Mathematical Mesh 3.0 Part VI: The Trust Mesh
draft-hallambaker-mesh-trust-04

• Status
• IESG evaluation record
• IESG writeups
• Email expansions
• History

• Versions
• 00
• 01
• 02
• 03
• 04

Network Working Group                                 P. M. Hallam-Baker
Internet-Draft                                           16 January 2020
Intended status: Informational                                          
Expires: 19 July 2020

             Mathematical Mesh 3.0 Part VI: The Trust Mesh
                    draft-hallambaker-mesh-trust-04

Abstract

   This paper extends Shannon's concept of a 'work factor' as applied to
   evaluation of cryptographic algorithms to provide an objective
   measure of the practical security offered by a protocol or
   infrastructure design.  Considering the hypothetical work factor
   based on an informed estimate of the probable capabilities of an
   attacker with unknown resources provides a better indication of the
   relative strength of protocol designs than the computational work
   factor of the best-known attack.

   The social work factor is a measure of the trustworthiness of a
   credential issued in a PKI based on the cost of having obtained the
   credential through fraud at a certain point in time.  Use of the
   social work factor allows evaluation of Certificate Authority based
   trust models and peer to peer (Web of Trust) models to be evaluated
   in the same framework.  The analysis demonstrates that both
   approaches have limitations and that in certain applications, a
   blended model is superior to either by itself.

   The final section of the paper describes a proposal to realize this
   blended model using the Mathematical Mesh.

   [Note to Readers]

   Discussion of this draft takes place on the MATHMESH mailing list
   (mathmesh@ietf.org), which is archived at
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=mathmesh.

   This document is also available online at
   http://mathmesh.com/Documents/draft-hallambaker-mesh-trust.html.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute

Hallam-Baker              Expires 19 July 2020                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft               The Trust Mesh                 January 2020

   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 19 July 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.

Table of Contents

   1.  Work Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Computational Work Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Hypothetical Work Factor  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.3.  Known Unknowns  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.4.  Defense in Depth  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     1.5.  Mutual Reinforcement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     1.6.  Safety in Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     1.7.  Cost Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     1.8.  Social Work Factor  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       1.8.1.  Related work  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   2.  The problem of trust  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     2.1.  Existing approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       2.1.1.  Trust After First Use (TAFU)  . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       2.1.2.  Direct Trust  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       2.1.3.  Certificate Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       2.1.4.  Web of Trust  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       2.1.5.  Chained notary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       2.1.6.  A blended approach  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   3.  The Mesh of Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     3.1.  Master Profile  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     3.2.  Uniform Data Fingerprints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     3.3.  Strong Internet Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     3.4.  Trust notary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     3.5.  Endorsement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     3.6.  Evaluating trust  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23