Re: [6lo] [Anima] Comments needed for Security Bootstrapping of IEEE 802.15.4 based Internet of Things
Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Mon, 23 February 2015 20:59 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 835F91A6F17; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:59:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 UgYm6QU4uIOF; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:59:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x22d.google.com (mail-la0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22d]) (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 0B9A71A6F01; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:59:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by labge10 with SMTP id ge10so21142434lab.12; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:59:03 -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=bgCjGCwkEawEEeUye/leKIL+oF4mXOZ2UJEybeW+puQ=; b=XH0OLVJTFWNJPTFeQg6GqltJoAr7xI+iR8tLi/21aahCmujN60bEAt2jxqLJgbkV1S Zc3LJFGn0BzweRVB3/HbxAnSOsKFeowpuwgvnFyQDlcsbgW/l8uhH3RfU+ZySPwzYMDn iff8W2gphPZ95GRQavK/rCliDHGbNlRdQJR9FQhh5i8ohgccuPlxi5CLKDmAYBk8m/xR 1/qL6V4oRkIJSp8p85fmY0sOQpY8KLEwLlOTXgDs/6jjSY6ntdPitKbcR3WgQ3gLMy8L s0iBPesBJQgG71HZmMjonX9mnG8HLBL2hp6i9EwnMuB7YcCWI7uTy2RZk0H30qPAY4+u nIrg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.141.225 with SMTP id rr1mr10670599lbb.71.1424725143416; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:59:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.114.187.13 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:59:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54E86F9A.8020104@gmx.net>
References: <77FA386512F0D748BC7C02C36EB1106D921776@szxeml557-mbs.china.huawei.com> <6426.1422664463@sandelman.ca> <77FA386512F0D748BC7C02C36EB1106D92CC62@szxeml557-mbs.china.huawei.com> <54E7219B.6040006@gridmerge.com> <54E72846.20807@gmx.net> <54E7824A.4040906@gmail.com> <cf14f8df23dc2552f062976775e76549@xs4all.nl> <54E86F9A.8020104@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:59:03 -0600
Message-ID: <CAC8QAcc9QK1zq8paSCjd-A6b+FfB1bFqfcaseM3qPLZxy5sAeA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/gLUUwZe-i6cibjb3_rBlOMHDehM>
Cc: consultancy@vanderstok.org, 6tisch-security <6tisch-security@ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "Hedanping (Ana)" <ana.hedanping@huawei.com>, robert.cragie@gridmerge.com, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6lo] [Anima] 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: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 20:59:07 -0000
Hi Hannes, On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 5:44 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> wrote: > Peter, Brian, > > I would strongly recommend not to use the term bootstrapping. Replacing > it with some other word that explains what you want to do. > > After-all, we are engineers and not marketing guys. I tend to get a bit > nervous when I read terms like "zero-touch" and alike that create the > impression that there is no configuration that needs to be done by > anyone. Of course, that's not the case. Sorry but, Hannes, you have been saying these things for some time but I have not heard your proposal yet. What should we call it if not bootstrapping? > > With all the security drafts in NETCONF (zerotouch) or in ANIMA I get > the impression that we are re-inventing the wheel not only because we > want to work on new stuff but largely because we actually don't > understand the state of the art ourselves anymore. I fear that the > <draft-he-iot-security-bootstrapping-00> document also falls into the > category of not understanding the state-of-the-art. Don't worry about it. > I understand if > someone is not up-to-speed with the most recent efforts in Thread > (because they are only visible to members of that organization) but the > ZigBee-IP work should be known. While ZigBee-IP may be considered dead > by know You mean by now? > it also appears to me that any new work in the IETF on > security/routing/etc. for IEEE 802.15.4 will have to compete against > Thread. Thread has seen a dramatic growth rate in terms of membership > and so I doubt that work in the same area has a lot of chances for > success. > Yes but what is Thread's solution on this? Is this different than what we have in IETF? > Sorry for the rant but I believe it will help everyone to figure out > that most of the groups are actually developing the same solutions over > and over again. Agreed, so it should be based on IETF work? > > Now to the issue of the multi-vendor equipment. Adding new solutions (as > it is done in ANIMA) while other groups and organizations have already > standardized similar technologies (using different terminology) will not > make the interoperability any better. I am sure you know that far too well. > > It would be great to have a conversation (maybe at the next IETF > meeting) how the different environments (home environment, enterprise > environments/industrial environments) are different in terms of > provisioning credentials and configuration information to IoT devices. Exactly. Maybe this is what Peter is pointing at when he says several solutions can be developed, different for each environment. > Needless to say that there are differences and you can see them when you > look at how existing products work. That does, however, not necessarily > mean that there are no common building blocks. Good point. > > Ciao > Hannes > > On 02/21/2015 12:14 PM, peter van der Stok wrote: >> Hi Brian, >> >> Just a small annotation to your default approach comment. >> Bootstrapping is subject to different installation procedures. >> A clear example is the difference between home (plug and play) and the >> building control where bootstrapping is organized from a database. >> In the professional domain the order of things can depend on the >> installer. For example, some may want to bootstrap together with the >> setup of the network, others may want the network to be ready and then >> do the security bootstrap. >> >> Although I agree with your concern expressed as "a default procedure to >> decide on the bootstrap procedure", I think there is room for 2-4 >> different security bootstrap procedures. >> These procedures will be chosen as function of the application domain >> and application owner, installer. >> >> Peter >> >> >> >> Brian E Carpenter schreef op 2015-02-20 19:51: >>> Hannes, >>> >>> I agree that we need to compare different approaches. I do have one >>> concern in the anima context that leads me to the conclusion that >>> we *must* pick a preferred solution: if we consider a collection of >>> multivendor equipment in factory condition that we want to bootstrap >>> itself into a secure network when we apply power, I don't see how >>> we can avoid having a single default solution. If not, we get a >>> rather ludicrous situation where we need a single default solution >>> to the problem of choosing which bootstrap solution to use. >>> >>> Regards >>> Brian >>> >>> On 21/02/2015 01:27, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: >>>> Hi Danping, >>>> >>>> I would also like to note that >>>> [I-D.pritikin-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] is only one possible way of >>>> distributing new keys (based on already pre-provisioned certificates). I >>>> would like to understand how it relates to other approaches. >>>> Particularly if you consider an approach "heavy" it would be good to >>>> know what your main concerns are since there is no free lunch with >>>> security and most of the design decisions are trade-offs. >>>> >>>> Ciao >>>> Hannes >>>> >>>> On 02/20/2015 12:59 PM, Robert Cragie wrote: >>>>> [I-D.pritikin-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] proposes a zero-touch >>>>> bootstrapping key infrastructure to allow joining device securely and >>>>> automatically bootstraps itself based on 802.1AR certificate. It can't >>>>> be directly used in 802.15.4 devices due to the high security >>>>> complexity >>>>> and heavy communication overhead.": I disagree with this statement. We >>>>> used this approach in ZigBee IP. I agree some may think the >>>>> communication overhead "heavy" but that doesn't mean it can't be done. >>>>> The associated security complexity is also becoming less onerous as >>>>> crypto accelerators become built into hardware and cores. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Anima mailing list >>>> Anima@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Anima mailing list >>> Anima@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima > > > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > 6lo@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo >
- [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