IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rats] name of identity key

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 02 December 2019 20:15 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 29BB512003F for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 12:15:19 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 lJqcPsgh7aoS for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 12:15:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CD7F120018 for <rats@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 12:15:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E8833818F; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 15:11:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B191A3B; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 15:15:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Smith, Ned" <ned.smith@intel.com>
cc: "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>, Guy Fedorkow <gfedorkow@juniper.net>, "pritikin@cisco.com" <pritikin@cisco.com>, Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay <jmfmckay@gmail.com>, Henk Berkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, William Bellingrath <wbellingrath@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <C4E5F9D5-3E15-4366-8848-199D4E50A334@intel.com>
References: <BYAPR05MB4248D3AE10BAA7E74D588E76BA490@BYAPR05MB4248.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <32083.1574668598@dooku.sandelman.ca> <1E5F7794-BA58-4D6D-928A-4B0E9C227B69@intel.com> <11202.1574848474@dooku.sandelman.ca> <A52561C0-95BD-4D16-98B9-25A375C41F16@intel.com> <16604.1574925807@dooku.sandelman.ca> <C4E5F9D5-3E15-4366-8848-199D4E50A334@intel.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 15:15:15 -0500
Message-ID: <9894.1575317715@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/_iM1ZFj1C6XuyScidNh9bnHyWjs>
Subject: Re: [Rats] name of identity key
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, 02 Dec 2019 20:15:19 -0000

Smith, Ned <ned.smith@intel.com> wrote:
    nms> Maybe it makes sense to talk about how the keys are used rather than trying to name them?

    > Well, I think that having it named "the key we use for Onboarding" is the
    > same as saying, "Onboarding Key", right?

    nms> Right. I thought you were looking for names such as "IDevID". It
    nms> could be the IDevID is the onboarding key or that the attestation
    nms> key is the onboarding key. Somehow the onboarding protocol selects
    nms> which key is used if both are available.

Well, the issue I have, is that as an author of an onboarding protocol, there
is no "somehow", just confusion at this point.

I think that we really need to be a bit clearer here.

    > I don't know how the manufacturing process that involves a TPM with a TPM
    > attestation key works.  I just know that when doing BRSKI, that there were
    > issues with being confused between various TPM keys, and we originally wrote
    > text saying that the device Serial Number might be in weird places.  We later
    > ripped that text out, as time had changed things, and I'm worried that this
    > issue is not really dead.

    nms> There is still a possibility for a bootstrapping sequence post
    nms> factory shipment where "the onboarding key" doesn't yet
    nms> exist. Therefore, pre-onboarding is required to provision the
    nms> onboarding key. This may be what you describe as "the device Serial
    nms> Number might be in weird places".

yes, that's certainly an additional complication.


--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email