Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-16
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Mon, 01 October 2018 22:44 UTC
Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E242A129619; Mon, 1 Oct 2018 15:44:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-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 Y8rZNIa2OdhD; Mon, 1 Oct 2018 15:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F7D2124C04; Mon, 1 Oct 2018 15:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.rg.net) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1g76vs-0001P4-8M; Mon, 01 Oct 2018 22:44:52 +0000
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2018 15:44:51 -0700
Message-ID: <m2murxi8ws.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Cc: draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra.all@ietf.org, IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org>, anima@ietf.org, Security Directorate <secdir@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <057bd957-06b4-824e-a7c8-214383819621@huitema.net>
References: <153826253306.18743.9250084704876465818@ietfa.amsl.com> <m2sh1qkebi.wl-randy@psg.com> <057bd957-06b4-824e-a7c8-214383819621@huitema.net>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/25.3 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/fa5REqgYWWelXp4eKItdxrcbHWQ>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-16
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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, 01 Oct 2018 22:44:56 -0000
> The "soft fail" happens if devices need to be reset to factory > settings for some reason, then you will have to wait for the > manufacturer's servers to bring them back up. when i sell the lightb^Hrouter to mary, of course i reset to factory settings. > That may be mitigated if the manufacturer provided you with nonceless > vouchers, valid until "time=X", and in particular if the manufacturer > gave you vouchers "good until infinity". In that case, your old > devices could still be reset to factory condition and restarted, > without even "soft fail". dear world: be absolutely sure that, when you buy a lightb^Hrouter, you get a nonceless voucher with an infinite lifetime. before handing them your cash, you can test this by .... right how about the spec says that "the manufacturer MUST accompany the lightb^Hrouter with a nonceless voucher with an infinite lifetime. purchasers who, for whatever reason, with more restricted vouchers may negotiate." >> if the manufacturer's servers go down, either permanently or even for >> a day, can i give/sell the device i have purchased to a third, well >> fourth i guess, party, at my whim and seamlessly unencumbered? > > It depends somewhat on the type of voucher that the manufacturer is > willing to give you, but the short answer is No, you can't. > > If the manufacturer only wants to provide real time vouchers that > incorporate the random nonce issued by the device, then the answer is > very clearly no, you cannot resell the device without approval from the > manufacturer. The voucher in that case acts as a kind of DRM. then i strongly object to the ietf specifying this; c.f. selling guns. > If the manufacturer is willing to issue "good until time=X" vouchers, > then in theory you could provide the voucher to your buyer, provided the > time limit of the voucher has not elapsed. If the manufacturer signs a > voucher "good until infinity", then the device can in theory be sold and > resold forever. But that's probably not true in practice, because the > voucher is written for a specific domain, and includes the certificate > of the domain for which the voucher is good. You may be able to play > games with some kind of certificate chain and make it work, but I will > believe that when I see it. i.e. practically you can not resell something you thought you had bought. baaaaaad. > The BRSKI specification is a tradeoff and that's why I would really > like to see the tradeoff explained in clear terms in the spec. It is > designed to prevent hijacking of the device during its registration in > the buyer's network. if, to actually own a device i bought, i need to manage my own security, then i will take that. > If BRSKI implemented a pure RFC 7030 process, the device might have > to accept to be imprinted by the registrar without having verified to > whom it is talking. In practice that would mean relying on some kind > of physical security, or maybe relying on the kind of trust anchors > commonly used for web services. From the registrar point of view, the > failure mode is that some kind of man-in-the-middle inserts itself > during the registration process, and maintains control of the device > after it is connected to the network. > > The voucher system mitigates that risk, but at the cost of strong > dependency on the manufacturer. As I say, that's a trade-off, and I > could see different buyers having different opinions on that > dependency. In fact, I could see buyers willing to buy devices only > if they permitted "voucher-less" initialization. If the standard > allowed that option, then market forces would quickly define how > valuable the voucher system is. two problems. the buyer will not realize that they just rented the lightb^Hrouter until they go to sell it; way too late to do anything about it. the manufactures have very small incentive to lower drm barriers. i can point to a jillion current examples. my favorite of the week is john deere. randy
- [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-an… Christian Huitema
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Randy Bush
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Michael Richardson
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Michael Richardson
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Christian Huitema
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Eliot Lear
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Randy Bush
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Randy Bush
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Michael Richardson
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Michael Richardson
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Michael Richardson
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Eliot Lear
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Randy Bush
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Eliot Lear
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Randy Bush
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Ted Lemon
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Randy Bush
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Christian Huitema
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Michael Richardson
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Michael Richardson
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Ted Lemon
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Eliot Lear
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Randy Bush
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Ted Lemon
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Michael Richardson
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Randy Bush
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Michael Richardson
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Randy Bush
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Uri Blumenthal
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Michael Richardson
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Eliot Lear
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Michael Richardson
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Michael Richardson
- Re: [secdir] [Anima] Secdir last call review of d… Max Pritikin (pritikin)
- [secdir] dealing with many the secdir and genart … Michael Richardson
- Re: [secdir] [Gen-art] dealing with many the secd… Brian E Carpenter