IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Suit] suit-firmware-encryption-00

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 27 May 2021 19:40 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: suit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: suit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9A2E3A0AF9 for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 May 2021 12:40:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 g0C9tSyFRK7M for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 May 2021 12:40:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94E4A3A0AF7 for <suit@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 May 2021 12:40:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 007BC300BA3 for <suit@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 May 2021 15:40:51 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id TnR5q2PBGjVP for <suit@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 May 2021 15:40:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-141-156-161-153.washdc.fios.verizon.net [141.156.161.153]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 408F6300AEF; Thu, 27 May 2021 15:40:46 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.20\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <19586.1622075797@localhost>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 15:40:46 -0400
Cc: suit@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2A8B7C9F-487D-4F90-A3BC-DF2FC3C4D21D@vigilsec.com>
References: <19586.1622075797@localhost>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.20)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/suit/K8I01Igjb-TGDxg_v1UXG_uMcS0>
Subject: Re: [Suit] suit-firmware-encryption-00
X-BeenThere: suit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Software Updates for Internet of Things <suit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/suit>, <mailto:suit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/suit/>
List-Post: <mailto:suit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:suit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/suit>, <mailto:suit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 19:40:56 -0000

Michael:

Just responding th one of your comments.

> 3) Are the terms CEK and KEK from RFC3394?  I didn't find it there.
>   I wonder how they play out as acronyms in languages without a soft-C
>   sound... where both come out as "kay eh kay" (CEK) and "kay eh kay" (KEK)...
>   It's bad enough in DNSSEC with Zee Ess Kay vs Zed Ess Kay...

CEK = content-encryption key, which is defined in PKCS#7 and CMS.  I think the first uses are in RFC 2630 and RFC 2631.

KEK - key-encryption key, which is used in thoses same RFCs, but it was also used as early as RFC 1949.

Russ

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email