Re: [Secdispatch] [Iot-onboarding] DANE IOT proposed outcome

Hi Wei Pan,
The process of bootstrapping the device's identity is outside the scope of
our drafts, but I completely agree that getting the bootstrapping process
right is important. We think that using DANE like this doesn't conflict
with other bootstrapping processes; it just adds a DNS-discoverable public
key to the identity of the device when it is provisioned.

One of the processes we are seeking to simplify is that of establishing
trust directly between devices in the field, both of which may have only
a keypair, and not the benefit of PKI that chains to a publicly trusted CA.
Supporting x.509 certificates is in the interest of providing broad
protocol compatibility (including the support of other adjacent standards
like MUD: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-22.html#mudx509).
By using TLSA for client auth, we allow devices with only a raw public key
in DNS, as well as devices with metadata-rich x.509 certificates, to
mutually authenticate without requiring the distribution of CA
certificates, just based on knowledge of the communicating peer's DNS name.

SIM/UICC identity providers may provision public keys in DNS, and leave a
record of the device's DNS name in the SIM card (likely to be found in the
certificate). This gives the device that receives the SIM card the ability
to do all the things that the PKI ecosystem supports now, with the
additional benefit of being able to mutually authenticate without the other
side of the handshake needing to possess and trust the CA certificate used
to sign the certificate that ships with the SIM card. Naming collisions are
prevented by binding the public key to the DNS name- only the possessor of
the private key corresponding to the TLSA record is the 'real' identity
holder.

In a similar fashion, device manufacturers may provision a DANE identity
for devices before they ship. These device identities may reside in a DNS
zone under the manufacturer's control, or the implementer may present the
device certificates in a DNS zone under the implementer's control. This
allows the identity to more naturally indicate the party responsible for
the device's behavior, and can make the mitigation of some types of network
abuse a little more straightforward.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 8:04 AM Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Wei Pan,
>
> I'll ask Ash (who is more plugged into the IOT ecosystem than I am) to
> confirm .. but yes, our use case expects devices to have IDevID or some
> other preconfigured unique value, so it should be possible to work with
> BRSKI. For the DNS record format naming, we were initially looking at the
> formats defined in draft-friel-pki-for-devices, specifically the LDevID
> organization managed form, but have a slightly simpler form currently
> specified in the draft.
>
> Shumon.
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 7:02 AM Panwei (William) <
> william.panwei@huawei.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks to Eliot for summarizing these.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think the core concept of using DANE in IoT scenario is to get rid of
>> certificates and PKIX. The solution of how to securely onboard the IoT
>> devices and allocate the DNS domain name, both with and without initial
>> certificates, is the key part to figure out.
>>
>> If the IoT devices have no initial certificates, such as 802.1AR IDevID
>> certificate, as their initial identity, then the BRSKI mechanism won’t be
>> appropriate for these devices because BRSKI has a requirement of IDevID.
>>
>> If the IoT devices have an IDevID certificate, I think it can still use
>> BRSKI to onboard, but it won’t use EST to request a certificate any more,
>> instead, it will apply for a DNS domain name by using some protocols.
>>
>>
>>
>> That’s my preliminary thoughts, maybe not right.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards & Thanks!
>>
>> Wei Pan
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Secdispatch [mailto:secdispatch-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Eliot
>> Lear
>> *Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2020 6:55 PM
>> *To:* secdispatch@ietf.org
>> *Subject:* [Secdispatch] DANE IOT proposed outcome
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks to Shumon for presenting the DANE use case for IOT.
>>
>>
>>
>> We discussed taking this to the iot-onboarding@ietf.org list as there
>> were a number of rather big open issues that people wanted to discuss.
>>
>>
>>
>> We also discussed a non-WG forming BOF to look at, as Ted put it, the
>> broader context for onboarding.  To give people a feel for the sort of
>> related work that is available, here are a list of related activities:
>>
>>
>>
>>    - draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra (BRSKI) is a
>>    request/response mechanism that uses RFC 8366 vouchers to introduce devices
>>    and network infrastructure.
>>    - Intel’s SDO provides an application level introduction using
>>    vouchers as well.  This work has been taken up by the FIDO alliance.
>>    - The Wifi Alliance has Device Provisioning Protocol (DPP) which does
>>    not attach to a global name space prior to provisioning having occurred,
>>    but does represent a minimum case (just public keys).
>>    - draft-friel-eap-tls-eap-dpp borrows from DPP, intended mostly for
>>    wired use, where DPP is focused on 802.11 networks.
>>    - There are a number of BRSKI related drafts by Owen as well,
>>    relating to cloud-based registrars.
>>    - There is also work by Michael Richardson and Peter Van Der Stock on
>>    constrained vouchers.  That work is taking place in ACE.
>>
>>
>>
>> Understanding the landscape might help us understand where DANE fits in.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Eliot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Secdispatch mailing list
>> Secdispatch@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdispatch
>>
> --
> Iot-onboarding mailing list
> Iot-onboarding@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-onboarding
>

-- 

*Ash Wilson* | Technical Director
*e:* ash.wilson@valimail.com

This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or
proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s)
authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized
recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or
distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited
and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to
this email and then delete it from your system.