Re: [Anima] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 15 August 2019 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2C80120105; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 10:02:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 15sBF2sLHOpX; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 10:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A11512011D; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 10:02:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 274E43818C; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 13:01:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54B2AD1C; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 13:02:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
cc: anima@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra@ietf.org, tte+ietf@cs.fau.de, anima-chairs@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20190814145258.GX88236@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <156282301326.15131.7510532622479656237.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <22660.1565638213@localhost> <20190814145258.GX88236@kduck.mit.edu>
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: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 13:02:45 -0400
Message-ID: <15695.1565888565@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/kTmrezesIpmgZroYmHecs-YV9Ts>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 17:02:51 -0000

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote:
    >> There does not otherwise seem to be any risk from this compromise to
    >> devices which are already deployed, or which are sitting locally in
    >> boxes waiting for deployment (local spares).  The issue is that

    > (That is, if the boxes are already in local storage at the time of
    > first compromise)

yes. If you have physical care of them, then nobody could have tried an
attack while the MASA signing key was compromised.

    >> The authors are unable to come up with an attack scenario where a
    >> compromised voucher signature enables an attacker to introduce a
    >> compromised pledge into an existing operator's network.  This is the
    >> case because the operator controls the communication between Registrar
    >> and MASA, and there is no opportunity to introduce the fake voucher
    >> through that conduit.

    > This seems predicated on the attacker having the MASA signing key but
    > not persistent control of the (formerly?) legitimate MASA service,
    > right?

yes, that's right.  Assume the key was generated in a deterministic way
(the way the SSH keys were), or brute-forced, or something like that.

    >> A key operational recommendation is for manufacturers to sign
    >> nonceless, long-lived vouchers with a different key that they sign
    >> short-lived vouchers.  That key needs significantly better protection.
    >> If both keys come from a common trust-anchor (the manufacturer's CA),
    >> then a compromise of the manufacturer's CA would be a bigger problem.

    > (probably some wordsmithing options for "be a bigger problem")

how about:
              If both keys come from a common trust-anchor
              (the manufacturer's CA), then a compromise of the
              manufacturer's CA would compromise both keys.  Such a
              compromise of the manufacturer's CA likely compromises
              all keys outlined in this section.


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