comment on 06-369r2 -- Security Association Model for SPC-4

Ralph Weber roweber at IEEE.org
Sat Aug 26 09:36:33 PDT 2006


Formatted message: <A HREF="r0608260_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</A>

For my part, I fail to see how an SA can be established
until there is a definition of what an SA is.
I consider the SA definition so fundamental that having
the definition phrased in traditional SCSI terms is
critical to me. This is why (as SPC-4 editor) I am
working on 06-369rx.
While it seems simpler to have the SA definition in
a working draft for easy reference by those writing
SA creation proposals (and there might be two of these
coming, one for authenticated SAs and one for
unauthenticated SAs), if the majority of CAP sees
things differently, I will of course abide by that
decision.
I still plan to press for a vote on 06-369.
All the best,
.Ralph
Gideon Avida wrote:
> * From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
> * "Gideon Avida" <gideon at decru.com>
> *
> While I understand the motivation behind proposal 06-369, I don't think
> Decru can vote for it for similar reasons voiced against proposal 06-225 in
> Colorado Springs. From the SSC-3 minutes: "Kevin Butt from IBM raised the
> issue that this proposal relies on an already established security
> association. It is the foundation for this key wrapping and we are opposed
> to this without a method in SCSI defined to create a Security Association."
>
> On a related topic, Decru would like to propose the use of public key
> cryptography as an alternative means for securing data encrypting keys. Due
> to time constraints between the meetings, I only have a rough overview that
> I'd like to discuss in Nashua (it's currently submitted to the SSC-3
> agenda). Please see http://www.t10.org/ftp/t10/document.06/06-389r0.pdf. If
> there is interest in this approach, I will flesh out the details of the
> proposal by the Las Vegas meeting.
>
> Thanks,
> Gideon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of
> Black_David at emc.com
> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:49 PM
> To: Gerry.Houlder at seagate.com; t10 at t10.org
> Subject: RE: comment on 06-369r2 -- Security Association Model for SPC-4
>
> * From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
> * Black_David at emc.com
> *
> Gerry,
>
>   
>> It is also unclear if this security association method is required for
>>     
> all
>   
>> "security protocols" supported in SECURITY PROTOCOL IN/ OUT commands
>>     
> or
>   
>> just the tape protocol (which is the only one described in SPC-4 at
>>     
> the
>   
>> moment).
>>     
>
> The function of the proposed security association abstraction is to
> separate generation of symmetric cryptographic keys from use of those
> keys
> in order to enable mix/match of security mechanisms across that boundary
> (separation of key generation from key usage).  If a "security protocol"
> does not generate keys for use in other SCSI functionality, it can
> ignore the whole concept of a security association.
>
> The tape protocol is going to specify a means of encrypting encryption
> keys in order to transfer them securely to tape devices that have
> onboard
> encryption - to do so, the protocol needs to use another key.  This may
> sound recursive (need a second key to protect first key, how is the
> second key protected?), but fortunately, the recursion ends with what
> is called a "key exchange protocol" that generates a shared secret from
> non-secret communication exchanges plus some mathematics.  One of the
> reasons for putting forward security association text now is that there
> is a possibility that SSC-3 will want to specify multiple key exchange
> protocols, and a structure in which multiple such protocols can co-exist
> cleanly is important to avoid chaos.
>
> Thanks,
> --David
> ----------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Senior Technologist
> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> +1 (508) 293-7953		FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
> black_david at emc.com	     Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf 
>> Of Gerry.Houlder at seagate.com
>> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 3:44 PM
>> To: t10 at t10.org
>> Subject: comment on 06-369r2 -- Security Association Model for SPC-4
>>
>> * From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
>> * Gerry.Houlder at seagate.com
>> *
>>
>> While reading through the new section 5.13, I thought the information
>>     
> was
>   
>> not organized in the best order for understanding. 5.13.1 and 5.13.2
>> introduce tables without describing what they are for. Clause 5.13.3
>> finally starts defining a "security association" and what it is used
>>     
> for.
>   
>> This should become the first clause in 5.13 because it provides a
>>     
> basis for
>   
>> understanding the stuff in the other clauses.
>>
>> It is also unclear if this security association method is required for
>>     
> all
>   
>> "security protocols" supported in SECURITY PROTOCOL IN/ OUT commands
>>     
> or
>   
>> just the tape protocol (which is the only one described in SPC-4 at
>>     
> the
>   
>> moment).
>>
>> I would like to see a more generic model that starts with material
>>     
> from
>   
>> 5.13.1,5.13.3, and 5.13.4; then moves on to describe the choices made
>>     
> for
>   
>> the minimum SA parameters, etc. for the tape protocol. It should also
>>     
> state
>   
>> that the tape protocol details do not necessarily apply to protocols
>>     
> that
>   
>> reference other documents for their description.
>>
>> *
>> * For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
>> * 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org
>>
>>     
>
> *
> * For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
> * 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org
>
> *
> * For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
> * 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org
>
>
>
>   



More information about the T10 mailing list