Re: [Ace] Group Communication Security Disagreements

["Grunwald, Markus" <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

Let's do this the right way.  Let's not bow to the "tyranny of the light switch" in accepting solutions that are NOT secure, even for the limited scope they are proposing.

Later, Mike

If this is a bait, I’ll bite ;)

I think everybody already agreed that private/public key encryption is the way for a bullet proofed group communication. But there are other questions:

-        Does it have to be bullet proofed?

-        How are applications handled that are not able to provide private/public key encryption?

I may (most possibly) have missed something, but the only answer that you seem to accept is “public key encryption”, period. Then let me ask directly: how should systems that have to reply in a tight margin be handled? People will simply not buy a lighting solution where the light will switch on 500ms after you pressed the switch. They will lough at this “solution”.

So, throw more hardware at it? For light switches that cost €100, adding a crypto chip for ¢50 might not be a problem. But there are parts like ECG where ¢2 matter. One of them will be in every luminaire…

This means, there are systems that cannot afford to provide public key encryption. Do you want an IoT without light? Let’s not bow to the “discrimination of the light switch”, at least not for the parking house/ parking lot. An Airport is a different beast.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Markus Grunwald
Development Engineer

OSRAM GmbH
DS D LMS-COM DE-1
Parkring 33
85748 Garching, Deutschland
Tel. [phone]
mailto:[e-mail]
www.osram.com

Bitte prüfen Sie der Umwelt zuliebe, ob der Ausdruck dieser Mail erforderlich ist!

OSRAM GmbH: Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Peter Bauer; Geschäftsführung: Dr. Olaf Berlien (Vorsitzender), Dr. Stefan Kampmann;
Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht: München, HRB 201526; WEEE-Reg.-Nr. DE 71568000