Re: [Rats] 答复: use case document updates on Roots of Trust

Carl Wallace <carl@redhoundsoftware.com> Tue, 17 September 2019 02:19 UTC

Return-Path: <carl@redhoundsoftware.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 442081200E7 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 19:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=redhoundsoftware.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 qF0DEbEI5TQ6 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 19:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x844.google.com (mail-qt1-x844.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::844]) (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 0DFF4120018 for <rats@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 19:18:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x844.google.com with SMTP id x5so2435838qtr.7 for <rats@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 19:18:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhoundsoftware.com; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=nXeMbUd+Tqar36HG6L6Zseu+TPEL2AX/eqsStDBqHCw=; b=0xkrpXm7uYhSwVuZvtoMMyPYqGCLbLvitqge688G4NeFgwAOJ9v+kwPaB40ORDnoXj k2Itnlk+NMsbO48dZPWU5dZi/OyO2wREzju831rdGi6RGMQ8Iyt9bWKuCGAXVVH1S71v Hs+XM7qNvZeFQksoG1H0+1Z3+SX6CcTcykQ4E=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=nXeMbUd+Tqar36HG6L6Zseu+TPEL2AX/eqsStDBqHCw=; b=Je9PXUHibMF10FVZ3wf5+8m0v4bYAnBmQ06IQoTZos9HoNBzDBKlY9pmCV1MmW9DbE kbwqyuJ12k6UJSOuZnWo++MQ3yjwr/ZBIKyXuIH0MtoVkvgrIuzIW4OdJg8+UUqvBLZw ttbZJr1Ggl0+0wvDte6UWy949M8d4Pc+64VNB97VoZtXQlQZ0zmdkyBQ6xGGKNkmTVpx /Anrb36EJNl56BaVpd4JwRC/2hDqbr3kQow0zvOrZCPJ+Tr9nEfWjunHNTPchcjZYQnr pzhlrDxRxBf7wSlElhDi91LgSPtYgy3B/eBCG+46hspx7wtXyttHVkoeEAh9BEPqv+4b TWHQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWnLLGz0TI1L9gXB1hSqIzJTEoWIXWxME9FthCE8qs+4GsL3TZm GSZyw5GcvE446Fl1FxWMLuip3A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzI9O1kvZj5oJnruJzC9JQocfPLnFPkq458JINgWJUdlDkdI/Ac9MWpUWq2xfLPYJD7cXVPSQ==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:604c:: with SMTP id k12mr1572661qtm.62.1568686738897; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 19:18:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.163] (pool-96-255-231-27.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [96.255.231.27]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c17sm368359qkk.23.2019.09.16.19.18.57 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Sep 2019 19:18:58 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Carl Wallace <carl@redhoundsoftware.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (16G102)
In-Reply-To: <C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F13E8F7836@dggemm511-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 22:18:57 -0400
Cc: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3BB4DD7C-B19B-40D0-B6DD-8976ADE85EDA@redhoundsoftware.com>
References: <4155.1567948986@dooku.sandelman.ca> <64BD12AA-951A-468A-9F08-D442054605AD@island-resort.com> <de6ff852-062d-805d-3eed-10aca60502b2@sit.fraunhofer.de> <CAN40gStH5jUCJeVggREr3ABoFw7K97F=KtoJOSR_X+LWNLB+JA@mail.gmail.com> <CAN40gSu13DKkyahHA3_Cbt5j7Gsh=uGh5ic7fS3AvDGP3K1cug@mail.gmail.com> <5276.1568315351@dooku.sandelman.ca> <92137679-7DEA-42AD-B8D1-F3B909C77459@akamai.com> <BAA4C3C3-C98B-4BA7-8C89-A169DD99EF86@island-resort.com> <D9A4F66D.EB1C1%carl@redhoundsoftware.com> <C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F13E8F7836@dggemm511-mbx.china.huawei.com>
To: "Xialiang (Frank, Network Standard & Patent Dept)" <frank.xialiang@huawei.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/heeXnpGTQ5Q3A7nuW8_Rft1GL3Y>
Subject: Re: [Rats] 答复: use case document updates on Roots of Trust
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, 17 Sep 2019 02:19:02 -0000

The definition of a trust anchor does not limit the scope to certificate chains. 

> On Sep 16, 2019, at 8:51 PM, Xialiang (Frank, Network Standard & Patent Dept) <frank.xialiang@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Carl,
> The other big difference between them is the object they deal with: RoT is for integrity measurement value chain, CA is for certificate chain.
> 
> Hope it is helpful.
> 
> B.R.
> Frank
> 
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: RATS [mailto:rats-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Carl Wallace
> 发送时间: 2019年9月16日 20:26
> 收件人: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>; Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com>
> 抄送: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>; rats@ietf.org
> 主题: Re: [Rats] use case document updates on Roots of Trust
> 
> I took Rich's statement to be more from a relying party perspective and your detail to be more what one might find in a policy describing nature of the root of trust, which is not that different from how one may describe a trust anchor/CA in a PKIX context in a policy that describes how a CA are operated, etc. Two sides of the same coin.
> 
> On 9/15/19, 4:50 PM, "RATS on behalf of Laurence Lundblade"
> <rats-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of lgl@island-resort.com> wrote:
> 
>>> On Sep 12, 2019, at 3:31 PM, Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I do not see a meaningful difference between "trust anchor" and 
>>> "trust root" and "root(s) of trust."  All of them:
>>>    - Are pieces of data (certificate or key is not meaningful)
>>>    - Used to verify something such as a certificate or signature
>>>    - Are trusted by the application, based on actions that are "out of 
>>> band" of the application itself
>> 
>> This is not how I understand a root of trust, nor how I think it is 
>> generally used in the TCG or TEE worlds. I think a root of trust 
>> involves a CPU, memory and SW that actively does something like boot 
>> and measure a device. There is usually a boundary around it so that 
>> other software on the device, like the high-level OS, can’t corrupt it. 
>> When it is doing reporting as in RATS it will have a private key that can do some signing.
>> When it is doing trusted/secure boot, it will also have a public key to 
>> verify the software it loads.
>> 
>> LL
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> RATS mailing list
>> RATS@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list
> RATS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats