Hi Jim, you are essentially proposing that we should not directly use the key id that is in the CWT-PoP but rather use it as input in a key derivation function. The details of that key derivation function are specified outside the CWT-POP document and most likely in the context of the various profiles. Your proposals below suggest to use, among other things, the session key as input to that function. That sounds pretty straight forward but raises the question why we fail to trust the implementer to create random key ids but then still trust them to create random keys.
That's fine for me nevertheless. Ciao Hannes -----Original Message----- From: Jim Schaad [mailto:i...@augustcellars.com] Sent: 24 June 2018 10:15 To: 'Benjamin Kaduk'; 'Mike Jones' Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possess...@ietf.org; ace@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Ace] Key IDs ... RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-02 Thinking things through, I would be more comfortable with something like the following: 1. Create a confirmation called 'computed key id'. This has two basic values: What is the computation method? What is the proof value? You can optionally have an unprotected KID value used to filter the set of keys on the RS down to a reasonable set to enumerate (hopefully one). 2. For RPK and TLS: Define a method called hash of SPKI which has a hash method as a parameter. Given that this can be computed independently by all entities based on a Public Key value and it will be unique then you have a key identifier that will not have collisions independent of who issues the CWT. 3. For PSK and TLS: Define a method which takes some parameters including the key value, the CWT issuer identity and perhaps some random string and compute a proof of possession value on the PSK. 4. For PSK and OSCORE: Define a similar method the question would be what the key value is to be used but that can be defined as part of OSCORE When using the keys for TLS For RPK the key is carried in the handshake and the server/client can generate the computed key id and compare it to what the AS distributed. The server can identify which CWTs are applicable by either comparison of the RPKs or the computed key id. This means you have a high probability that you will not make a mistake and match to the wrong key. For PSK the identifier is carried in the handshake which is used to look up a key value and the handshake is performed. By matching computed key ids with the secret value one can ensure to a high probably that only CWTs that reference the same secret are going to be used for permissions even if they come from different AS entities. For OSCORE it is similar, the identifier is used to look up a key value and by decrypting the CWT the key value is proofed. You then match computed key ids in the same manner. If you really want to have something that is not cryptographically computed and point to something else, then it makes more sense to me to reference a CWT issued by the same entity and say "use the same conformation method as this CWT does". jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu> > Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2018 11:30 PM > To: Mike Jones <michael.jo...@microsoft.com> > Cc: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofe...@arm.com>; Jim Schaad > <i...@augustcellars.com>; draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possess...@ietf.org; > ace@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Ace] Key IDs ... RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of- > possession-02 > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 08:48:35PM +0000, Mike Jones wrote: > > See my note just now proposing this text to Jim: > > > > "Likewise, if PoP keys are used for multiple different kinds of CWTs in an > application and the PoP keys are identified by Key IDs, care must be taken to > keep the keys for the different kinds of CWTs segregated so that an attacker > cannot cause the wrong PoP key to be used by using a valid Key ID for the > wrong kind of CWT." > > > > As long as the PoP keys for different contexts are kept segregated, Key ID > collisions or reuse cause no problems. > > If we trust everyone to implement things properly. We should probably only > take that risk if we get some other benefit from it, though. Jim mentioned > (off-list?) a scenario involving giving the same client additional privileges, and > of course we can gain some simplicity savings if we don't need to enforce > global key-id uniqueness (for appropriate values of "global"). So this may > well be the right thing to do; I just don't think it's without tradeoffs as your > text seems to imply. > > -Ben 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. _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
