Re: [Rats] rats-concise-ta-stores (was Re: device attestation and ACME)

Carl Wallace <> Thu, 21 July 2022 01:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96551C14CF0F for <>; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 18:19:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xTg3wbd2wYvb for <>; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 18:19:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 820DBC13193A for <>; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 18:19:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id e5so318275qts.1 for <>; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 18:19:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id:thread-topic:references :in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zMSC7eD2uIY/1btlsovx0SmXgJb4L1EozvWI2HYw6g8=; b=Hpu0eLaTAVAsom0rYsVBQYE85j+rE9aghzq/QHlqAQzr4p27418mHXBj+3w/3csiiv 4j54kW4hL3bhwq7Nirlxdl/Ql87at+42atEx4BfJ70U8xBCIl+3qzltG9JJqO9Jgrim2 SWAvq+BUha7xH/24JV6Uh99oco5In8pXZdJb0=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id :thread-topic:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=zMSC7eD2uIY/1btlsovx0SmXgJb4L1EozvWI2HYw6g8=; b=l36rhmqdiy51e16fHjdxiIVS1TiKFuMZoEtNsiNdYlG0KpNQAn1nVIkQZw3FC1/1nr I1UY7+Dhs8bi7i0viJHOMK4F0xKRk7UBFvfhTimMuB00rrNpUnQs+BZCPX0+2PnS7I9V p9GFSlSVrAL3gGKXKfOrSG4v4hdmblMpX0nmPvesZEr/oXzfoZrHeQXeH8jirIfL4J4a VP4ZWyOBIpH1jmiC+s+yvgT6E8ChgK/Qc4t9liUsq1QFO4cxb7hISlo84xkci5TkNIkL X0aJJ2dZOp74Kb45KK+SFEXNlbGDVd0d2LpDQSEaoF2pF3i3xHEalnq9SzBV/944r1U0 gMTA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora+Op4vmIfwGyXKVEZf+ravyDnz3K3oUVBg8riL6PP8MXQrZEKsF G75xftu1OfNFsOpa7mfjaO7BwT1kbmRZsg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1u9pIBFVdrHnV304iAM6yGlqOQKVuKCV05csuCvvabbiyXpMYOFpgdZ6V3jQcq+uI1SUzESOw==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:9:0:b0:305:3451:f384 with SMTP id a9-20020ac80009000000b003053451f384mr32078408qtg.409.1658366385871; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 18:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id v20-20020a05620a441400b006b5e45ff82csm476823qkp.93.2022. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 20 Jul 2022 18:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.63.22070801
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 21:19:44 -0400
From: Carl Wallace <>
To: Michael Richardson <>,,
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [Rats] rats-concise-ta-stores (was Re: device attestation and ACME)
References: <1680731.1658356904@dooku> <> <1690546.1658364911@dooku>
In-Reply-To: <1690546.1658364911@dooku>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Rats] rats-concise-ta-stores (was Re: device attestation and ACME)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Remote ATtestation procedureS <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2022 01:19:51 -0000


On 7/20/22, 8:55 PM, "RATS on behalf of Michael Richardson" < on behalf of> wrote:


    }   Any
    }   public key that can be used to verify a certificate is assumed to
    }   also support verification of revocation information, subject to
    }   applicable constraints defined by the revocation mechanism.

    I feel as Geoff Houston does: revocation is useless security theatre.

[CW] OK but there does still exist revocation information that some people verify, perhaps theatrically.

    } An unsigned concise TA stores object is a list of one or more TA
    } stores, each represented below as a concise-ta-store-map element.

    Seems like maybe a word is missing here.
    Not really sure.  It is really hard to read.
    Is: _unsigned concise TA stores object_ the name of a thing?
    I think so, but maybe it could be reworded.

[CW] The wording could be better. It's referring to the concise-ta-stores object. Maybe it should just say that.

        >     Why does the Enterprise trust the attestation key?

    I'm unclear from a quick reading the document if there are signed TA stores.
    I think so based upon the examples.

[CW] Yes. This uses the signing mechanism from CoRIM, i.e., COSE. There is an example with a signature, but it's only given in base64 (not JSON). That one should probably be expanded too.

    Michael Richardson <>, Sandelman Software Works
     -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

    RATS mailing list