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

["Davidson, John A." <[e-mail]>]

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: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
To: CICM Discussion List ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>
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
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cicm