Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #142 (applicability-home-building): Clarification of secure key distribution

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 03:10:03 -0000

#142: Clarification of secure key distribution

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Comment from Catherine Meadows  -  04/22/2014

 "Section 6.3 looks fine to me, except under secure delivery you should
 still say something about replay protection, e.g.

 Securely delivering a key means that the delivery mechanism MUST have
 data origin authentication, confidentiality and integrity protection, and
 protection against replay."

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |       Owner:  draft-ietf-roll-
  [email-masked]      |  applicability-home-
     Type:  defect                   |  [email-masked]
 Priority:  minor                    |      Status:  new
Component:  applicability-home-      |   Milestone:
  building                           |     Version:
 Severity:  Active WG Document       |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                           |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/142#comment:2>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>

---

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 19:53:40 -0000

Robert Cragie comment - date: 04/23/2014

 <RCC>

 It may seem a moot point but it is not essential for the *delivery
 mechanism* to have replay protection. A key management scheme itself
 clearly has to be able to manage the lifetime of keys including deployment
 and retirement. Therefore, for example, a group key is always associated
 with a key index or sequence number, which is typically part of the
 payload of a secure key update. Therefore, if this were replayed, it would
 implicitly not work as the key index would clearly be for an old key. The
 main reason I say this is because key wrapping schemes (e.g. RFC3394)
 often do not build in replay protection and RFC3394 indeed states the
 following: "This key wrap algorithm needs to provide ample security to
 protect keys in the context of prudently designed key management
 architecture."

 Therefore, I would prefer to add a sentence to the same effect, just not
 to associate it with the delivery mechanism. So I would suggest something
 like:

 "Securely delivering a key means that the delivery mechanism MUST have
 data origin authentication, confidentiality and integrity protection. On
 reception of the delivered key, freshness of the delivered key MUST be
 ensured."

 </RCC>

 Catherine Meadows comment  - 04/24/2014

 <CM> I am fine with all of Robert’s comments.</CM>

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/142#comment:3>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>

---

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 10:15:26 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => fixed

Comment:

 Robert's text inserted in version 3

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |       Owner:  draft-ietf-roll-
  [email-masked]      |  applicability-home-
     Type:  defect                   |  [email-masked]
 Priority:  minor                    |      Status:  closed
Component:  applicability-home-      |   Milestone:
  building                           |     Version:
 Severity:  Active WG Document       |  Resolution:  fixed
 Keywords:                           |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/142#comment:4>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>