Re: [6lo] [Anima] [6tisch-security] Comments needed for Security Bootstrapping of IEEE 802.15.4 based Internet of Things
Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Thu, 05 February 2015 20:29 UTC
Return-Path: <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56E2B1A702C; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 12:29:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, GB_I_LETTER=-2, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S9ivanC6C0JN; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 12:29:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x22a.google.com (mail-lb0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39C381A8AA8; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 12:29:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id w7so11350606lbi.1; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 12:29:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=6X6AJDLSG15fJN6bmkHeTgbDy1SUUQqkTr4SybZ1xNQ=; b=KnEwbjc5vuVsRs3jqnMIBaYV+mSA1HGxj+Nx4X9GruEPFwyFRlK+Wr6LFCTZde5y2Y WL8K/L7EigGPP9sn0G8QmDNrbXvXzmQZAcFDLnD5XRdSWyErHT9DiqpmUaLph5w1JoBB NWjRHeUOhNTWlMKF8h5Zpx7vlAtmF5MheR9BGM2RFaTdnXgUVUwmSPf6HPt6DrE26JHZ zqRKFzgFRrsOsrzDuEbnj5XZaUXCQj4GqgA8cMjaR7dDzP4MoDVasLcXUqXCQdhUVh/Q sSHmmws10zCPE+dsb9BINhQBlTMNLvWIkGICZfs8ES98siNpTsn6U/9hakdahy3dzdP9 OnYA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.3.70 with SMTP id a6mr5862505laa.71.1423168142656; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 12:29:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.114.3.130 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 12:29:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <21712.47075.522836.495543@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi>
References: <77FA386512F0D748BC7C02C36EB1106D921776@szxeml557-mbs.china.huawei.com> <6426.1422664463@sandelman.ca> <77FA386512F0D748BC7C02C36EB1106D92CC62@szxeml557-mbs.china.huawei.com> <21712.47075.522836.495543@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 14:29:02 -0600
Message-ID: <CAC8QAcee9FCeX9H4z7553OBJCjyamvJ1YHfzLmVzRs-EG2EEUQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
To: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/Zjzcqv-p9YsATZv6yfT7taynwS4>
Cc: "Hedanping (Ana)" <ana.hedanping@huawei.com>, "6tisch-security@ietf.org" <6tisch-security@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6lo] [Anima] [6tisch-security] Comments needed for Security Bootstrapping of IEEE 802.15.4 based Internet of Things
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 20:29:09 -0000
Hi Tero, On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi> wrote: > Hedanping (Ana) writes: >> > Because IEEE 802.15.4 maximum payload size is 128 Bytes, >> > a standard security bootstrapping protocol should be >> > light-weight with low complexity. The protocol must allow >> > for commissioning of devices I was surprised that the >> > draft then suggested EAP with PANA as a transport: If EAP >> > is used, PANA can be used to relay the authentication >> > message from configured FFDs to 6LBR. If the validation >> > is successful, the IP address and network key are >> > generated and delivered to the FFD. But, EAP-TLS with >> > PANA is exactly what the Zigbee IP specification has >> > specified. Do you envision any changes from that >> > specification? >> >> Zigbee IP specification was developed to enable IP address for >> Zigbee application, thus the protocol stack are built on IETF's >> standards, including EAP-TLS. >> As discussed in many working groups, TLS might result in a >> significant amount of retransmissions due to unreliable >> communication capability of the network and device, thus energy will >> be consumed fast. >> I think EAP over DTLS /profiled DTLS could be a good option. > > There is work going on in the IEEE 802.15.9 task group which specifies > the key management for 802.15.4, or more specifically it will specify > a way to transport existing key management protocols over the > 802.15.4 frames. This would allow running for example IKEv2 + EAP over > the 802.15.4 and generate keys for 802.15.4 security and then protect > all messages between the two nodes. > > In normal case this would be run even before the IEEE 802.15.4 > assocation is done, i.e. immediately after the beacon before doing the > association, and would allow protecting the association process too. > > For this uses the IKEv2 + EAP would be most likely quite good, i.e. > the IKEv2 frames would be exchange between the peer joining the > network and its next hop router, and inside those IKEv2 frames there > would be EAP messages, which are then relayed to the AAA server (trust > center TC in draft-he-iot-security-bootstrapping-00) for actual > authentication. > Did you consider 802.1X which does similar things? > The 802.15.9 is now in letter ballot phase in IEEE, meaning we should > be finished quite soon. One issue there is that, during the 802.15.9 > work we noticed some issues with 802.15.4 base specifciation which > have been worked on in the 802.15.4 maintenance revision process, and > we need to wait for it to finish before 802.15.9 can finish... > > Most likely both of those will finish before the end of year. Good to know. Regards, Behcet > -- > kivinen@iki.fi > > _______________________________________________ > Anima mailing list > Anima@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
