Re: [Secdispatch] [lamps] IDevID considerations document to secdispatch

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 21 July 2020 23:18 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 F006B3A07C3; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:18:30 -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=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 yiepH0MgHb65; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:18:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAAE33A07C2; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4790438A1F; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:58:01 -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 k0uEc6jR9jLN; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:58:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C66B3899F; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:57:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 276EEA8; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 19:18:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Brockhaus, Hendrik" <hendrik.brockhaus@siemens.com>, "secdispatch@ietf.org" <secdispatch@ietf.org>, "spasm@ietf.org" <spasm@ietf.org>, Tomas Gustavsson <tomas.gustavsson@primekey.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR10MB2402FCE1BA25F3AB06F52282FE6E0@AM0PR10MB2402.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <159176190855.9169.7350787463977998504@ietfa.amsl.com> <10463.1591763623@localhost> <13107.1591804306@localhost> <f7cdd360-7ab7-28f6-86b9-9f8c4ae04aaf@primekey.com> <5843.1591897975@localhost> <092308c1-dc44-4989-e3a5-1a248a3c361e@primekey.com> <20595.1593377487@localhost> <AM0PR10MB2402FCE1BA25F3AB06F52282FE6E0@AM0PR10MB2402.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.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: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 19:18:25 -0400
Message-ID: <19437.1595373505@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/vXrKgXMpsH3SSUdZCqR9OjWvd20>
Subject: Re: [Secdispatch] [lamps] IDevID considerations document to secdispatch
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: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 23:18:31 -0000

Brockhaus, Hendrik <hendrik.brockhaus@siemens.com> wrote:
    >> In particular, the self-generated (_invivo_) key suffers because the device
    >> needs to do a write/read operation from the infrastructure.  That involves the
    >> highest possible latency for interaction with the CA and therefore would slow
    >> the assembly line the most.

    > We make use of the key-pair generated on the fly on the device and do
    > not see major delay on the manufacturing line due to CA communication.

I hear this complaint as heresay, and I have yet to hear it directly from
someone who would know.  They always seem two or three layers of indirection
away.  I would be very happy to kill this issue as a non-issue.
I'm aware of a major VoIP phone supplier whose CA is on a different
continent, and it's not an issue.

    > Finally it is a question of how you arrange your manufacturing
    > procedures. If you experience delay due to waiting for the certificate
    > delivery, you can do other meaningful things in the meantime.

yes, that's certainly true, but it also take some interactions among
different layers.

    >> The invitro and shared-secret methods allows the infrastructure to generate a
    >> few keys in advance (and get them signed, assigning DN-serialNumber at the
    >> same time), and then injecting that key via JTAG at the same time as the
    >> firmware.  This overlaps the CA interaction with other steps.

    > Finally this method puts higher security burden on the manufacturing
    > infrastructure to securely handle the pre-generated key pairs. This is
    > why I do not like it, but sometimes it is needed.

The -02 version of the document cites:
              "Factoring RSA keys from certified smart cards:
              Coppersmith in the wild", September 2013,
              <https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/204886987.pdf>.

for a story of not-quite-random-enough issues!

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-