Subject: [cicm] CICM BOF Summary

From: "Novikov, Lev" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:06:00 -0400

Last week we had a BOF at IETF 81. Thanks to all who attended (in-person
and via Jabber). For those who couldn't make it, a summary:

--- Begin Summary ---
Dan Harkins and Dan Lanz were the BOF Chairs.

Sean Turner and Stephen Farrell are the Security ADs.

Vincent Roca presented slides about using CICM in a
High Assurance, High Performance Security Gateway.
Slides: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/slides/cicm-1.pdf

Lev Novikov presented slides about CICM's logical model and how
security domain separation makes CICM different from other crypto APIs.
Slides: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/slides/cicm-2.pdf

There were several points of discussion:

1. What about existing approaches:
    * Why can't you extend PKCS#11 so that crypto operations like
      encrypt always return TRUE?

      A few reasons were given:
      (a) CICM needs richer semantics (more and different kinds of
          inputs) than what is available in PKCS#11. Previous attempts
          at extending PKCS#11 became a mess.
      (b) Return values can be more complex than just TRUE (e.g., list
          of things that went wrong).

    * What about using an existing protocol as an interface?

      CICM could sit under such a protocol; it is also intended manage
      the crypto (note the large number of management commands), and not
      just the pipe (channel).

    * Which approach, C-style or object-oriented, was intended? The .NET
      crypto classes might be suitable for an object-oriented approach.

      CICM is defined in IDL for which one can generate bindings in many
      different languages including C, C++, Java, etc. We will have to
      investigate the .NET approach further.

  ** There was a request that folks on the list discuss these issues for
     the benefit of the community.

2. The charter is insufficient for a Working Group:

    * It was noted that there could be two goals:
      (a) to produce multi-vendor support for a standard interface
      (b) to introduce these concepts into existing IETF protocols

    * The charter appears to be too detailed; it should focus more
      on outlining the problem scope well.

    * CICM appears to address requirements that are not well explained
      in published documents.

    * How would CICM work with Authenticated Encryption with
      Authenticated Data [RFC 5116], TLS, or IPSEC? What are the
      consequences on other protocols?

The major consequence of these points is that we should re-write the
charter and write documents to address the:
  * larger problem scope
  * logical model (in more generic terms) and requirements
  * impact of this logical model on 2-3 existing protocols
  * details for an corresponding API (e.g., CICM)

--- End Summary ---

More on this to follow.

Lev

---

From: "Kevin W. Wall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:15:17 -0400

Lev,

I think you ought to post this summary to the crypto list
at <[email-masked]>.

-kevin

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Novikov, Lev <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> cicm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cicm
>

-- 
Blog: http://off-the-wall-security.blogspot.com/
"The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree,
is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals.
We *cause* accidents."        -- Nathaniel Borenstein

---

From: jmitola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 08:41:07 -0400

Hi, Lev
   Is NIST working on a CICM-equivalent standard as a follow-on to FIPS 
140-3?
Sorry I could not make IETF 81, but I remain interested in the working 
group's charter and technical work.
joe

-- 
Dr. Joseph Mitola III, Fellow of the IEEE
DoD SERC Director of Special Projects
Distinguished Professor
Vice President for the Research Enterprise
Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken NJ
Cell - 703.314.5709

---

From: "Novikov, Lev" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 09:56:44 -0400

NOTE: Cross-posting from [email-masked] to [email-masked]
(Hat-tip: Kevin Wall)

--- End Summary ---

More on this to follow.

Lev