Re: [Emu] Question for draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-03

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Mon, 28 June 2021 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <aland@deployingradius.com>
X-Original-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B89013A0D49 for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 i7Y8M7S9yffW for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.networkradius.com (mail.networkradius.com [62.210.147.122]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61D723A0D47 for <emu@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:00:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.46.129] (24-52-251-6.cable.teksavvy.com [24.52.251.6]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4696D36C; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 20:00:02 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: NetworkRADIUS; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=deployingradius.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <SJ0PR00MB1038767373E0DE9E3D7BE0DA95039@SJ0PR00MB1038.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 16:00:00 -0400
Cc: "oleg.pekar.2017@gmail.com" <oleg.pekar.2017@gmail.com>, "emu@ietf.org" <emu@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C7DBE2EB-82BF-4229-B0AF-4BA48B2D45BC@deployingradius.com>
References: <DB6D339A-710C-4EC4-9F8E-4B8602632AE1@deployingradius.com> <CABXxEz8EBUz_y1FmQTE9C8cpF+3vqy-mPCx8CnyUMZ72pNifAA@mail.gmail.com> <SJ0PR00MB1038767373E0DE9E3D7BE0DA95039@SJ0PR00MB1038.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
To: Tim Cappalli <Tim.Cappalli@microsoft.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/CLAlFIpjejYdfOtmRBCBKmoOubE>
Subject: Re: [Emu] Question for draft-ietf-emu-tls-eap-types-03
X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" <emu.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/emu>, <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/emu/>
List-Post: <mailto:emu@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu>, <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 20:00:09 -0000

On Jun 28, 2021, at 2:20 PM, Tim Cappalli <Tim.Cappalli@microsoft.com> wrote:
> The industry is moving away from any hardware identifier being sent off device. I don’t think the physical MAC should ever be used as a device identifier, even for channel binding.

  It's globally unique, which is a pretty useful identifier.

> If a strong hardware-bound identifier is required, the organization should use the TPM/SE for private key generation during provisioning/onboarding.

  From my reading of TCG / TPM / etc. stuff, the private key describes a *particular* device.  Not a *known* device.  i.e. the key is tied to a device, so it's a unique token. But it's not an *identifying* token, in that the administrator can tell which device is being provisioned.

  There still needs to be a way for the administrator to know which device is being used.  Identifying a particular device is done via physical examination in a secure network, or via some unique hardware identifier.  I might be missing something from the whole TPM infrastructure, tho.

  Alan DeKok.