Credentials Roadmap STIR WG IETF 90 (Toronto) Sean Turner

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Chapter 14 – Authentication Applications
Advertisements

Authentication Applications. will consider authentication functions will consider authentication functions developed to support application-level authentication.
Rfc4474bis-01 IETF 89 (London) STIR WG Jon & Cullen.
Cryptography and Network Security Third Edition by William Stallings Lecture slides by Lawrie Brown.
Extended Validation Models in PKI Alternatives and Implications Marc Branchaud John Linn
1 © 2005 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Confidential Session Number Presentation_ID STUN, TURN and ICE Cary Fitzgerald.
Cryptography and Network Security Third Edition by William Stallings Lecture slides by Lawrie Brown.
CSCE 715: Network Systems Security Chin-Tser Huang University of South Carolina.
Access Control Methodologies
STIR Credentials IETF 88 (Vancouver) Wednesday Session Jon & Hadriel.
WAP Public Key Infrastructure CSCI – Independent Study Fall 2002 Jaleel Syed Presentation No 5.
16.1 © 2004 Pearson Education, Inc. Exam Planning, Implementing, and Maintaining a Microsoft® Windows® Server 2003 Active Directory Infrastructure.
Interoperation Between a Conventional PKI and an ID-Based Infrastructure Geraint Price Royal Holloway University of London joint work with Chris Mitchell.
November 1, 2006Sarah Wahl / Graduate Student UCCS1 Public Key Infrastructure By Sarah Wahl.
Resource Certificate Profile SIDR WG Meeting IETF 66, July 2006 draft-ietf-sidr-res-certs-01 Geoff Huston Rob Loomans George Michaelson.
Identity in SIP (and in-band) STIR BoF Berlin, DE 7/30/2013.
Location Hiding: Problem Statement, Requirements, (and Solutions?) Richard Barnes IETF 71, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
1 SIP WG meeting 73rd IETF - Minneapolis, MN, USA November, 2008 Return Routability Check draft-kuthan-sip-derive-00 Jiri
Authorization architecture sketches draft-selander-core-access-control-02 draft-gerdes-core-dcaf-authorize-02 draft-seitz-ace-design-considerations-00.
IDENTITY MANAGEMENT Hoang Huu Hanh (PhD), OST – Hue University hanh-at-hueuni.edu.vn.
Trust Anchor Management Problem Statement 69 th IETF Trust Anchor Management BOF Carl Wallace.
NENA Development Conference | October 2014 | Orlando, Florida Security Certificates Between i3 ESInet’s and FE’s Nate Wilcox Emergicom, LLC Brian Rosen.
draft-kwatsen-netconf-zerotouch-01
ENUM Update for voipeer BOF Richard Shockey ENUM co-chair IETF 63 Paris.
Industry Canada 1 Bob Leafloor Colman Ho Peter Chau Industry Canada January 2003 (ENUM) T E lephone NU mber M apping.
Public Key Infrastructure (X509 PKI) Presented by : Ali Fanian.
STIR Charter (discussion) STIR BoF Berlin, DE 7/30/2013.
XMPP Concrete Implementation Updates: 1. Why XMPP 2 »XMPP protocol provides capabilities that allows realization of the NHIN Direct. Simple – Built on.
HEPKI-PAG Policy Activities Group David L. Wasley University of California.
IEEE MEDIA INDEPENDENT HANDOVER DCN: MuGM Title: TGd Message Signing Proposal Date Submitted: Presented at IEEE d session.
1 Is DNSSEC a Burden? Thus far, DNSSEC adoption has been slow –In part, immaturity of the standards has been a past issue –Many trials, and some signed.
sec1 IEEE MEDIA INDEPENDENT HANDOVER DCN: sec Title: TGa_Proposal_Antonio_Izquierdo (Protecting the Information Service.
XCON WG IETF-73 Meeting Instant Messaging Sessions with a Centralized Conferencing (XCON) System draft-boulton-xcon-session-chat-02 Authors: Chris Boulton.
Certificate Credentials STIR WG IETF 91 (Honolulu) Sean Jon.
Public Key Infrastructure (X509 PKI) Presented by : Ali Fanian
STIR Problem Statement IETF 88 (Vancouver) Tuesday Session Jon Peterson.
S/MIME and Certs Cullen Jennings
BGPSEC Router Key Roll-over draft-rogaglia-sidr-bgpsec-rollover-00 Roque Gagliano Keyur Patel Brian Weis.
Delegation and Proxy Services in Digital Credential Environments Carlisle Adams School of Information Technology and Engineering University of Ottawa.
SAML FTF #4 Workitems Bob Blakley. SAML “SenderVouches” SubjectConfirmation Method: A Proposed Alternative to Bindings 0.5 Proposals.
Peering: A Minimalist Approach Rohan Mahy IETF 66 — Speermint WG.
Cryptography and Network Security Chapter 14 Fourth Edition by William Stallings Lecture slides by Lawrie Brown.
Rfc4474bis-01 IETF 90 (Toronto) STIR WG Jon. First principles (yet again) Separating the work into two buckets: 1) Signaling – What fields are signed,
1 IETF 88 (Vancouver) November 6, 2013 Cullen Jennings V3.
National Computational Science National Center for Supercomputing Applications National Computational Science GSI Online Credential Retrieval Requirements.
Security fundamentals Topic 5 Using a Public Key Infrastructure.
X.509 Proxy Certificates for Dynamic Delegation Ian Foster, Jarek Gawor, Carl Kesselman, Sam Meder, Olle Mulmo, Laura Perlman, Frank Siebenlist, Steven.
Rfc4474bis-03 IETF 92 (Texas) STIR WG Jon. First principles (yet again) Separating the work into two buckets: 1) Signaling – What fields are signed, signer/verifier.
User Authentication  fundamental security building block basis of access control & user accountability  is the process of verifying an identity claimed.
AuthZ WG Conceptual Grid Authorization Framework document Presentation of Chapter 2 GGF8 Seattle June 25th 2003 Document AID 222 draft-ggf-authz-framework pdf.
Draft-peterson-modern- problems-04 Jon Peterson MODERN WG IETF 95 (Buenos Aires)
Prof. Reuven Aviv, Nov 2013 Public Key Infrastructure1 Prof. Reuven Aviv Tel Hai Academic College Department of Computer Science Public Key Infrastructure.
draft-rescorla-fallback-01
TN Proof-of-Possession and Number Portability
TeRI and the MODERN Framework
Trust Anchor Management Problem Statement
ECRIT Interim: SIP Location Conveyance
Cryptography and Network Security
The Domain Policy DDDS Application
Chris Wendt, David Hancock (Comcast)
Verstat Related Best Practices
RFC PASSporT Construction 6.2 Verifier Behavior
RFC PASSporT Construction 6.2 Verifier Behavior
Doug Bellows – Inteliquent 10/4/2018
Resource Certificate Profile SIDR WG Meeting IETF 66, July 2006
IPNNI SHAKEN Enterprise Models: LEMON TWIST
STIR Certificate delegation
Calling Party Identity
Enterprise Use Cases and A-Level Attestation
Enterprise Use Cases and A-Level Attestation
Presentation transcript:

