IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rats] More use cases for draft-richardson-rats-usecases-00

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 14 June 2019 18:15 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 097A2120718 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:15:58 -0700 (PDT)
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 wrlsOj0ePHvR for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:15:54 -0700 (PDT)
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 76BBC120717 for <rats@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:15:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50600380BE; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 14:14:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id E0012F59; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 14:15:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD90B5BE; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 14:15:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
cc: Carl Wallace <carl@redhoundsoftware.com>, "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <79ccb2d7-09a3-913d-f47d-1e702a23b341@gmail.com>
References: <MW2PR00MB03963ABEB87211AD28A16240A6490@MW2PR00MB0396.namprd00.prod.outlook.com> <12503.1552447661@localhost> <58E37DB5-098C-4387-9A52-4AECD0F69F25@island-resort.com> <6495.1553219901@dooku.sandelman.ca> <BA6E28A7-0F6A-46A8-AB1B-A64B9229F149@intel.com> <507.1553725386@dooku.sandelman.ca> <24C0968B-32B0-4EF1-99C8-61D3F0955BA1@intel.com> <793F9A34-050F-4914-AF4B-08C072730A06@island-resort.com> <D8C23800.D851F%carl@redhoundsoftware.com> <19652.1553943890@dooku.sandelman.ca> <D8C50A67.D8999%carl@redhoundsoftware.com> <79ccb2d7-09a3-913d-f47d-1e702a23b341@gmail.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: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 14:15:52 -0400
Message-ID: <29183.1560536152@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/sOfBY0Rb7pBW7_rybTWYxs05-kQ>
Subject: Re: [Rats] More use cases for draft-richardson-rats-usecases-00
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: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 18:15:58 -0000

Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> Makes sense to me to capture current artifacts. Maybe in an appendix
    >> to the use cases draft.

    > For completeness you should consider mentioning that there are two
    > quite different platform attestation concepts: - Static: FIDO, Android,
    > and current TEEP architecture - Session based: Used by some smart card
    > schemes and SKS/KeyGen2
    > (https://github.com/ietf-teep/architecture/issues/52)

I have added the following text.
I read through the link above, and I found it really interesting, but I
wasn't really sure if I could pin down some clear details about
session attestions.

Are there things that could never be in one category or another?

----

Platform attestions generally come in two categories. This document will
attempt to indicate for a particular attestion technology falls into this.

## Static attestions

A static attestion says something about the platform on which the code is
running.

## Session attestions

A session attestion says something about how the shared session key was
created.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email