[pkix] Connected Cars. Upgradable/Replaceable IoT systems. Re: Managing Long-Lived CA certs

Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> Fri, 21 July 2017 05:01 UTC

Return-Path: <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pkix@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pkix@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AF78129B7A for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 22:01:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 vKxDP0PAV68y for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 22:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x235.google.com (mail-wm0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AB17126C23 for <pkix@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 22:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x235.google.com with SMTP id e131so4132448wme.0 for <pkix@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 22:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:from:to:references:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jvpfiPlcprH50MpwLfw8b6qS8ygfvG5q1eHMomd78Eg=; b=f0AODHRXaq7DExCrHQA/JnpIpeN/w/2RubSqh8l1hR0Igz+/lVygeLimuGiFWBSZqJ JVdrwGg5SUNd3LzlUQV8r07lsqYdxFpQEk1axbSJQx4/BG7U1NE530+YCDgD5wpv6cB8 A/IJX4ln7tBvdudEVlkOtdt4xEgrc2nB6XDO5mcfpjDPwupWAUgX3iPEp5ribGPuuNma 8DskzGxdgH38/OThSDgL6u/c9HY3otRhKgRojy7Am4tuTTBgEKOuj33Qk6FqohcE71LB 2W9rE3MpmmNav7mMKqU7f2YvzAsW0c+ey2DAqZSn2RK7aDcWcODzPuG9BGZ0AEBt8q5C eByA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:from:to:references:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=jvpfiPlcprH50MpwLfw8b6qS8ygfvG5q1eHMomd78Eg=; b=N4fG9sG3FvnlUYMxaL2QVQhTDZ3uMCmt7lch4jDHVR8uciVbAX3DnR2lttoRwVGGqz IJd3k2GbcWt3ZXexAmKVCG77+nuPs7FxOCaaGV2bQwzbgb0oa3hslrQW16+ujeJn3Npr SNWJ8qstWQBAMuIe8gkr4dP3y9W2IBCViXkZuGeNc0FhuVpJYGx13DB5uUod2WQsVQ75 r+0hzI4aiXGt3Lil37Qskr3a4adbE8GWf5zaD+FKkVEV1WiOcRYcRLO3f8bQid5pVb1k fBt55FzhE0YiQ0PT2AfzdnZwzqaaUjjRiR999Z+8D1T+UEfC3einPhkDGIE0O/0PGEe1 WQmw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw111r5xeEL3bBfoNNqB0RSZ1jD9NoojFZ1vZbqswD2Myhwm+/99o0 dSB2n7K4gkh+WQsy
X-Received: by 10.28.230.199 with SMTP id e68mr4220865wmi.138.1500613305297; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 22:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.79] (25.131.146.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.146.131.25]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id 94sm12969104wrb.55.2017.07.20.22.01.43 for <pkix@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Jul 2017 22:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
To: pkix@ietf.org
References: <467c8936-f6aa-0853-878c-24fc8803c599@openca.org> <001501d2ff0e$00eddfa0$02c99ee0$@x500.eu> <1500348690922.69356@cs.auckland.ac.nz> <27d212b4-c5a6-19d1-2afd-f18adaf21031@nist.gov> <003d01d2ffdd$35d67c70$a1837550$@x500.eu> <d032d03f-6ece-44e1-58b7-e3141f3b8e3d@openca.org> <c66ebeda-21be-93fe-f315-7d1e7f069505@gmail.com> <b474e62e-64d3-5c9f-6dc3-4f96749f5440@free.fr> <f59e8121-7b66-a6bb-2b31-16a1aeaeaf37@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0edcee2d-3dea-bbaa-2cd1-cf3915bfeff7@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:01:42 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f59e8121-7b66-a6bb-2b31-16a1aeaeaf37@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pkix/h3XQp_huRJH2izN8Yrlifin8eiU>
Subject: [pkix] Connected Cars. Upgradable/Replaceable IoT systems. Re: Managing Long-Lived CA certs
X-BeenThere: pkix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: PKIX Working Group <pkix.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pkix>, <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pkix/>
List-Post: <mailto:pkix@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix>, <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 05:01:49 -0000

My guess is that 10-15Y+ old connected cars won't be permitted on public roads unless they are upgraded.
Upgrading really old cars will become a major task since the electronics is unlikely to actually be upgradable.

Anders

On 2017-07-21 05:23, Anders Rundgren wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> It is not uncommon that there are more than one imaginable solution to a problem.
> 
> In this case there is an obvious alternative to what is proposed.
> Assume that a system * in some way becomes obsolete.
> 
> If such a system represents a considerable investment AND needs to live for decades, it should be upgradable.
> 
> If OTOH the system is not upgradable, it should be replaced.
> 
> If an IoT device only supports outdated algorithms it is anyway vulnerable to attacks making workarounds on the CA side fairly useless.
> 
> BTW, who in their right mind would run a CA with compromised keys or a CA for obsolete devices?
> 
> Anders
> * System in this context involves the entire infrastructure, including possible CAs.
> 
>> Hi PKIX,
>>
>> I have a small question for the list regarding long-lived CA
>> certificates. Especially in the context of device certificates, we often
>> see the use of extra long-lived certificates for Root and Sub CAs (e.g.,
>> 35+ years) combined with limited key sizes (e.g., p256).
>>
>> Until we have a supported mechanism for reprovisioning devices (...),
>> one possible solution for limiting the exposure of the private key would
>> be to have a scoped certificate issuance period.
>>
>> What I am thinking about would be adding an extension that says: "This
>> CA can issue certificates from up to 5 years from the validFrom, after
>> this, just use it to provide revocation information". This might provide
>> some protection in case the CA key is compromised after the initial 5
>> years of validity (e.g., certificates issued after that date shall be
>> rejected).
>>
>> Does such extension exists today ? If not, could this be some work for
>> LAMPS/SPASM WG ?
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pkix mailing list
> pkix@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix
>