Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote:
> The manufacturer-going-out-of-business use case argues for there being
> a way that a person with physical access to the unit can re-key it
> without contacting the manufacturer. It also argues for open source,
> but that's out of scope. :)The authors think that having the box rekeyed is a feature that some manufacturers will provide, and some buyers will **insist** upon. It has to be difficult, and in some cases, physical access may be too insecure! It's not much different than handing an (sometimes encrypted) QIC-tape/CD/DVD containing source code over to an escrow lawyer, something I've regularly done when I've worked on products with proprietary stacks. We will see such things being discussed when we do the security review for SUIT as well. Being able to replace the manufacturer trust anchors for firmware, and the trust anchor for validating ownership vouchers will become a checkmark feature. Any company can become Nortel. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
