Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarification regarding Data Protection #225

Closed
hannestschofenig opened this issue Mar 25, 2021 · 4 comments
Closed

Clarification regarding Data Protection #225

hannestschofenig opened this issue Mar 25, 2021 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
ready to close Ready for WG chairs to verify and close

Comments

@hannestschofenig
Copy link
Collaborator

The protocol between TEEP Agents and TAMs similarly is responsible
for securely providing integrity and confidentiality protection
against adversaries between them. Since the transport protocol under
the TEEP protocol might be implemented outside a TEE, as discussed in
Section 6, it cannot be relied upon for sufficient protection. The
TEEP protocol provides integrity protection, but confidentiality must
be provided by payload encryption, i.e., using encrypted TA binaries
and encrypted attestation information. See [I-D.ietf-teep-protocol]
for more discussion.

Re-work the text to clarify that this is a design choice whether to terminate TLS inside the TEE or outside. Different solutions have taken a different approach here and the architecture should be agnostic to it.

@dthaler
Copy link
Collaborator

dthaler commented Jul 10, 2021

What is the issue? The text says "might be implemented outside a TEE" so it already implies it's a design choice.
Hence to me it's already clear enough and agnostic to it.

Also, as an aside, that paragraph is transport protocol agnostic, so if there were a binding over something other than TLS (e.g., DTLS or OPC UA's security protocol) it would still be correct.

I'd propose resolving this as wont fix.

@hannestschofenig
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Here is my proposal: #229

@hannestschofenig
Copy link
Collaborator Author

The issue is that I see others coming with different solutions that fit the same architectural description and problem statement.

Reading through the draft I noticed that there are a few places where we go the step from the architecture to the solution details. This is not really necessary and hence I wanted to make it a bit more generic

@dthaler dthaler added fixed in editors copy ready to close Ready for WG chairs to verify and close and removed fixed in editors copy labels Jul 12, 2021
@dthaler
Copy link
Collaborator

dthaler commented Jul 12, 2021

Fixed in draft -15

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ready to close Ready for WG chairs to verify and close
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants