IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rats] security-level claim (was Re: WGLC for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rats-eat)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 03 June 2022 23:03 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 853D9C14F72C for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 16:03:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QCRC8b1i-X4W for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 16:03:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97DADC14F6E7 for <rats@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 16:03:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2513399E3; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 19:18:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 5qnnQLKetFjN; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 19:18:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [172.30.2.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF1A6399E0; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 19:18:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4574B1CC; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 19:03:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Giridhar Mandyam <mandyam@qti.qualcomm.com>, "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <SJ0PR02MB8353F45B4569872BA596A23981A19@SJ0PR02MB8353.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <45618431-7329-4F31-941F-A39BBC9D575F@cisco.com> <BYAPR11MB3125EB2DEC4CE5136AC903F9A1DF9@BYAPR11MB3125.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <7FD4FE54-7A16-4E92-BDDC-878D726095E6@island-resort.com> <900bf8d8-0b00-cc98-fd82-786dc9c18901@sit.fraunhofer.de> <SJ0PR02MB8353B7216358275E4BF3923081DF9@SJ0PR02MB8353.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <AB42EABD-FE7A-4DF0-8909-A6D304E292C5@intel.com> <BL0PR11MB3122AA0245129AAB021F0E5DA1DE9@BL0PR11MB3122.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <c98b992b-5efb-d46f-81d5-d3711941dbb9@sit.fraunhofer.de> <B2C05847-4A5C-4179-AE00-A5F9BACC5121@island-resort.com> <PH0PR02MB725621CB633C322367FD4935F2DE9@PH0PR02MB7256.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <SJ0PR02MB83536AE654BEDBAE653F803381DE9@SJ0PR02MB8353.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <C0C0C756-214C-43C8-8EE2-AD4CFF71C0A0@intel.com> <SJ0PR02MB8353CC2F1A9D2BC089F6BBBD81A19@SJ0PR02MB8353.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <C448C94A-72A2-4C9E-A932-E44EE3E29738@intel.com> <SJ0PR02MB8353F45B4569872BA596A23981A19@SJ0PR02MB8353.namprd02.prod.outlook. com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 27.1
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-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2022 19:03:41 -0400
Message-ID: <25447.1654297421@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/zjUn4kxFqPZdu4vcN0cP-RppG3k>
Subject: Re: [Rats] security-level claim (was Re: WGLC for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rats-eat)
X-BeenThere: rats@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 03 Jun 2022 23:03:44 -0000

Giridhar Mandyam <mandyam@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
    > If the TPM attestation carries such information in its evidence, I
    > would state that it MAPS to sec level 3
    > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rats-eat#section-4.2.8).

    > The above clearly identifies this information as evidence – not an
    > endorsement.

You wrote "MAPS" (I uppercased it), so this is a *conclusion* (attestation
result) made by the Verifier, not by the Attester.
This is fundamentally the problem most of us have with this claim.

I don't think security-level is a useful thing.
I think that we'll have multiple month delays due to reviews about this.

If you don't mind that, then let's go ahead with this.
Or, move this claim to a new document.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email