-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Capabilities of the Attestation Mechanism #17
Comments
For SGX, and for other Intel TEEs, the Attestation Key is generally restricted, so you cannot sign "anything". For TEEP running in SGX, the provided attestation would be an additional structure, which would be hashed, and then this hash would be signed in an attestation which would provide details of the SGX enclave code that requested the attestation (things like enclave-signer, hash-of-enclave-code, enclave-version-number, CPU-microcode-version, etc.) The verifier (TAM in this case) would need to validate the SGX Attestation, and then interpret the attached structure. Hope this is clear enough. |
See new Pull Request to address this issue |
Capabilities of the Attestation Mechanism #17
Filed a separate issue to track impact on the OTrP spec. |
Align picture with diagrams used in the TEEP WG at IETF 105 THis addresses issues #17, #31, and the part of #70 that talks about digital signature formats. Per discussion at IETF 106, the direction is that the architecture document should explain the relationship between TEEP and attestation, and leave protocol details to the TEEP protocol spec. It should NOT discuss attestation details, including anything about signing with any attestation key, seeding of attestation keys, or using specific crypto algorithms for attestation. Signed-off-by: Dave Thaler <[email protected]>
In discussion with Ming we were wondering whether there are restrictions regarding the attestation mechanism on what it can sign. Currently, the OTrP design assumes that the secure OS running in the TEE has access to the device certificate, which was provisioned during manufacturing, and that it signs whatever data is given to it. There may, however, be restrictions in what an attestation mechanism signs, for example when it offers only a restricted API. If that's indeed the case then a message from the TEE to the TAM would have to contain two signatures, namely one for the signed attestation data and another one for the signed message.
To get an answer to this question we thought it would be useful to survey existing attestation technologies.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: