[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-rats-tpm-based-network-device-attest-10

Shawn Emery via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 17 January 2022 06:28 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 583EF3A1682; Sun, 16 Jan 2022 22:28:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Shawn Emery via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-rats-tpm-based-network-device-attest.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, rats@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.42.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <164240088328.6619.12204886087695557980@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Shawn Emery <shawn.emery@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2022 22:28:03 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/BpAV4qT-bkXkWM0blM7d3-6RXrw>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-rats-tpm-based-network-device-attest-10
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 06:28:04 -0000

Reviewer: Shawn Emery
Review result: Has Nits

Reviewer: Shawn Emery
Review result: Ready with nits

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors.
 Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other
last call comments.

This draft specifies a system for secure network device attestation between a
verifier and attester (i.e. network device - hardware and software).  This
protocol utilizes TPMs for signing attestation data and Device IDentity (DevID)
from the device.

A privacy considerations section does exist and describes which information
would be considered sensitive, for example, log records that could disclose
software versions which could be used by an attacker for any known
vulnerability with said version(s).

The security considerations section exists and describes the various possible
ways in attacking the system.  I believe this section comprehensively accounts
for the multitude of attacks and covers the reasonable limitations of defending
against said attacks (e.g. device compromise, swapping in TPMs, etc.).

General comments:

Thank you for the privacy considerations section.

Editorial comments:

s/of an network/of a network/
s/likely be/likely to be/
s/as specified in [RFC8572])/(as specified in [RFC8572])/
s/mechanism couple with/mechanism coupled with/
s/[I-D.ietf-sacm-coswid], [RIM]))/([I-D.ietf-sacm-coswid], [RIM])/