Re: [lamps] On the need for standardization of software-based interoperable private keys [was: Re: draft-ietf-lamps-samples: PKCS12 expertise needed (including objects for comparison)]

[Carl Wallace <[e-mail]>]

Of course. We have a potpourri of certificate enrollment protocols at our disposal. 

 

Dear Carl,

 

Even in this case you have to implement some sort of bootstrapping on the new device...

 

On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 2:52 PM Carl Wallace <[e-mail]> wrote:

Given everyone has a hardware crypto module in their pocket these days and setting aside key escrow concerns, another way to get at this would be to encrypt for more than one key and forego exporting and sharing keys. That might not even require new protocol work but just better use of what we have now.

 

From: Spasm <[e-mail]> on behalf of Tomas Gustavsson <tomas.gustavsson=[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 8:45 AM
To: Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[e-mail]>, LAMPS WG <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [lamps] On the need for standardization of software-based interoperable private keys [was: Re: draft-ietf-lamps-samples: PKCS12 expertise needed (including objects for comparison)]

 

I have dreamt for a long time that there would be an interoperable data exchange format for keys and certificates (think Token/HSM backup/restore). Something more efficient and user friendly than individual PKCS#8 and PEM files. I think it potentially could advance things that is imho held back by lack of interoperability and lock-in. Whether applications would adopt is a good question however. I don't represent a token vendor, just a user who think I see a benefit, so...

 

Cheers,

Tomas

From: Spasm <[e-mail]> on behalf of Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, August 5, 2021 2:33 PM
To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[e-mail]>; LAMPS WG <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [lamps] On the need for standardization of software-based interoperable private keys [was: Re: draft-ietf-lamps-samples: PKCS12 expertise needed (including objects for comparison)] 

 

CAUTION: External Sender - Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Please email [e-mail] with any questions.


Hiya,

On 05/08/2021 13:17, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> I sympathize with the grumbling about it, but I'd hope that the experts
> in the IETF LAMPS WG can at least come to a consensus that there is
> value in standardizing interop for decryption-capable private keys.

We tried that before [1] but it might be worth
another shot. The previous attempt got wrapped
up in a then-fashionable transport that never
really took off and was also affected by now-
expired IPR.

That'd need to be a separate WG though. Not
sure if it'd be better scoped to mail or to be
more broad.

I think the critical question, then as now, is
whether or not applications would adopt.

Cheers,
S.

[1] https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fwg%2Fsacred%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%7Ctomas.gustavsson%40primekey.com%7C9f66bfa597fd4ceb346c08d9580d4501%7Cc9ed4b459f70418aaa58f04c80848ca9%7C0%7C0%7C637637636287867009%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=2D43V9LfLHXtkzRWZnAfF0HlLSOySFTWHKyldxE3moc%3D&amp;reserved=0

_______________________________________________ Spasm mailing list [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm 

_______________________________________________
Spasm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm


 

-- 

SY, Dmitry Belyavsky