Hi Hannes, Michael was only asking if allowing any anonymous entity to get the cacerts (trusted root cert list) is worth it. RFC7030 allows for this. Of course an enrollment would still require authentication/authorization. I was making the case that it is not worth to even allow anonymous get cacerts. Panos
-----Original Message----- From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 11:01 AM To: Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) <[email protected]>; Michael Richardson <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Peter van der Stok <[email protected]>; Max Pritikin (pritikin) <[email protected]> Subject: RE: est-coaps clarification on /att and /crts Hi Panos, Hi Michael, > We want all our clients to be authenticated by DTLS before they start loading > up our RF network. > I'm not suggesting that the DTLS be skipped, I'm suggesting that the client > certificate presented might be meaningless to the EST server. I am curious what security model you have in mind? If you don't do client authentication then you are essentially issuing certificates to an anonymous entity. This feels like a very bad idea, particularly since the CA is supposed to assert the identifier of the client via the certificate. What am I missing here? Ciao Hannes IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
