| RE: Strawman -10/EMSK deletion requirement? | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
|
From: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 (Madjid.Nakhjiri |
|
| Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 11:05:20 -0800 (PST) | |
Exactly my point. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: Avi Lior [mailto:avi [at] bridgewatersystems.com] Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 9:09 AM To: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1; Salowey, Joe; Rafa Marin Lopez; Bernard Aboba Cc: eap [at] frascone.com Subject: RE: [eap] Strawman -10/EMSK deletion requirement? Hi Madjid Seems that there a lot of good reasons for keeping EMSK around after it is used to generate AMSKs. Hopefully everyone gets that. > -----Original Message----- > From: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 [mailto:Madjid.Nakhjiri [at] motorola.com] > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 6:21 PM > To: Avi Lior; Salowey, Joe; Rafa Marin Lopez; Bernard Aboba > Cc: eap [at] frascone.com > Subject: RE: [eap] Strawman -10/EMSK deletion requirement? > > Hi Avi, > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avi Lior [mailto:avi [at] bridgewatersystems.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 2:16 PM > To: Salowey, Joe; Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1; Rafa Marin Lopez; Bernard > Aboba > Cc: eap [at] frascone.com > Subject: RE: [eap] Strawman -10/EMSK deletion requirement? > > Hi Joe and Madjid, > > The only reason for caching the EMSK is if you have to generate an > AMSK for another application associated with the current session. > > Madjid>> Thank you for clarification. Another example may be > roaming to > another access technology!! > > So the question is do you have to generate all possible AMSKs and then > delete the EMSK or can you generate the AMSKs as needed? > > Madjid>>i.e. keep EMSK for future AMSK generation. The first > option will > create the need for running EAP again. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Salowey, Joe [mailto:jsalowey [at] cisco.com] > > Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 2:49 PM > > To: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1; Rafa Marin Lopez; Bernard Aboba > > Cc: eap [at] frascone.com > > Subject: RE: [eap] Strawman -10/EMSK deletion requirement? > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 > [mailto:Madjid.Nakhjiri [at] motorola.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 8:44 AM > > > To: Salowey, Joe; Rafa Marin Lopez; Bernard Aboba > > > Cc: eap [at] frascone.com > > > Subject: RE: [eap] Strawman -10/EMSK deletion requirement? > > > > > > Hi Joe, > > > > > > Thanks for the email. I think you responded to the old > piece of the > > > email from Rafa and I am to blame for causing that > confusion, as I > > > kept that part to provide context. > > > Again, my question was why an entity needs to delete EMSK after > > > generating the first AMSK (or first set of AMSKs?)? This > > seems to be > > > the requirement regardless of two options: > > > > > > 1) keep EMSK at EAP layer, create AMSK at EAP layer based > > request from > > > AAA layer, delete EMSK Immediately (this means EAP layer > must have > > > KDFs for AMSK=KDF(EMSK, etc) > > > 2) push EMSK down to AAA layer at backend server, create > > AMSK at AAA > > > layer and delete EMSK immediately (this means AAA layer must have > > > KDFs) > > > > > [Joe] If the AAA layer contains the AAA client and AAA > server then the > > > EMSK should not be available to this layer, if the AAA layer means > > something else then I don't know about (1). > > The AMSK should be generated in the EAP and exported, option (2). > > > > > > > > In both cases we require deletion of EMSK after > generation of AMSK, > > > why? > > > > > [Joe] To minimize the chance of exposure of the EMSK. Why > do you need > > > to cache it? Could you generate and cache an AMSK instead? > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Madjid > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Salowey, Joe [mailto:jsalowey [at] cisco.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 5:17 PM > > > To: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1; Rafa Marin Lopez; Bernard Aboba > > > Cc: eap [at] frascone.com > > > Subject: RE: [eap] Strawman -10 > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 > > [mailto:Madjid.Nakhjiri [at] motorola.com] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 2:38 PM > > > > To: Rafa Marin Lopez; Bernard Aboba > > > > Cc: eap [at] frascone.com > > > > Subject: RE: [eap] Strawman -10 > > > > > > > > Madjid>>Again, why is deletion of EMSK after generation of > > > > one AMSK is a > > > > requirements. What if we need to create multiple AMSKs > > and that at > > > > multiple occassions? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, actually, lower layer authenticator implementation > > > should expect > > > > (MSK,EMSK) in the case EAP method is executed by the standalone > > > > authenticator or (MSK,AMSK) in the case EAP method is > executed by > > > > backend authentication server. If it receives (MSK,EMSK) > > > should create > > > > > > > AMSK and delete EMSK. If it receives (MSK,AMSK) , that's > > > all, correct? > > > > > > [Joe] Not really, strictly speaking the lower layer > > shouldn't expect > > > to receive the EMSK as that would break mode independence. An > > > architectural description should not have the lower layer > receiving > > > the keys. From a supplicant perspective it must appear the same > > > whether an external EAP-Server or a collocated EAP server is used. > > > Now I don't know what is going on inside your box, it > could all be > > > monolithic when a internal EAP server is used but that > shouldn't be > > > visible to the external world. If I was interested in > > cryptographic > > > module separation I might not be too happy if you shared > > the EMSK with > > > the lower layer. > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, > please visit: > > > > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap > > > > > > > > Arhives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/eap > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap > > > > Arhives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/eap > > >
- RE: Strawman -10/EMSK deletion requirement?, (continued)
-
RE: Strawman -10/EMSK deletion requirement? Avi Lior, March 6 2006
- Re: Strawman -10/EMSK deletion requirement? Jari Arkko, March 6 2006
- RE: Strawman -10/EMSK deletion requirement? Salowey, Joe, March 6 2006
- RE: Strawman -10/EMSK deletion requirement? Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1, March 6 2006
- RE: Strawman -10/EMSK deletion requirement? Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1, March 6 2006
-
RE: Strawman -10/EMSK deletion requirement? Avi Lior, March 6 2006
-
RE: Strawman -10/EMSK deletion requirement? Avi Lior, March 6 2006
- Re: Strawman -10/EMSK deletion requirement? Jari Arkko, March 6 2006
-
RE: Strawman -10/EMSK deletion requirement? Avi Lior, March 6 2006
- Re: Strawman -10/EMSK deletion requirement? Jari Arkko, March 9 2006
Results generated by Tiger Technologies using MHonArc.