[Rats] Charra: certificate-name vs TPM-name

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Tue, 28 July 2020 15:31 UTC

Return-Path: <evoit@cisco.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 83C003A0E09 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 08:31:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=Pn7TYt76; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=G2fKV2nI
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 tVEcSEgUZEAY for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 08:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 872AC3A0E04 for <rats@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 08:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=14643; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1595950230; x=1597159830; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=naZujSoNVkkN3kEv2PrmUTwcCyaJY4MjgxdcS05tWAo=; b=Pn7TYt76gw+pHq7R5iZQsvZhGUDBDN7uUPAb2xOfiljctpoXMGv8Pymw +TluG4yVE1XuyyC9uc62FTCeBr7nGJszOvTy5vazQVh02YczOP14eLM+K QGpkQ73VudsGZj7pFSB86AYOhcM4F53SVQwb8xyGRgmE4GIBtaalR7Ns8 o=;
X-Files: smime.p7s : 3975
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AT7+CRxRY23HUNDW6+LOMyhrAftpsv++ubAcI9p?= =?us-ascii?q?oqja5Pea2//pPkeVbS/uhpkESQBNuJ6+9NlOfX9avnXD9I7ZWAtSUEd5pBH1?= =?us-ascii?q?8AhN4NlgMtSMiCFQXgLfHsYiB7eaYKVFJs83yhd0QAHsH4ag7Sv3St4D9UER?= =?us-ascii?q?L6ZkJ5I+3vEdvUiMK6n+m555zUZVBOgzywKbN/JRm7t0PfrM4T1IBjMa02jB?= =?us-ascii?q?DOpyhF?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CJCQAzQyBf/4wNJK1ggQmCbS9RB28?= =?us-ascii?q?rLS8sCodwA5UvjB2EbIJTA1UEBwEBAQkDAQEtAgQBAYRMAoIgAiQ4EwIDAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?LAQEFAQEBAgEGBG2FXAyFdBYbEwEBNwERAVAwJgEEDg0GDQeDBYF+TQMfDwG?= =?us-ascii?q?kLAKBOYhhdIE0gwEBAQWFMxiCBwcJgTiBU4EaihAagUE/gVSDC4Q/g0eCLY9?= =?us-ascii?q?/iWeBGJp5CoJfhDWCWJMEn2mxMQIEAgQFAg4BAQWBaiOBV3AVgyRQFwINkg+?= =?us-ascii?q?KVnQ3AgYIAQEDCXyOawGBEAEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,406,1589241600"; d="p7s'?scan'208,217";a="787477693"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 28 Jul 2020 15:30:15 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (xch-rcd-001.cisco.com [173.37.102.11]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 06SFUE5D000916 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 28 Jul 2020 15:30:14 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:30:14 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:30:13 -0500
Received: from NAM11-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 11:30:13 -0400
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=ogBIWk0gYsaVR1IXCLt0AOabjr89XXVpmfO6bXIvDgFWscXPd4+/wKTEf8l5dSd5SYA5zvGWKJPHUGXflhXDU+U5OGud/qtG4CmcKY+Wt8MTJ/+uV9PaafcGjxz56OudZQhxQsNjSVe3qAFNum42TKJ9O1az+orj4tjtrnHtRMCiu0Dw5K8Y+o9TgQhzUMIxUl13NdYBmPElbmxoRnmYGkl2b4JQI6XPHzijE0j/EbdDyL0qsH0ByxE/gaY9i1wfrcnATgC4TDELQExNVmPDa+vmnR31uSD3Wkc6JhpKpsiUR7We/p5MapquNci5T9HQkxdgk4XhqGyUwURKAufyIw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=fzZSmXpkUF+ZqY++BYXy3OcQI4Kst9vHcgief0VEp2k=; b=llHcNtV9Xmp0RsMhLma2Enmqf8+w5tSUMrE5M2A20lsiZL0zPX1aj6ZvM7Elov0XIuyltIHK6GbdbJssmrhBW+rii7mNoFjDyq3I1+XpPkE8RkrTcH26hOxjudHZHJT5NMYaQOTJLdn2jwfPonu6oNMFNp6R+uNZi5S3gNPGXAd+yPsYeGmZDeoDLP4gejlnlM2Jf8mpvFOTzpLIfEKFqdlrt/8JTk6ccjoBs+P1nYhGPdlB58g0MBjuxu3VC/BNbhcLkg8vj64yZx7JMdujJcTCfrQOAjHcsQyp7y9j0Ivl8xkAyiUk3F9qaSrjJsYy7s6DK+ex3wx3QKIrH/217Q==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=fzZSmXpkUF+ZqY++BYXy3OcQI4Kst9vHcgief0VEp2k=; b=G2fKV2nI10noDq05e9l5o0bB4BoJOPmImM7CbVr/vVuDI8Qwkh09oesi6tBlKawVed1aKu4qjcSEG+3KAFZpH7aYB4HZWeX/6zKr1TNkrLG53oKdaIEtrnNgANugabBjdOaH4Ex1ekNtGRWyThBs1vZQ79dIQzGo8f2cgnQbexo=
Received: from BL0PR11MB3122.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:75::32) by MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:193::31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3216.23; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 15:30:12 +0000
Received: from BL0PR11MB3122.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3496:c7b1:6ba3:ace2]) by BL0PR11MB3122.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3496:c7b1:6ba3:ace2%5]) with mapi id 15.20.3216.034; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 15:30:12 +0000
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: "Panwei (William)" <william.panwei@huawei.com>
CC: "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Charra: certificate-name vs TPM-name
Thread-Index: AdZk7AdVjrhIJhH+SNGp+N2fr3/Wmw==
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 15:30:12 +0000
Message-ID: <BL0PR11MB3122B1E0BA81CB3CFA8F1AB3A1730@BL0PR11MB3122.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: huawei.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;huawei.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.117.78]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: c2d7d523-22c4-48dd-28ec-08d8330b1ebb
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB4351:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB4351DF8521CD5A42268662B5A1730@MN2PR11MB4351.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:8882;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: j7V1cWD/oJScGbfGijpXaK10mf2qFnSq0AQPttkIiaJlDycibvVI58+2G3f+nisFa4P8ZhB675SjGt7ktMk11kLc7LixK7FncbHbt2xIivgnn1U0QeNiAjiw6tWGYeRu1x8nYWu3Gy6Spar3rMJUdmVd+dhbKq9xGP8TwIfqI9lFbJ+73q9R82/7OQO1z6qZ6l6cqTR4qQuAfSL+G8zgJqFA7Cp2NiN8pXLVj7K3uvyaCGuxYzOVjETpvRLWJ5Wpqi7Q7e/O5XScffQwwDYNOGXZxX/AtIRKTdhekKWVPy19V5jrayITZzLv+LhfGqYzeUh8b1/tqxLON3e/fPlJ4Q==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BL0PR11MB3122.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(39860400002)(346002)(366004)(136003)(396003)(376002)(316002)(83380400001)(8936002)(99936003)(8676002)(4326008)(6916009)(66574015)(55016002)(2906002)(26005)(7696005)(186003)(71200400001)(33656002)(5660300002)(52536014)(76116006)(66446008)(64756008)(66556008)(66476007)(86362001)(66946007)(478600001)(9686003)(6506007)(66616009); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=SHA1; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0C23_01D664D2.7181CC90"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BL0PR11MB3122.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c2d7d523-22c4-48dd-28ec-08d8330b1ebb
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 28 Jul 2020 15:30:12.4467 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 5pYAzfoTpjuiDiGhTZqSMAZ9QcpT7tEyMQd2Xq0eh0eMKBLHy2yhOL7p9suw54WU
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB4351
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.11, xch-rcd-001.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-7.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/cucGeF7emIlbhfU1Xch8JsB-diQ>
Subject: [Rats] Charra: certificate-name vs TPM-name
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, 28 Jul 2020 15:31:41 -0000

