Re: [Anima-bootstrap] brsky concern1: separating audit-log retrieval from voucher generation

"Max Pritikin (pritikin)" <pritikin@cisco.com> Tue, 01 November 2016 22:16 UTC

Return-Path: <pritikin@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: anima-bootstrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima-bootstrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CA0D129A24 for <anima-bootstrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -16.018
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.018 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 GbjY9SCuxSfH for <anima-bootstrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E9631299E0 for <anima-bootstrap@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3532; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1478038607; x=1479248207; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=ZLQ+yBy43vGemA3Y72F9Av9OVfl1kCQypUoDNNuh2eQ=; b=ID0ZF8BUPALkNVs6qsFvJbDLspM49NYksDQbP8pcamJVYGrI5mQDIjGJ /jAONp2UrnIhnp7ypOBFFGCHwFI+FNgPe+euO6TtPbZRxVARCD2TSpem6 d0NSHOOPiXy9QzkEsdi4gRfpuO3NzgX59ApBwgyNKD9c1y77Y8qDyDnjJ o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AbAQCVExlY/5NdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgyoBAQEBAR9YfAeNL5cAlEWCBx0LhXoCGoF8PxQBAgEBAQEBAQF?= =?us-ascii?q?iKIRhAQEBAwEBAQEgBA06CwULAgEIGAICJgICAiULFRACBA4FiEwIDqtFjH8BA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXBYEHhzMIglCENRKDBC2CLwWIP4dLihABkDS?= =?us-ascii?q?BboRuiSqNE4QDAR42YIMjARwYgTtyhlCBDAEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,433,1473120000"; d="scan'208";a="342862254"
Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Nov 2016 22:16:46 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-013.cisco.com (xch-aln-013.cisco.com [173.36.7.23]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uA1MGkri030469 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:16:46 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-013.cisco.com (173.36.7.23) by XCH-ALN-013.cisco.com (173.36.7.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 17:16:45 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-013.cisco.com ([173.36.7.23]) by XCH-ALN-013.cisco.com ([173.36.7.23]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 17:16:45 -0500
From: "Max Pritikin (pritikin)" <pritikin@cisco.com>
To: Toerless Eckert <tte+ietf@cs.fau.de>
Thread-Topic: [Anima-bootstrap] brsky concern1: separating audit-log retrieval from voucher generation
Thread-Index: AQHSNHyyXanDf3LHBk6rjMxPxQAq4aDFBhuA
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:16:45 +0000
Message-ID: <C825BB00-9DEF-4293-8ACB-A453F4C896A6@cisco.com>
References: <20161101201523.GB9776@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
In-Reply-To: <20161101201523.GB9776@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.99.106.11]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <0D12EE291912E446A53504153C9648DE@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima-bootstrap/SLJ0bxZMyUWksEHUc0q48LNEkTs>
Cc: "anima-bootstrap@ietf.org" <anima-bootstrap@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Anima-bootstrap] brsky concern1: separating audit-log retrieval from voucher generation
X-BeenThere: anima-bootstrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the bootstrap design team of the ANIMA WG <anima-bootstrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima-bootstrap>, <mailto:anima-bootstrap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima-bootstrap/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima-bootstrap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-bootstrap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima-bootstrap>, <mailto:anima-bootstrap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 22:16:50 -0000

I see this as the same discussion for “concern2” so please look to that thread for responses.

- max

> On Nov 1, 2016, at 2:15 PM, Toerless Eckert <tte+ietf@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> 
> As discussed today on the call, restated for the rest of the team with more detail:
> 
> -> pledge connects to two networks, A, B.
> -> Pledge tries to well-behave, only offers nonce to one network first, A.
> -> (registrar of) A gets voucher. A looks at audit-log. Audit log is fine.
>   Ultimately, A decides  not to enroll pledge though.
> -> Pledge offers nonce to B, B gets voucher and audit-log.
>   Audit log shows A, so B is concerned. B rejects device.
>   Without the entry in audit log, B would have enrolled device.
> 
> My worry is that the current audit log approach can too easily create
> false positives that will make enrolment fail if a device has multiple network
> connections:
> 
> It's impossible for A to get an audit-log without also getting
> a voucher, which in return would make another domain suspicious and likely
> make it decide not to accept the device.
> 
> Separating out request for voucher from request for audit-log could work like this:
> 
>  A->MASA: request audit-log for (pledge,nonce1)
>  MASA:    audit-log entry: "A requested audit log for pledge, hash(nonce1)" [1]
>  MASA->A: reply: audit-log
> 
>  ... A makes up its mind if it wants pledge and decides that it does NOT.
> 
>  -> A doesn't do anything more. Audit log would show B that A did see device,
>     but also that A never got voucher so that it could not have modified
>     device == B will happily enroll pledge.
> 
> 
>  ... A makes up its mind if it wants pledge and decides that it does want to:
> 
>  A->MASA: request voucher for (pledge,nonce1)
>  MASA:    Examine audit-log that no voucher was granted since the audit-log
>           was given to A [1]. requests for audit-logs since [1] are
> 	   ignored in this determination.
>  MASA->A: If audit-log ok:
>           reply OK: voucher(nonce1)
>           audit-log entry: "A received voucher for pledge, hash(nonce1)" [2]
> 
> 	   If audit-log nok:
>           reply NOK: audit-log
>           audit-log entry: "A failed voucher request for pledge, hash(nonce1), hash(nonce2)"
> 	   hash(nonce2) would be from an audit-log entry that did happen after
> 	   [1] and 
> 
> 
> Cheers
>    Toerless
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima-bootstrap mailing list
> Anima-bootstrap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima-bootstrap