IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6tisch] TSCH and CCM security proofs

Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi> Thu, 11 July 2019 22:24 UTC

Return-Path: <kivinen@iki.fi>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6418E1200DB for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 15:24:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.419
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, 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 lCpNUMmO6z7r for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 15:24:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.kivinen.iki.fi (fireball.acr.fi [83.145.195.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29A0C1200B6 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 15:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fireball.acr.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.kivinen.iki.fi (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x6BMO2m8012889 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 12 Jul 2019 01:24:02 +0300 (EEST)
Received: (from kivinen@localhost) by fireball.acr.fi (8.15.2/8.14.8/Submit) id x6BMO2C9019001; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 01:24:02 +0300 (EEST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <23847.46850.300632.27575@fireball.acr.fi>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 01:24:02 +0300
From: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
Cc: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB3565CBB6A212C64388B3AA28D8F30@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <23846.23772.363888.302178@fireball.acr.fi> <MN2PR11MB3565CBB6A212C64388B3AA28D8F30@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 25.1.1 (x86_64--netbsd)
X-Edit-Time: 5 min
X-Total-Time: 4 min
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/8U4iJYUyuboKorzsY1pNxVYesCQ>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] TSCH and CCM security proofs
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss link layer model for Deterministic IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e, and impacts on RPL and 6LoWPAN such as resource allocation" <6tisch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6tisch/>
List-Post: <mailto:6tisch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 22:24:16 -0000

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) writes:
> Do you have an intention to add text like this in a draft or in
> annex of a draft?

I think it will be enough for our IETF drafts to just say:

  Implementations MUST use different L2 keys when using different MIC
  lengths, as using same key with different MIC lengths might be
  unsafe (i.e., using same key for both MIC-32 and MIC-64). See IEEE
  802.15.4 Annex B.4.3 for more information.
-- 
kivinen@iki.fi

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email