| Internet-Draft | unprotected-evidence | December 2024 |
| Usama Sardar | Expires 23 June 2025 | [Page] |
This document provides corrections to RFC9334.¶
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.¶
Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-usama-rats-unprotected-evidence/.¶
Discussion of this document takes place on the RATS Working Group mailing list (mailto:rats@ietf.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rats/. Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats/.¶
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/muhammad-usama-sardar/rats-unprotected-evidence.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 23 June 2025.¶
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
RFC9334 presents the RATS architecture. However, some parts of the specification contain errors that may lead to misinterpretations and even insecure implementations. This document provides corrections to RFC9334.¶
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
Section 7.4 of [RFC9334] has:¶
A conveyance protocol that provides authentication and integrity protection can be used to convey Evidence that is otherwise unprotected (e.g., not signed).¶
Using a conveyance protocol that provides authentication and integrity protection, such as TLS 1.3 [RFC8446], to convey Evidence that is otherwise unprotected (e.g., not signed) undermines all security of remote attestation. Essentially, this breaks up the chain up to the root of trust. Effectively, remote attestation provides no protection in this case and the security guarantees are limited to those of the conveyance protocol only. In order to benefit from remote attestation, it is recommended that Evidence MUST be protected using dedicated keys chaining back to the root of trust.¶
All of this document is about security considerations.¶
This document has no IANA actions.¶