- [6lo] Comments needed for Security Bootstrapping … Hedanping (Ana)
- Re: [6lo] Comments needed for Security Bootstrapp… Rene Struik
- Re: [6lo] Comments needed for Security Bootstrapp… Hedanping (Ana)
- Re: [6lo] Comments needed for Security Bootstrapp… Rene Struik
- Re: [6lo] Comments needed for Security Bootstrapp… Michael Richardson
- Re: [6lo] Comments needed for Security Bootstrapp… Hedanping (Ana)
- Re: [6lo] [Anima] [6tisch-security] Comments need… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [6lo] [6tisch-security] Comments needed for S… Tero Kivinen
- Re: [6lo] [Anima] [6tisch-security] Comments need… Tero Kivinen
- Re: [6lo] Comments needed for Security Bootstrapp… Robert Cragie
- Re: [6lo] Comments needed for Security Bootstrapp… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [6lo] [Anima] Comments needed for Security Bo… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [6lo] Comments needed for Security Bootstrapp… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [6lo] [Anima] Comments needed for Security Bo… peter van der Stok
- Re: [6lo] [Anima] Comments needed for Security Bo… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [6lo] [Anima] Comments needed for Security Bo… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [6lo] [Anima] Comments needed for Security Bo… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [6lo] [Anima] Comments needed for Security Bo… peter van der Stok
- Re: [6lo] [Anima] Comments needed for Security Bo… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [6lo] [Anima] Comments needed for Security Bo… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [6lo] [Anima] Comments needed for Security Bo… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [6lo] [Anima] Comments needed for Security Bo… Kent Watsen
- Re: [6lo] [Anima] Comments needed for Security Bo… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [6lo] Comments needed for Security Bootstrapp… Hedanping (Ana)
- [6lo] Device vs network bootstrapping [Comments n… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [6lo] [Anima] Comments needed for Security Bo… Behcet Sarikaya
- [6lo] Thread [Comments needed for Security Bootst… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [6lo] Thread [Comments needed for Security Bo… Ralph Droms
- Re: [6lo] Device vs network bootstrapping [Commen… Hedanping (Ana)
- Re: [6lo] Thread [Comments needed for Security Bo… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [6lo] [Anima] Comments needed for Security Bo… Hedanping (Ana)
- Re: [6lo] [Anima] Comments needed for Security Bo… Paul Duffy
- Re: [6lo] [Anima] Comments needed for Security Bo… peter van der Stok
- Re: [6lo] Device vs network bootstrapping [Commen… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [6lo] [Anima] Device vs network bootstrapping… Kent Watsen
- Re: [6lo] [6tisch-security] Device vs network boo… Kris Pister
- Re: [6lo] [6tisch-security] Device vs network boo… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [6lo] [Anima] Thread [Comments needed for Sec… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [6lo] [Anima] Thread [Comments needed for Sec… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [6lo] [Anima] Thread [Comments needed for Sec… Ralph Droms
- [6lo] (Fair) competition in pursuing ideas and dr… Rene Struik
- Re: [6lo] (Fair) competition in pursuing ideas an… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [6lo] [Anima] (Fair) competition in pursuing … Sheng Jiang
- Re: [6lo] [Anima] (Fair) competition in pursuing … Rene Struik
- Re: [6lo] [Anima] (Fair) competition in pursuing … Sheng Jiang
- Re: [6lo] [Anima] Thread [Comments needed for Sec… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [6lo] [Anima] (Fair) competition in pursuing … Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [6lo] [Anima] (Fair) competition in pursuing … Robert Cragie
- Re: [6lo] [Anima] Thread [Comments needed for Sec… Alper Yegin
- Re: [6lo] [Anima] Thread [Comments needed for Sec… Carsten Bormann