Re: [Fud] FUD BarBOF Location
Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 06 April 2017 20:30 UTC
Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: fud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: fud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F4311294A4 for <fud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:30:18 -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] 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 AvomZNGK9-JI for <fud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:30:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F08A128954 for <fud@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:30:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78BBC300445 for <fud@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 16:30:15 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 63k5j1dNMRVv for <fud@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 16:30:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from new-host-4.home (pool-108-45-101-150.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.45.101.150]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AF22A300261 for <fud@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 16:30:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 16:30:14 -0400
References: <32221986-c3cd-60a5-0b72-5576303af3b3@gmx.net> <72189668-4154-c0f5-92a9-5fdf7c184939@gmx.net> <CANK0pbavhd6248bNzuDskwtV3Ewg6iAsj3k1-s0huUiWMNc_Bw@mail.gmail.com> <85D18E4E-0859-4DB0-BAE2-8D258C219893@tzi.org> <23163.1491493614@dooku.sandelman.ca>
To: fud@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <23163.1491493614@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Message-Id: <5354D811-DCA2-489D-AFF4-027C5EB999A5@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/fud/3LcMcgRlF6IiGmOPvpdKXKl-3H8>
Subject: Re: [Fud] FUD BarBOF Location
X-BeenThere: fud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: FUD - Firmware Updating Description <fud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/fud>, <mailto:fud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/fud/>
List-Post: <mailto:fud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:fud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fud>, <mailto:fud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 20:30:18 -0000
>> — the next step could be defining what set of metadata should be >> provided for a such a firmware image >> — RFC 4108 is out there but may not exactly be what is needed for M-class today >> — coswid (no, not the Trojan horse) might be one format to look at > > I think that we should consider updates to 4108. > If we don't like 4108, then we should consider a non-ASN1, non-PKIX format > format (JOSE for instance). If people want to update RFC 4108, I’m willing to help. I have worked with some people to decode the necessary parts with very simple code. It does not require a compiler. The vital thing is that the signature gets checked! Russ
- [Fud] FUD BarBOF Location Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Fud] FUD BarBOF Location Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Fud] FUD BarBOF Location Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Fud] FUD BarBOF Location Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Fud] FUD BarBOF Location Michael Richardson
- Re: [Fud] FUD BarBOF Location Russ Housley