Feeds

IBM, HP, and EMC press for encryption key juggler spec

Push unified protocol though open standards org

Choosing a cloud hosting partner with confidence

Any key management platform will be able to communicate across all of a company's encryption systems - if IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Thales, and EMC have their way.

The companies today said they're heading a group of vendors proposing a standardized encryption management specification through the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS).

Known as KMIP (Key Management Interoperability Protocol), the protocol is a scheme to lower drawbridges between different vendor's encryption systems that require keys and the key management systems that generate and store them.

The vendors proposing KMIP say that enterprise firms often use separate encryption platforms for in different situations: on laptops, for storage, in databases and applications, etc. Alas, this results in extra time and effort to manage each platform and occasionally lost data.

An open standard would let a business to use a single key management infrastructure to manage keys for all encryption systems that require symmetric keys, asymmetric key pairs, certificates, and other security objects, they say.

Other big names in the biz like Brocade, LSI, Netapp, and Seagate are also on board for the technical committee formed to work on the group's open standards track. The vendors ]aim to deliver KMIP-enabled encryption applications that can communicate with compatible KMIP key management servers.

The group says KMIP is ready for adoption and developed to support other industry standardization efforts and complement application-specific standards projects like IEEE 1619.3 for storage and OASIS EKMI. They claim KMIP will address a broader scope than related efforts.

OASIS executive director Laurent Liscia applauded the group for advancing the KMIP though the open standards process and encouraged other vendors and customers in the security community to participate in the standardization.

Additional details on the KMIP can be found here. ®

Internet Security Threat Report 2014

More from The Register

next story
FYI: OS X Yosemite's Spotlight tells Apple EVERYTHING you're looking for
It's on by default – didn't you read the small print?
Russian hackers exploit 'Sandworm' bug 'to spy on NATO, EU PCs'
Fix imminent from Microsoft for Vista, Server 2008, other stuff
Edward who? GCHQ boss dodges Snowden topic during last speech
UK spies would rather 'walk' than do 'mass surveillance'
Microsoft pulls another dodgy patch
Redmond makes a hash of hashing add-on
NOT OK GOOGLE: Android images can conceal code
It's been fixed, but hordes won't have applied the upgrade
Apple grapple: Congress kills FBI's Cupertino crypto kybosh plan
Encryption would lead us all into a 'dark place', claim G-Men
DEATH by PowerPoint: Microsoft warns of 0-day attack hidden in slides
Might put out patch in update, might chuck it out sooner
'LulzSec leader Aush0k' found to be naughty boy not worthy of jail
15 months home detention leaves egg on feds' faces as they grab for more power
prev story

Whitepapers

Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Why and how to choose the right cloud vendor
The benefits of cloud-based storage in your processes. Eliminate onsite, disk-based backup and archiving in favor of cloud-based data protection.
Three 1TB solid state scorchers up for grabs
Big SSDs can be expensive but think big and think free because you could be the lucky winner of one of three 1TB Samsung SSD 840 EVO drives that we’re giving away worth over £300 apiece.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.