IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rats] draft-ietf-rats-architecture-12

Daniel Migault <mglt.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 02 November 2021 12:28 UTC

Return-Path: <mglt.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rats@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rats@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 402613A114F for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Nov 2021 05:28:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 FkfpWf7maEqH for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Nov 2021 05:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x935.google.com (mail-ua1-x935.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::935]) (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 1B2CC3A1150 for <rats@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Nov 2021 05:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x935.google.com with SMTP id e5so37523847uam.11 for <rats@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Nov 2021 05:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=LZn765A1DdSWp/NDKdiK9huo0MAZrPhEp9+N0yLrRjs=; b=Xmrhyj96SHQU1Fv57WljKnDKJSwz1RFEyLuU2oVY8TpM8cQnjaUFNUBe/C38BxyTqN 5YlyI+FVe6aPvs3//7avbndvtmbcaIyvf+sl/fkEki+VFm1/lnLL+fArL3yhIPgBC0WD fsSqYdGb+h7FzFRsba+AEI8sx3YKXvNgPHxdSiAanqtJu1Hw2pTWnywXlTg6OGPiUYmR wWSedCS+QifDeIWpRgXTA90YoOS2J+45QXozeTWADMuo1csE09SLa3c6El4GGh4kld+M AmYYzzvVeN3Kzv24cdLgJROuVNOK2bxyCHR8OSIu3ZMyWbSh0iT2iQa4kFaPe/rUs2+Y PQeg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LZn765A1DdSWp/NDKdiK9huo0MAZrPhEp9+N0yLrRjs=; b=TLEaVRdm4kS1pxs+78ZBQzHqlrB6tuxzvThSREDyfoAWGhWzNTrlClpnrfMQFXt8f+ IR+7PWNn4P8yAKOQQuJ7XhjNbX3fjsJFgYGyseLbX98/2YFGWMjDlzOg/GHTzOEWBPa+ rB1EQZtcLl41u6DCQSKDX7wBUNuv5XhShjKo3wmWTnugMN65xKh8MlJoWTlvkWjAYjew fm5LpI8pWLAsZPXnTzj1mb18OWOPAucDYCuJ7kakDfDk9wJpKVeHFZKDyP8l1bvdrWDj HcNbeRjrqeNsMrYCsBY/1Qz6QT3kkI7s3nUVT+PMmOuKJCCI7bjdPkGot6Ywn4gpXwhF bw4A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531vn9+JWb+YQNkcIx6/mb/ql8EbCe+Atd3RvP7MbG9L0Pl7dAS2 wiONGaKXnbEXCOWRaWWpMp5W8u70irf4pXInU2LfKIif
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzQBJJ85XSGkJFdMN96pTTc2MW05TDI+yrHVSGVwi9BqXtEHldnRxNRj1EZaKKmFv2+sud73OB/XE78YoNSklg=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:392:: with SMTP id m18mr17979106vsq.56.1635856130640; Tue, 02 Nov 2021 05:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CADZyTk=ZbSUYxywzVONYjo59JVf56r8kAhpKqtXgE2=k2uZ5uA@mail.gmail.com> <CAObGJnN6wiXg5iamO1BXvms11BymVfRMdEMHsU14xdCrr5wXxw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAObGJnN6wiXg5iamO1BXvms11BymVfRMdEMHsU14xdCrr5wXxw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Daniel Migault <mglt.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2021 08:28:39 -0400
Message-ID: <CADZyTk=JK8sLAY11gL1ZeLb9NnTbpCR+_AXWgrVsNsXPxiicfw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thomas Fossati <tho.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: rats@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000920d9105cfcd6f7f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/VbDXE2RgjcPvwbEdVM1utPlF7iU>
Subject: Re: [Rats] draft-ietf-rats-architecture-12
X-BeenThere: rats@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Remote ATtestation procedureS <rats.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rats>, <mailto:rats-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rats/>
List-Post: <mailto:rats@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rats-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats>, <mailto:rats-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2021 12:28:57 -0000

Hi Thomas,

Thanks! That is exactly what came to my mind while reading section 10 - but
did not make the link while browsing section 12.3. Thanks!

A non technical comment: It is correct section 12 points to section 10, -
but going through section 12 I did not pay sufficient attention to the
content of section 10. I have the impression the reference could be the
other way around - at least for me ;-) - that is section 10 pointing to
section 12.3.

Yours,
Daniel

On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 5:11 AM Thomas Fossati <tho.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> hi Daniel,
>
> quick reply on just one point:
>
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 8:59 PM Daniel Migault <mglt.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:section 10.
>
>>
>> All timekeeping methods seem to me to have an implicit period when the
>> information is valid - I am basically thinking of it as a TTL. Using Epoch
>> ID, I have the impression that a new ID indicates a new time slot, so I am
>> wondering if blocking the time distributor does not keep the device into
>> the past and makes possible replay attacks.
>>
>
> Yes. That and a few other threats associated with manipulating the Epoch
> ID timeline are discussed in Section 12.3 [1]
>
> Let us know if something is missing.
>
> Cheers, thanks!
>
> [1]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rats-architecture-12#section-12.3
>


-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email