.  You then match computed key
> ids in the same manner.
> 
> If you really want to have something that is not cryptographically
computed
> and point to something else, then it makes more sense to me to reference a
> CWT issued by the same entity and say "use the same conformation method
> as this CWT does".
> 
> jim
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>;
> > Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2018 11:30 PM
> > To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>;
> > Cc: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com>;; Jim Schaad
> > <ietf@augustcellars.com>;;
> > draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession@ietf.org;
> > ace@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Ace] Key IDs ... RE: WGLC on
> > draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-
> > possession-02
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 08:48:35PM +0000, Mike Jones wrote:
> > > See my note just now proposing this text to Jim:
> > >
> > > "Likewise, if PoP keys are used for multiple different kinds of CWTs
> > > in
> an
> > application and the PoP keys are identified by Key IDs, care must be
> > taken
> to
> > keep the keys for the different kinds of CWTs segregated so that an
> attacker
> > cannot cause the wrong PoP key to be used by using a valid Key ID for
> > the wrong kind of CWT."
> > >
> > > As long as the PoP keys for different contexts are kept segregated,
> > > Key
> ID
> > collisions or reuse cause no problems.
> >
> > If we trust everyone to implement things properly.  We should probably
> only
> > take that risk if we get some other benefit from it, though.  Jim
> mentioned
> > (off-list?) a scenario involving giving the same client additional
> privileges, and
> > of course we can gain some simplicity savings if we don't need to
> > enforce global key-id uniqueness (for appropriate values of "global").
> > So this
> may
> > well be the right thing to do; I just don't think it's without
> > tradeoffs
> as your
> > text seems to imply.
> >
> > -Ben
> 
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are
> confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient,
> please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to
any
> other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in
any
> medium. Thank you.