Minutes of the August 27-28, 1997 Meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee to Develop a Federal Information Processing Standard for the Federal Key Management Infrastructure August 27, 1997 A quorum being present, the fifth meeting of the Committee was called to order at 9:10 a.m. by the Chair, Dr. Stephen Kent. In addition to the Chair, members present were: Joe Alexander, Josh Benaloh, Tom Cahill, David Carman, Santosh Chokhani, Paul Clark, John Edwards, Mark Etzel, Bill Franklin, Roger French, Daniel Harkins, Ken Konechy, Paul Lambert, Mike Markowitz, and Mike Matyas. Government liaisons in attendance were: Elaine Barker (substitute for Miles Smid), Howard Bolden, Michael Gilmore, Barbara Kirsch, Dianne Dunshee (substitute for Jan Manning), John Sabo, Patricia Sefcik, Denise Silverberg (substitute for Patricia Edfors), and Richard Sweeney. Also participating was Mark Bohannon of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Mr. Roback introduced attendees who were substituting for their various organizations. (GITS, NIST, NSA) Ed Roback, Executive Secretary, welcomed everyone and reviewed the agenda for the two day meeting, which would be comprised of a series of working group briefings, a FBI briefing, followed by detailed discussion and work planning. (See Reference #1.). Dr. Kent reported on the activities of each of the working groups since the previous meeting and he thanked everyone for their efforts. The agenda then turned to reports from the working group chairmen. First was Mr. Roger French, Chair of the Framework Working Group. Mr. French reported that the WG feels comfortable with the group’s document at this juncture and believe that they have a good format in place. He solicited general comments from the committee on the draft report. One area noted by Dr. Kent was that Section 1.3, which explores supporting components, has a very different level of detail from that of Section 1.2, on the general model. He suggested that the descriptions of the supporting components in Section 1.3 appeared to be too narrowly focused and may require that explicit explanations be added. There was also a discussion of terms, such as the use of "encryption" as being more precise than the general "cryptography." It was thought useful to make that clarification so as to reinforce the concept that signature-only keys would not be recoverable. Chair of the Security Working Group, Dr. Josh Benaloh, was next to present. He used overheads and had handout materials. Topic areas covered were: · basic principles · confidentiality · confidentiality options · further confidentiality options · integrity · integrity options · authentication · authentication options · access · non-repudiation · non-repudiation options · survivability · survivability attacks · availability · auditing · auditing options · strength Working Group #5 on Interoperability was reported on by Paul Clark, Chair. His briefing covered the following topic areas: · interoperability applications · key recovery modes · technique · key recovery requester to the key recovery answer Dr. Santosh Chokhani, Chair of the Assurance Working Group (#8) presented examples of a table of contents based on the common criteria. Other areas covered were: · Need for more than one model to meet customers needs. · Covered listing of common criteria assurance requirements that are recommended for exclusion. After the lunch break, the afternoon session reconvened at 2:15 p.m. Mr. Gilmore introduced the afternoon’s session by noting that, given the stage of the Committee’s work progress, this seemed an appropriate juncture at which to provide a detailed briefing to the Committee on electronic surveillance. The briefing was provided by Mr. Philip Mirarchi, of the FBI’s Electronic Surveillance Section. He has over 14 years experience in working major organized crime cases and is an attorney with an engineering background. His presentation was an information briefing on legal issues and procedures for electronic surveillance and search and seizure. His presentation covered: · the types of electronic surveillance · other search and seizures methods · legal basis for the surveillance · federal legislation covering electronic surveillance · federal rules of criminal procedures · State constitutions and legislation He explained pen registers, "trap and trace," stored communication access, "call content" intercepts and "electronic" communications, court order requirements, authorization processes, FBI/DOJ review process, implementation procedures, court supervision. He also explained what the coverage of the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA). He identified the sanctions for unauthorized interception of communications, the Federal rules of criminal procedure for search and seizure and the Federal rules of evidence. During his presentation there were many questions by the committee. See Reference #7 for details of the briefing. August 28, 1997 The meeting reconvened at 9:10 a.m. with discussion of future meetings by Dr. Kent. Miscellaneous administrative announcements were made by committee secretariat Ed Roback. 1998 meetings dates will be distributed to the committee members. The focus of the agenda was then on reports from the various working groups based on earlier general feedback from the committee. WG #1 Report · will make modifications to the current document. Four persons in charge of the four major sections will make the modifications based on input received at this meeting. · Timetable in preparation for the October meeting : - 11 September all four section drafts will be submitted to the working group; - 15 September a telecom call at 1 p.m. EST will take place between working group members; - 30 September all four sections will be submitted and consolidated; - 2 October the formal draft should be delivered the entire committee. - Section 1.0 overview to address interoperability - Section 1.3 overview of two most prevalent schemes and 1 page of supporting component and one line description of each. - Section 1.35 policy will become 1.4 stand alone. WG #2 Report · Will proceed in the direction of a "mandatory options" approach. It is likely that a question will arise as to whether there will be various levels of compliance. · May want to allow for lower levels of compliance (beyond those approved for government use, so as to maximize general use of compliant products). · Policy and options are actually essential to the success of the FIPS. Identification by levels would allow a vendor wider flexibility in manufacturer of its products. Separate certain levels and options should be explored. Agreed to look into multiple levels. · Other questions raised dealt with organization of the document itself and the intertwining of certain crosscutting areas between the groups. · Dr. Kent suggested that functional and security requirements would be good to have in this section. A suggestion made to use the orange book matrices as examples. · Timetable: Will follow-up in person or via email. · Need for a list of those security needs or items and what we think would be mandatory features versus mandatory options (as still separate from wholly optional options). · There were a number of suggestions of, in effect, integrating the activities of WG #2 into that of WG #1, so as to describe the security features/requirements of each component of the model. This was generally thought to be a useful suggestion. WG #5 Report · level issue of certification and evaluation of systems · no timetable until after a conference call later next week · defining requirements as they understand them · support of multiple techniques · avoid stepping on standards toes by providing examples and guidance on key recovery · question of how would these examples be interpreted was raised; also raised was how to map interoperability issues into the examples/models. W.G. #8 Report Dr. Kent discussed the options relevant to the use of multiple level matrix ideas that would apply to any of the components. This included more detailed discussion of the issues of some things that were left off of the list that might be revisited in the content of the three level approach. Some questions arose which Committee members thought require guidance from the Administration. It was suggested these be formulated questions and posing them to all of the committee including the liaisons and see what responses are received. It was also recognized that obtaining answers may be difficult in a timely manner so as to keep to the Committee’s timetable. Therefore, it was suggested that the Committee endeavor to proceed apace without waiting for formal guidance, even should written questions be formulated. The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 a.m. References (on file with the Secretariat)