Add recommendation that Uptane use some type of transport security

[jhdalek55]

At the 10/26 Uptane Standards meeting, it was decided we should add a sentence to the Standard that recommends Uptane use some type of transport security.

[iramcdonald]

Hi, And the rationale for transport security (with *mutual strong authentication*) is two reasons: 1) Defense in depth (i.e., augments the application layer image signature/package signature) 2) Complete defense against MiTM attacks during update package download. Cheers, - Ira *Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)* *Chair - SAE Trust Anchors and Authentication TF* *Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG* *Co-Chair - TCG Metadata Access Protocol SG* *Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WGSecretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working GroupCo-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WGIETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIBBlue Roof Music / High North Inchttp://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic <http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc <http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>mailto: ***@***.*** ***@***.***>(permanent) PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434*

…

On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 6:36 PM Lois Anne DeLong ***@***.***> wrote: At the 10/26 Uptane Standards meeting, it was decided we should add a sentence to the Standard that recommends Uptane use some type of transport security. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#221>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE33UO6LDZTA5FLNLCG536TUKMKIVANCNFSM5HMRNITQ> . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS <https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675> or Android <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>.

[jhdalek55]

@iramcdonald, Thanks for adding the motivation. This is helpful.

[jhdalek55]

As I was reviewing some old emails, I ran across a recommendation from @iramcdonald that we should add a definition of the concept of "defense in depth" and use this as the rationale for adding some type of transport security. I can probably take care of this and add a bit more to the short discussion of transport security in the Deployment document. I will use the definition @iramcdonald shared from US NIST IR8183

"Defense-in-depth - The application of multiple countermeasures in a layered
or stepwise manner to achieve security objectives. The methodology involves
layering heterogeneous security technologies in the common attack vectors to
ensure that attacks missed by one technology are caught by another."

[jhdalek55]

This can be closed via PR #120 in Deployment Best Practices.

[jhdalek55]

We can close this if we get an approval of Deployment PR #120

[jhdalek55]

Closing this issue via approval of Deployment PR#120