Hi Wei Pan,

 

During the RATS WG call you wondered why certificate-name should be used
rather than tpm-name.  There are two reasons:

 

(1) In RFC places like:

 

      +---x tpm20-challenge-response-attestation {TPM20}?

         +--ro output

            +--ro tpm20-attestation-response* []

               +--ro certificate-name?           string

               +--ro quote?                              binary

               +--ro quote-signature              binary

 

if just the tpm-name is provided, how does a Verifier know when a re-keying
happens?    With the current solution, when unknown certificate-name comes
back from the RPC, you just need to query:

 

    +--rw rats-support-structures

       +--rw tpms* [tpm-name]

          +--rw tpm-name                     string

          +--rw certificates

             +--rw certificate* [certificate-name]

                +--rw certificate-name    string

                +--rw certificate-ref?    leafref

                +--rw certificate-type?   enumeration

 

and then you can find the tpm-name, plus all the required info
post-certificate upgrade in one place.  If the certificate-name is not in
the RPC, a Verifier will have to make several guesses on what any failure of
signature verification might mean.

 

(2) The most common implementations will have just one TPM per
router/switch.  These implementations might never care about the tpm-name.
They will care about the certificate used on that router/switch.

 

Thanks,

Eric

 

Eric Voit 

.:|:.:|:. Cisco Systems, Inc.