Re: [cicm] CICM Scope

Alfonso De Gregorio <adg@crypto.lo.gy> Tue, 16 August 2011 02:41 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <F9AB58FA72BAE7449E7723791F6993ED0630D5F197@IMCMBX3.MITRE.ORG>
References: <F9AB58FA72BAE7449E7723791F6993ED0630D5F197@IMCMBX3.MITRE.ORG>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 04:41:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEk7eQQojy9-bzD-Qa=UEXq_6NXak9FfTZ61BDvzgMGPxMC+_Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alfonso De Gregorio <adg@crypto.lo.gy>
To: CICM Discussion List <cicm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "cryptography@randombit.net" <cryptography@randombit.net>
Subject: Re: [cicm] CICM Scope
Precedence: list
Reply-To: CICM Discussion List <cicm@ietf.org>

Lev,

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Novikov, Lev <lnovikov@mitre.org> wrote:
> (Cross-posted on the Cryptography mailing list at randombit.net)
>
> I've been doing a bit of reading based on the comments we've received.
>
> The results of the BOF at IETF 81 suggested we should broaden our
> scope and discuss the impact of the CICM Model, particularly Security
> Domain Separation, on (2 or more) existing IETF protocols.
>
> Here are the suggestions we've heard to-date (in no particular order):
>  * IPsec (suggested by almost everyone)
>  * TLS (via Paul Hoffman, David McGrew)
>  * AEAD (in RFC 5116; via David McGrew)
>  * VPN establishment crypto protocols (via Alfonso De Gregorio)
>  * Domain Security Services (as in RFC 3183; via Alfonso De Gregorio)
>
> ** Alfonso:
>  Can you elaborate on which protocols you had in mind regarding VPN?
>
> It seems clear that, at the very least, we should look at IPsec.

Absolutely. Thanks for asking.

IPsec is the most natural protocol we should look at, indeed.

In my opinion, the Secure Shell Connection Protocol (RFC 4254) is also
to be consider among the (de-facto) VPN establishment crypto
protocols, if we consider its most popular implementation. Let me
elaborate why this is the case.

As we know, the SSH protocol doesn't provide a VPN establishment
mechanism built-in. However, at the connection layer the IETF standard
defines the channel mechanism and specify the first four basic channel
types. Real world implementations have the possibility to build upon
this mechanism extending the protocol to accommodate new use cases.

This is what OpenSSH did with the tunnel forward extension. As of
version 4.3, OpenSSH supports layer 2 and layer 3 tunnelling via the
"tun@openssh.com" channel type. On network endpoints equipped with
pseudo-device interface like the BSD tun(4), this extended channel
type allows to forward layer 2 frames and layer 3 packets back and
forth, and hence to establish an encrypted VPN connections.

Building on the above, there is yet another IETF protocol that we
might want to consider in order to discuss the impact of CICM Model
and it is iSCSI (RFC 3720).

If we try to frame a CICM-enabled-iSCSI endpoint in the use cases
detailed in draft-lanz-cicm-lm, we would find it related to both the
HAIPE and the data-at-rest cases.

iSCSI uses the IPsec mechanism for providing integrity, authentication
and confidentiality at the IP level between the initiator and the
target (RFC 3723). Here, considerations originating from to the
presence of queues (e.g., latency) may be especially relevant.

At the same time, the data-at-rest use case is also relevant, when we
relax the architectural constraints, moving the cryptographic-module
interface to the storage from a local bus to the network.

Cheers,

-- alfonso     blogs at http://Plaintext.crypto.lo.gy   tweets @secYOUre

[cicm] CICM Scope Novikov, Lev
Re: [cicm] CICM Scope Alfonso De Gregorio