Re: [Rats] watchdog use case ... RE: Use cases in draft-ietf-rats-architecture-04

[Dave Thaler <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the feedback.  One reference we can add is
https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/wp-content/uploads/TCG_TPM2_r1p62_Part1_Architecture_7july2020.pdf
section 43 (especially 43.3).

Dave

From: RATS <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 3:26 AM
To: Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]>; Oliver, Ian (Nokia - FI/Espoo) <[e-mail]>; Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: [Rats] watchdog use case ... RE: Use cases in draft-ietf-rats-architecture-04

Hi RATS architecture authors,

Could the authors of the use case explain the watchdog use case a bit more?

I do not understand how this is supposed to work. How is the device allowed to reboot when it sends attestation information to a remote server?
If malware prevents the device from rebooting, as the text indicates, why doesn't that malware also prevent the interaction with the attestation server (for example, pretending that network connectivity is down)?

Ciao
Hannes

From: RATS <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 9:31 PM
To: Oliver, Ian (Nokia - FI/Espoo) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Michael Richardson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Rats] Use cases in draft-ietf-rats-architecture-04

Hi Ian,

can you provide a bit more details about what your domain is?

Ciao
Hannes

From: Oliver, Ian (Nokia - FI/Espoo) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 9:27 PM
To: Michael Richardson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Rats] Use cases in draft-ietf-rats-architecture-04

Just to add to that, the watchdog case is relevant in our domain

Ian


--

Dr. Ian Oliver

Cybersecurity Research

Distinguished Member of Technical Staff

Nokia Bell Labs

[phone]

________________________________
From: Michael Richardson
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2020 22:00
To: Hannes Tschofenig
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Rats] Use cases in draft-ietf-rats-architecture-04


Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
    > Regarding the hardware watchdog I just feel it is a made-up use
    > case. Is this something people actually want to use in practice?
    > Today's use of hardware watchdogs aim to deal with non-security use
    > cases (mostly dealing with crashing software).

We've heard from Enterprise people that this is important.
It's not a constrained case.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.