Re: [Ace] Summary of ACE Group Communication Security Discussion

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 17 November 2016 07:28 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 669981295AF for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 23:28:45 -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, SPF_PASS=-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 DiJhQm2e0-xI for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 23:28:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE312129467 for <ace@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 23:28:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (dhcp-8d96.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.141.150]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6971A1F8F0 for <ace@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 07:28:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 663B028A4; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 16:28:39 +0900 (KST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: ace@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <3ccde008-1e19-718d-37bb-ed7653c60ec9@comcast.net>
References: <D40F1535.451DD%kepeng.lkp@alibaba-inc.com> <1cc7f243-e7f7-6ec5-7140-88c74853dc34@gmx.net> <04FDEBEF-68CF-4DC6-B760-4DFB1B87D22C@gmail.com> <b69552fc-97c1-bc8f-6282-c3d42bf081c0@comcast.net> <6108.1478988687@dooku.sandelman.ca> <187ea38f-3271-ee91-7053-3e5ecedeafea@comcast.net> <7f461eca-b294-4a4f-b8e1-ec2fe70effaf.kepeng.lkp@alibaba-inc.com> <3ccde008-1e19-718d-37bb-ed7653c60ec9@comcast.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> message dated "Thu, 17 Nov 2016 00:50:00 -0500."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 16:28:39 +0900
Message-ID: <1956.1479367719@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/ZxqF1-b-pBFpzDtZX-HuztxUk7U>
Subject: Re: [Ace] Summary of ACE Group Communication Security Discussion
X-BeenThere: ace@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments \(ace\)" <ace.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ace/>
List-Post: <mailto:ace@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 07:28:45 -0000

Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> wrote:
    > The multiparty (group) symmetric key solution is only wanted for a
    > single corner of the solution space - low latency, no cost
    > systems. E.g. lightbulbs.  Given there is a worked example of the
    > insecurity of multiparty symmetric key systems (e.g. the attack on the
    > symmetric signing key of the HUE lights), I'm unclear why anyone at all
    > would think that pursuing a known bad solution in the IETF is a good
    > idea.

Also, there is the question about cost, so look at:

  https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-lwig-2-lightweight-crypto-00.pdf

From this morning.

261ms for k163 on a specific device.


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