Credentials Roadmap STIR WG IETF 90 (Toronto) Sean Turner

The Path Forward Signaling protocol is coming along – But for credentials, we have big choices Two concrete proposals to date: – draft-kaplan-stir-cider – draft-peterson-stir-certificates – Both -00s. Read either? (show of hands) Are going to choose between them? – Possible to proceed with both – Signing mechanism designed to be agnostic However, that would require compatible keying

draft-peterson-stir-certificates-00 Attempt to provide a certificate-based STIR credential system – Still a lot to fill in, but this is the high-level idea Defines attributes for telephones numbers and number ranges Defines ways of acquiring the certs – Largely follows the Identity-Info paradigm Sketches techniques for real-time cert validation

draft-kaplan-stir-cider-00 (trying to characterize this fairly, not mine) DNS based approach – Creates an ENUM-like tree – Designed for ease of discovery, lightweight retrieval – Also reuses existing ENUM stacks Some modifications required Keys for each number – Potentially multiple keys per number

How to choose? There is basis for comparison – Key uniqueness (multiple keys per TN?) – Enrollment mechanisms (“golden root”?) – Credential acquisition (which protocol(s)?) – Rollover, expiry (easier with one or the other?) – Public or private credentials (requirement?) – Delegation (including partial delegation) Other important considerations? Do these give us enough to make a decision?

Choices or Hums Do we have consensus to do one, or both? – Or do we need another choice? Possible to skin either of these cats differently If not, what’s our path to get there? (detailed issues follow, time permitting)

DETAILED ISSUES

Which credentials do verifiers need? Can we uniquely identify the needed credential based on TN alone? – Depends on how many authorities there are How many authorities and delegates per number? – Some kind of hint needed to disambiguate Identity-Info CIDER “public key index value”

Enrollment Document assumes a threefold method – Direct assignment From numbering authorities, regulators, etc. – Delegation from above From other number holders – Proof of possession Last time here, we had “no opposition” to going forward with that Is there a “golden root”

Verifier Credential Acquisition Different methods of acquiring certs – Push (e.g., credential arrives with a SIP request) MIME multipart body – Pull (e.g., verifier acquires credential on receipt of request) Either dereferencing Identity-Info URI DNS: or creating a fetch based on the originating number – For certs, current recommendation is to use EST (RFC7030) – Prefetch (verifier gets top 500 keys) with pull SIP SUBSCRIBE/NOTIFY mentioned in the text – Others? Probably – no need to choose one (but MTI?) DANE? If you there’s a DNS tree…

Expiry, Revocation and Rollover All credentials will have a lifetime – Ordinary rollover Sometimes keys will be compromised before their expiry – But telephone numbers change owners, get ported, transfer normally Some sort of real-time checking required – DNS gets this for free (presuming no caching) – For certs, pull method could encompass this check As could the prefetch – OCSP checks, but adds some overhead More investigation to be done here

Open Issue: Handling Ranges But some entities will have authority over multiple numbers – Administrative domains could control millions of numbers In non-continuous ranges – Includes service providers, enterprises, resellers, etc. Ideally, a service provider should not have to have one credential per number – The draft contains new syntax for number ranges

Open Issue: Partial Delegation Authority over numbers conflates many powers Should it be possible to delegate authority over services? – e.g., my SMS provider can sign my texts (MESSAGE), but my voice provider signs my INVITEs Yes, example is kind of contrived Can I give my SMS provider a text-specific cert that would not enable to them to sign voice calls? Too complex? Do we need this?

Open Issue: Private Key Provisioning How do signers acquire and manage private keys? – Self-generated and provisioned at the authority? – Generated by the authority and downloaded to devices? Intermediaries and enterprises – Provision keys for number blocks, sign on behalf of calls/texts passing by – May possess many keys What’s the right tool to accomplish this?

Open Issue: Public or Confidential Credentials? How much information are we willing to make public? – Should credentials advertise a subject (e.g., “AT&T”) Okay when a call is received to know the originating carrier? – Receiving user vs. receiving carrier may be different More seriously, can an attacker mine a public database to reveal who owns all numbers? – Will we introduce VIPR-like privacy leaks? Can we restrict access to the credentials? – Identity-Info, say, could have short lived, unguessable URLs – How important is endpoint verification? Does trust become transitive if endpoints rely on intermediary verifiers?