RATS Working Group M. Usama Sardar Internet-Draft TU Dresden Updates: 9334 (if approved) 20 December 2024 Intended status: Informational Expires: 23 June 2025 Using Conveyance Protocol for Unprotected Evidence in RATS Architecture draft-usama-rats-unprotected-evidence-latest Abstract This document provides corrections to RFC9334. About This Document 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. Status of This Memo 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 Notice 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. Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Conventions and Definitions 3. Corrections 4. Security Considerations 5. IANA Considerations 6. References 6.1. Normative References 6.2. Informative References Author's Address 1. Introduction 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. 2. Conventions and Definitions 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. 3. Corrections 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. 4. Security Considerations All of this document is about security considerations. 5. IANA Considerations This document has no IANA actions. 6. References 6.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC9334] Birkholz, H., Thaler, D., Richardson, M., Smith, N., and W. Pan, "Remote ATtestation procedureS (RATS) Architecture", RFC 9334, DOI 10.17487/RFC9334, January 2023, . 6.2. Informative References [RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018, . Author's Address Muhammad Usama Sardar TU Dresden Email: muhammad_usama.sardar@tu-dresden.de