[Secdispatch] some more comments received on Re: richardson-secdispatch-idevid-considerations
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 26 August 2020 23:50 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 750B73A0B94 for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 16:50:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 eWgcnhBMePGm for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 16:50:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C09E83A0B92 for <secdispatch@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 16:50:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86DC1389A5; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 19:29:54 -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 xYrkAayLlZzj; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 19:29:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AAF33899F; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 19:29:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86C95476; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 19:50:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: secdispatch@ietf.org, t2trg@irtf.org
Reply-To: t2trg@irtf.org
In-Reply-To: <8D7A3382-FB95-485D-BD77-E66FE17E429B@island-resort.com>
References: <7115.1595643186@localhost> <8D7A3382-FB95-485D-BD77-E66FE17E429B@island-resort.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
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: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 19:50:50 -0400
Message-ID: <6419.1598485850@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/t4nBrdusmnPoLh2OKguCO7tZJZ0>
Subject: [Secdispatch] some more comments received on Re: richardson-secdispatch-idevid-considerations
X-BeenThere: secdispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Dispatch <secdispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdispatch>, <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdispatch>, <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 23:50:57 -0000
Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com> wrote: > I think there is an enormous difference between these two: > 1) Trust Anchor where public key is in the device > - Code signature verification > - Trusted / secured / xxx boot > 2) Trust Anchor where private key is in the device > - RATS / EAT > - IDevID > - (also DRM) Absolutely. 1) => TRUST ANCHOR 2) => ROOT OF TRUST I'm not keen on the second term, as it confuses many. I would love another term that is less TCG/RATS specific. > I’m not sure I’d even call the second one a trust anchor or the RFC > 4949’s definition of trust anchor aligns with it. At Qualcomm we called > the second one “key provisioning”. I never tried to call them both trust anchors! If I did, please tell me where, so I can correct it. But, I want to note that *BOTH* involve the manufactuer maintaining some kind of PKI (whether it's RFC5280/PKIX based, or CWT/EAT based, or OpenPGP) to sign the public key part. For IDevID, the infrastructure needs to sign the certificate loaded. For code-signing trust-anchors, the infrastructure needs to maintain the signing keys. In both cases, there are keys at the "factory" (or "key provisioning facility" as we wrote this week in the RATS architecture).
-- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [ ] mcr@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
- [Secdispatch] some more comments received on Re: … Michael Richardson