Re: [Rats] Call for adoption (after draft rename) for Yang module draft

"Smith, Ned" <ned.smith@intel.com> Mon, 11 November 2019 18:11 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.smith@intel.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 27B6F1208C4 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 10:11:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 eYATpGv4qg8b for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 10:11:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mga17.intel.com (mga17.intel.com [192.55.52.151]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F14812089E for <rats@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 10:11:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message)
X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False
Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Nov 2019 10:11:31 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.68,293,1569308400"; d="scan'208,217";a="354839762"
Received: from orsmsx103.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.22.225.130]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 11 Nov 2019 10:11:30 -0800
Received: from orsmsx109.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.161]) by ORSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.179]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 10:11:30 -0800
From: "Smith, Ned" <ned.smith@intel.com>
To: "Oliver, Ian (Nokia - FI/Espoo)" <ian.oliver@nokia-bell-labs.com>, Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>, "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <ncamwing@cisco.com>
CC: "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>
Thread-Topic: [Rats] Call for adoption (after draft rename) for Yang module draft
Thread-Index: AQHVlCwI8/lytau3hU+AhCwtIdg/0ad/EtmAgAAHhgCAAAO0AIAGacyAgAAGuoCAAJAygIAAL78A
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 18:11:30 +0000
Message-ID: <7106C9D3-8ED1-419E-81F8-4CDA799BEDAE@intel.com>
References: <8B173958-FC2A-4D1D-A81C-F324AB632CD7@cisco.com> <147F9159-6055-4E55-ABDC-43DFE3498BF1@island-resort.com> <ce5f8206-74dc-36bb-0093-a93045d5c67f@sit.fraunhofer.de> <0A7E3A4F-8534-4E98-BCB7-1454E07699F4@island-resort.com> <C3AE2645-49C8-4313-BCED-02FEB576B614@cisco.com> <1C8A1884-A37D-45E3-8C11-2FC5A083B245@island-resort.com> <HE1PR0702MB375366C5F7FE5C497C35D73B8F740@HE1PR0702MB3753.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR0702MB375366C5F7FE5C497C35D73B8F740@HE1PR0702MB3753.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.1e.0.191013
x-originating-ip: [10.251.18.104]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7106C9D38ED1419E81F84CDA799BEDAEintelcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/ZzQSl5Zc8WYHsdIqFnFIPtOFmT4>
Subject: Re: [Rats] Call for adoption (after draft rename) for Yang module draft
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: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 18:11:35 -0000

Right. This implies the RATS “token” should support existing “binary” formats as an encapsulation (signed by a second TA where the TPM is a first TA) or as a conveyance (unsigned?) token. Possibly, the only added value of the latter is a tag that identifies it as a TPM binary format?


On 11/10/19, 23:21 PM, "RATS on behalf of Oliver, Ian (Nokia - FI/Espoo)" <rats-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rats-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of ian.oliver@nokia-bell-labs.com<mailto:ian.oliver@nokia-bell-labs.com>> wrote:

> Remote TPM attestations are useful and necessary the short run, but are of very limited capability. I believe that > EAT will replace TPM attestations in the long run (maybe decades) because they are far more expressive. I know > others believe that too.

I would disagree with the statement of "short run" ... TPM is practically the only existing standardised (hardware, software, firmware, measurement - x86 only etc) hardware root of trust in common use, ie: practically all x86 machines,  The attestation mechanisms provided are going to be around for a very long time.

From telco experience, 30 years ago we said SS7 would only be around in the short term.

> Thus, I am opposed to adoption with the current TPM-only draft. I’d be OK with the current draft and a promise > to add EAT to it.

Agree

Ian


--

Dr. Ian Oliver

Cybersecurity Research

Distinguished Member of Technical Staff

Nokia Bell Labs

+358 50 483 6237

________________________________
From: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>;
Sent: 11 November 2019 00:44
To: Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing) <ncamwing@cisco.com>;
Cc: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>;; rats@ietf..org <rats@ietf.org>;
Subject: Re: [Rats] Call for adoption (after draft rename) for Yang module draft


On Nov 10, 2019, at 2:20 PM, Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing) <ncamwing@cisco.com<mailto:ncamwing@cisco.com>> wrote:

So, Laurence, are you still OK with the adoption of the current draft with a rename for now?
Thanks, Nancy

I think the value add to the larger RATS effort of adding EAT support to this YANG protocol is really high. It a core thing to do that helps bring together the two attestation worlds and make the TPM and EAT work here less like ships in the night.

Remote TPM attestations are useful and necessary the short run, but are of very limited capability. I believe that EAT will replace TPM attestations in the long run (maybe decades) because they are far more expressive. I know others believe that too.

If we don’t include EAT in the YANG mode it is sort of like defining HTTP to only convey HTML to the exclusion of PDF. We’re defining an attestation protocol that can only move one kind of attestation even though we have consensus on what the other one looks like.

It seems relatively simple to add EAT support (or promise to add EAT support). Pretty sure I heard Henk agree to add it.

Thus, I am opposed to adoption with the current TPM-only draft. I’d be OK with the current draft and a promise to add EAT to it.

LL