Re: [cicm] Why do we need a high assurance API?

"Cottrell Jr., James R." <jxc@mitre.org> Fri, 22 July 2011 13:40 UTC

Return-Path: <jxc@mitre.org>
X-Original-To: cicm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cicm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63DF821F89A7 for <cicm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 06:40:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jtvHFFLv8Jdm for <cicm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 06:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (smtpksrv1.mitre.org [198.49.146.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A83621F89A1 for <cicm@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 06:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 7BB5F21B1711 for <cicm@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 09:40:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imchub1.MITRE.ORG (imchub1.mitre.org [129.83.29.73]) by smtpksrv1.mitre.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7512F21B1240 for <cicm@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 09:40:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from IMCMBX1.MITRE.ORG ([129.83.29.204]) by imchub1.MITRE.ORG ([129.83.29.73]) with mapi; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 09:40:36 -0400
From: "Cottrell Jr., James R." <jxc@mitre.org>
To: CICM Discussion List <cicm@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 09:40:35 -0400
Thread-Topic: Why do we need a high assurance API?
Thread-Index: AcxHv4OJVsr//gneRRKX8oANPbLF0gAb/7DiABFAOrA=
Message-ID: <E48B962F2B71EC4C97EF42A839D0F2DE05F00FA7CD@IMCMBX1.MITRE.ORG>
References: <7EDDD87A9A1D7F4DB6F78BC55AA4955002085E1A@0461-its-exmb09.us.saic.com>
In-Reply-To: <7EDDD87A9A1D7F4DB6F78BC55AA4955002085E1A@0461-its-exmb09.us.saic.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E48B962F2B71EC4C97EF42A839D0F2DE05F00FA7CDIMCMBX1MITREO_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [cicm] Why do we need a high assurance API?
X-BeenThere: cicm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: CICM Discussion List <cicm@ietf.org>
List-Id: CICM Discussion List <cicm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cicm>, <mailto:cicm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cicm>
List-Post: <mailto:cicm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cicm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cicm>, <mailto:cicm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 13:40:38 -0000

John,

I work in the HA world, so my experience in FIPS 140-2 or the commercial field is limited.

I believe that there already exist several, perhaps many, Crypto APIs for the FIPS 140-2 and commercial world.  Currently in the HA market space there isn’t standardization in how applications/hosts request services from HA products.

Jim Cottrell

From: cicm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:cicm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Davidson, John A.
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 1:24 AM
To: cicm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [cicm] Why do we need a high assurance API?


Hi all,

By high “assurance crypto API,” I believe we mean an API for a HA crypto, because I don’t believe a HA API is realistic.  So, that leaves me wondering why even include the term HA, maybe we need an API for both HA and non-HA cryptos, I think.



The API standardizes the interface between any SDR’s SW and the crypto, any crypto.  That enables the potential to swap cryptos (in some cases) without disrupting the SDR SW and vice versa.  For example, we can sell a radio to our native country with non-exportable crypto technology and then sell it even to potential adversaries with a different exportable crypto or their own crypto.  Or sell our nifty crypto for use in many SDRs and expect it to plug and play in them.



My relevant experience:

For three decades I have developed and certified high assurance MLS comm. systems, crypto accelerators, MLS operating systems (two achieved “A1” under the old Orange Book) and MLS intel integration systems for common operating picture, published research in COMPUSEC, SE methodology, and SW MODEM design.  I’ve worked as an IA engineer for JTRS for the past 6 years.

John
San Diego, CA


----- Original Message -----
From: cicm-bounces@ietf.org <cicm-bounces@ietf.org>
To: CICM Discussion List (cicm@ietf.org) <cicm@ietf.org>
Sent: Thu Jul 21 09:01:55 2011
Subject: [cicm] Why do we need a high assurance API?

For the benefit of IETF folks who are unfamiliar with this area who will
be reading this list during and after the BOF:

  Why do we need a high assurance crypto API?

Please write a brief response that relates to your (or your
organization's) experience.

Thank you,
Lev
_______________________________________________
cicm mailing list
cicm@ietf.org<mailto:cicm@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cicm