Re: [6lo] [Anima] Comments needed for Security Bootstrapping of IEEE 802.15.4 based Internet of Things
Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> Sat, 21 February 2015 11:44 UTC
Return-Path: <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
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 CEBB91A6F12; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 03:44:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 iEUb9MZRwtMW; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 03:44:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BA3C1A6F11; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 03:44:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.131.132] ([80.92.119.127]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M3i8r-1XYgJw2Iy1-00rJFr; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 12:44:29 +0100
Message-ID: <54E86F9A.8020104@gmx.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 12:44:26 +0100
From: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: consultancy@vanderstok.org, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <cf14f8df23dc2552f062976775e76549@xs4all.nl>
OpenPGP: id=4D776BC9
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Gqg86Uv725iahDLQicWAW3taVjFAausoO"
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:+7T9JUNVIbli+P19R7yBd3/mH+P5lQ4Q6ASMRsDp+QKyt/exPIM opclHI0YbEMm4ShfX7yq8DP+rsj92xxWjh21iy7Zkg9BVYY2/oBeNZEknmTHuwjvnRF7AYn bXd5l+J+ziZoDkMyGHx+oAwJVulSb9aDHkYZlq02RkSQQB4pYrt+oiT1lJ9Jpnahii1LyKJ slb4Mez7LuRDr6Ql6E4zA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/gRC3Bm-RiC0WPRgjAYb6Bx967Uw>
Cc: 6tisch-security@ietf.org, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "Hedanping (Ana)" <ana.hedanping@huawei.com>, robert.cragie@gridmerge.com, 6lo@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
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: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 11:44:52 -0000
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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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] 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