IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6tisch-security] EALS and how to go from 6tisch-minimal-security to zero-touch enrollment

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 11 March 2017 21:39 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ECF01295D8 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Mar 2017 13:39:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 FrhIZcvHEik6 for <6tisch-security@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Mar 2017 13:39:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 842341293E1 for <6tisch-security@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Mar 2017 13:39:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8E67E20D; Sat, 11 Mar 2017 17:02:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EAE06381A; Sat, 11 Mar 2017 16:39:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: =?utf-8?Q?Mali=C5=A1a_Vu=C4=8Dini=C4 =87?= <malisa.vucinic@inria.fr>
In-Reply-To: <07EC7DD8-F0B2-4CFB-A402-1CBB50729CE1@inria.fr>
References: <D4E34D31.783F2%goran.selander@ericsson.com> <7579.1488907684@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <14442.1489106136@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <07EC7DD8-F0B2-4CFB-A402-1CBB50729CE1@inria.fr>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 16:39:51 -0500
Message-ID: <19411.1489268391@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch-security/448OfPZcpJrXJUKNmJmAp4Jnk68>
Cc: =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=B6ran_Selander?= <goran.selander@ericsson.com>, Shahid Raza <shahid@sics.se>, 6tisch-security@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6tisch-security] EALS and how to go from 6tisch-minimal-security to zero-touch enrollment
X-BeenThere: 6tisch-security@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Extended Design Team for 6TiSCH security architecture <6tisch-security.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tisch-security>, <mailto:6tisch-security-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6tisch-security/>
List-Post: <mailto:6tisch-security@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tisch-security-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-security>, <mailto:6tisch-security-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 21:39:54 -0000

Mališa Vučinić <malisa.vucinic@inria.fr> wrote:
    > Note that the bitbucket version of minimal-security now implements your
    > idea of JRC-initiated security handshake in case asymmetric keys are
    > used. The discovery of the pledge is triggered by a “Discovery Message”
    > that maps to CoAP and is sent from the pledge to the JRC.  Upon

I have read now:
  It's in section Security Handshake, right?

Your description is too simple, and I don't think it makes any sense to put
it here. I think it should simply refer to dtsecurity-secure-join.

As for the Discovery Message, this seems reasonable.
Is this process optional, or is it caused by the init bit in the EB being
clear?

It needs to have a mandatory reply so that the pledge knows that it has
succeeded in reaching the JRC.  A reply from the JRC might also need to
indicate that the pledge should proceed to initiate?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email