Re: [Rats] Android comments on EAT draft

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Shawn Willden <swillden=[e-mail]> wrote:
    > Specifically, EAT is about attesting to a *device* while Keystore
    > Attestation is about attesting to a *key* -- though we also attest to
    > quite

I have include a section in the use case document called "Cryptographic key
Attestion"

    > Another, more tractable, area of difference is that EAT provides Claims
    > for
    > several data items which Android will likely never allow to be attested
    > because of their privacy implications and potential for ecosystem
    > fragmentation (apps choosing which devices they'll run on -- we generally
    > try to deny them the information they'd like to have to make those
    > choices).  These are:

    > - UEID
    > - Origination
    > - Location

Can you say more about location?
Are you saying that Android would never provide a relying party (say, an
open-protocol implementation of Pokemon GO) with where a device is?

    > Some other claims that we have, and think are important, are OS version
    > and
    > patch-level (represented as a date, YYYYMMDD); secure boot verification
    > key
    > digest; secure boot digest (hash of all verified code); application ID (a
    > digest of the requesting app signing key); and secure app version (hmm,
    > don't have a patchlevel, but we should!  I'll see about adding that for
    > R).

These are all intended to be covered under "network attestation", but
now I wonder if that term is mis-leading.

    > Again, my apologies for jumping in late.  Let me know if you think EAT
    > just
    > isn't appropriate for Android.

I'm very happy you will some cycles now!

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-