Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
some additional explanation of why bearer vouchers are out of scope
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
  • Loading branch information
mcr committed Oct 4, 2024
1 parent a52f705 commit d56c5b6
Showing 1 changed file with 7 additions and 3 deletions.
10 changes: 7 additions & 3 deletions draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -310,7 +310,7 @@ Owner Audit | X | X | X | | X | X |
|--
Owner ID | | X | X | X | X | |
|--
Bearer out-of-scope| X| | wildcard | wildcard | optional|opt|
Bearer voucher| X| | wildcard | wildcard | optional|opt|
|==

NOTE: All voucher types include a 'pledge ID serial-number'
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -350,9 +350,13 @@ Bearer Voucher:
wildcard. Because the registrar identity is not indicated, this
voucher type must be treated as a secret and protected from exposure
as any 'bearer' of the voucher can claim the pledge
device. Publishing a nonceless bearer voucher effectively turns the
device. This variation is included in the above description in order to clearly
how other voucher types differ.
This specification does not support bearer vouchers at this time.
There are other specifications in the industry which are equivalent though.
Publishing a nonceless bearer voucher effectively turns the
specified pledge into a "TOFU" device with minimal mitigation
against MiTM registrars. Bearer vouchers are out of scope.
against MiTM registrars. Bearer vouchers are therefore out of scope.

# Changes since RFC8366

Expand Down

0 comments on commit d56c5b6

Please sign in to comment.