Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac
Brendan Moran <Brendan.Moran@arm.com> Tue, 05 June 2018 10:05 UTC
Return-Path: <Brendan.Moran@arm.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 B145C130F69 for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 03:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=armh.onmicrosoft.com
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 KiQNtLL1i1WA for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 03:05:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR01-DB5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-db5eur01on0041.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.2.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B93C2130F30 for <suit@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 03:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=armh.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-arm-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=s6Mghar6nC9ZyNQHuSinkNoAwgb9/fVAcorqELuK6uU=; b=AR3oweo44vniwrO0DYKlOBJ2WUERr5g9Uu2xLUB6kI6wOpdDJYHj5nqJW+5MfLBEhg9TA6vkpsJAtkEp9k9FUb6kycbGAJl0FjKkk6BYV7WFci5jqS2Zjz21nzwBioXs4JoHJ6LJbSX0ouDSOaW5delJVQ3w45sz909bx3X6ds0=
Received: from AM4PR0802MB2260.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com (10.172.217.150) by AM4PR0802MB2289.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com (10.172.218.10) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.841.13; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 10:05:05 +0000
Received: from AM4PR0802MB2260.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::15ab:db2e:593b:b5e0]) by AM4PR0802MB2260.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::15ab:db2e:593b:b5e0%4]) with mapi id 15.20.0841.011; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 10:05:05 +0000
From: Brendan Moran <Brendan.Moran@arm.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
CC: "suit@ietf.org" <suit@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac
Thread-Index: AQHT/Bb8ynYYrycVqEW8/gFj26U6OaRQN/OAgAAH6ICAAQGQAA==
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2018 10:05:05 +0000
Message-ID: <4DB5E7CC-0103-4D46-8165-B22944AD72C2@arm.com>
References: <238EC1AC-D898-472D-A951-2AD1438C6004@vigilsec.com> <168ED9F9-15CF-457B-850A-77196D423D08@arm.com> <BF32EDB6-A8A7-4C2E-9F62-3891E59341EE@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <BF32EDB6-A8A7-4C2E-9F62-3891E59341EE@vigilsec.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.8.2)
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Brendan.Moran@arm.com;
x-originating-ip: [217.140.96.140]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM4PR0802MB2289; 7:bPfHwbV7QWYEvaG/4H6Gv3cjWExRLQyYEN5a0mhJN6fcpyx+ugrEDuuaudiXjhFkb+5x4Fiymg4qrcUD3EEN0xNwHVhaHvOoFjnWV0PxX8k27avoZhkcT6LLAKrCG+mMNGYxdti/m8wcKqRuTkSQpDlVLmTwqmoOhPJArvBKGUMj5zVh96Zrnt491RBb9azGN1h56q9pYkjLTK4guWxiko5YelW+mxv0kUAv2l9fET0ngCdEcOfDWeuSVLyzIk8O
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(48565401081)(5600026)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:AM4PR0802MB2289;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM4PR0802MB2289:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <AM4PR0802MB22893DA49863BBA7A7D03650EA660@AM4PR0802MB2289.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(180628864354917);
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(6040522)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001)(93006095)(93001095)(3231254)(944501410)(52105095)(6055026)(149027)(150027)(6041310)(20161123558120)(20161123560045)(20161123564045)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123562045)(6072148)(201708071742011)(7699016); SRVR:AM4PR0802MB2289; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:AM4PR0802MB2289;
x-forefront-prvs: 0694C54398
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(366004)(39380400002)(396003)(376002)(39850400004)(346002)(189003)(199004)(40434004)(53936002)(6436002)(86362001)(6512007)(8936002)(2900100001)(5890100001)(966005)(25786009)(81156014)(6486002)(105586002)(81166006)(36756003)(229853002)(478600001)(5660300001)(476003)(11346002)(2616005)(486006)(4326008)(2906002)(83716003)(50226002)(6246003)(5250100002)(446003)(72206003)(97736004)(6306002)(33656002)(316002)(3846002)(66066001)(6116002)(26005)(186003)(102836004)(59450400001)(53546011)(68736007)(6506007)(76176011)(8676002)(82746002)(106356001)(305945005)(99286004)(14454004)(3280700002)(6916009)(3660700001)(57306001)(7736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:AM4PR0802MB2289; H:AM4PR0802MB2260.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: arm.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: cQsNZ7YCmFPoTpTtgucuDFXn21s4RH9aQMIU9HdLiHrPZ0EeQ3ZGIdprBTte+6AE2lmSzhClvQmimwltIZTJhOOnccr3jA26qpKNgM5154WolPyanhlgegftsXavSSQ4yfs2td+JmiMTEVx/f+lYF9Gm4Ag6J4ijxXWOJ+hH4ROgPwPVtR76YCM6kOxc5+Zv
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <4392D0FF38A4C7479831FC35EAD1B5DA@eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 0ae74325-b8f3-4a71-06a1-08d5cacbcfa4
X-OriginatorOrg: arm.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 0ae74325-b8f3-4a71-06a1-08d5cacbcfa4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Jun 2018 10:05:05.2317 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: f34e5979-57d9-4aaa-ad4d-b122a662184d
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM4PR0802MB2289
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/suit/PUIaxhgp99zlHaQZOOHgPuJOp2U>
Subject: Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac
X-BeenThere: suit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Tue, 05 Jun 2018 10:05:12 -0000
Hi Russ, It depends on the size of the payload. When we’re talking about whole-image updates, it’s completely reasonable, however that won’t always be the case. If we have diff images, they can be quite small, depending on the scope of the change. A 2KiB signature on a 2KiB compressed diff may be a deal-breaker on low-bandwidth networks. Brendan > On 4 Jun 2018, at 17:52, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote: > > Brendan: > > That is a significant key management burden. I would like to explore the assertion that hash-based signatures have too much data overhead. Are you saying that they can buffer the firmware load, but not the signature value? > > Russ > > >> On Jun 4, 2018, at 11:24 AM, Brendan Moran <Brendan.Moran@arm.com> wrote: >> >> This is a solution that is intended to address a segment of devices that cannot use public-key due to code size or processing overhead, and cannot use hash-based signatures due to data overhead. Provided that every device has a unique PSK, COSE_Mac provides adequate security. However, it introduces significant key management overhead. >> >> Thanks, >> Brendan >> >>> On 4 Jun 2018, at 16:16, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote: >>> >>> I am struggling to see a case where COSE_Mac provides acceptable protection. With a MAC, the sender and the recipient must use the same key. This means that any recipient can make a modification and produce a valid MAC for the modified object. >>> >>> With a digital signature, the sender uses a private key, and the recipients use a public key, so the recipients cannot produce modified objects. >>> >>> Why accept this possibility? >>> >>> Russ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Suit mailing list >>> Suit@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/suit >> >> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
- [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac Russ Housley
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac Brendan Moran
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac Russ Housley
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac Koen Zandberg
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac Russ Housley
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac David Brown
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac Derek Atkins
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac Thomas C. Schmidt
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac David Brown
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac Brendan Moran
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac Jim Schaad