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

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Tue, 29 June 2021 01:57 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 048403A1FCE for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 18:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 sB6_le39l72f for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 18:57:04 -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 67F863A1FCB for <emu@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 18:57:03 -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 BA4E746B; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 01:56:59 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: NetworkRADIUS; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=deployingradius.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <7332.1624927848@localhost>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 21:56:58 -0400
Cc: EMU WG <emu@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4F79B7DB-7E55-4564-88AE-C6E2AF8FD293@deployingradius.com>
References: <DB6D339A-710C-4EC4-9F8E-4B8602632AE1@deployingradius.com> <CABXxEz8EBUz_y1FmQTE9C8cpF+3vqy-mPCx8CnyUMZ72pNifAA@mail.gmail.com> <SJ0PR00MB1038767373E0DE9E3D7BE0DA95039@SJ0PR00MB1038.namprd00.prod.outlook.com> <C7DBE2EB-82BF-4229-B0AF-4BA48B2D45BC@deployingradius.com> <7332.1624927848@localhost>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/GgWkiFuuZzowgJ8feOOqiuTaheA>
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: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 01:57:09 -0000

On Jun 28, 2021, at 8:50 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> To date, Enterprises with laptops and PCs have provisioned the IDevID into
> the TPM, themselves, at the same time the device is wiped and the golden
> image is installed.  So, the TPM identity is actually known to them by construction.

  And... if I have my own phone?  Or if a university wishes to tie devices to student accounts?  So that they can limit (somewhat) abuses?

  For now, the answer is "too bad".  Or maybe "buy a $$$$ MDM solution".

  As someone who bought my own phone, I'm not going install some MDM solution which lets my employer wipe my personal device.  I would much prefer to be able to prove (a) it's my device, and (b) it has a unique device identifier.  The simpler the method, the better.

> Smartphones do not get provisioned that way, but at the factory.
> Ditto IoT devices, and routers that have IDevID.
> RFC8995(BRSKI) can help, and Eliot has a proposal about how to run that over TEAP.
> There are other ways too, and most wind up with an LDevID deployed.

  That's good, but I suspect it will take a while to get implemented and/or popular.

  Alan DeKok.