Re: [Ace] EST over CoAP

Michael StJohns <> Mon, 14 May 2018 20:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70B3612D960 for <>; Mon, 14 May 2018 13:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6T21PsJRtOK2 for <>; Mon, 14 May 2018 13:50:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0AF012895E for <>; Mon, 14 May 2018 13:50:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP id IJVnfhL5S9RA0IKQ7f3ySJ; Mon, 14 May 2018 20:50:11 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=q20161114; t=1526331011; bh=KIbrwE2fFUiFU8ndiljMI9uaqgqJ6Jz1jFjQJhqYhBg=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=n8Ya3sPbIaY29yhBkzq8qZ90EcAntMdtJFk7x4TAQkhRGfOn/blDNzZnQyKXnhWsy e5MrDc3XQ914B4rwak/SNm4Pm4GeF/3uHSCZzTpO7d/ExMDugP1SA+OLMzAUu7u+TC MobVT1ay3h1VEJMT3EN49T+DBIVk3GKGByQskqN0CmJy41zwckI+W1A8Qp1oECvKNp Cxdn/1fXgshknfbrzI8T07XFZnvnQkIxX0o3F8Lztml22tbK34OJW1uZE1lmn4AfTb gaZleKJKoA9odBSJ26UTLJ5hYZVetDoLtd3lIaBByn1JoDpjClNQ42lhVse5iLs02a gdozZsr0c8p+w==
Received: from [IPv6:2601:152:4400:4013:496d:6089:91f5:b7a8] ([IPv6:2601:152:4400:4013:496d:6089:91f5:b7a8]) by with ESMTPSA id IKQ6fJSEpaPSLIKQ7fQt7E; Mon, 14 May 2018 20:50:11 +0000
References: <> <> <> <30117.1526309628@localhost> <>
From: Michael StJohns <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 16:50:03 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfMa+GxwFCGtVJ5lC2fbUvLG4Vzumngn8sXGokEUPkSc+Lo+HJdws8QnfZGs4fSLJv4oVGbHUDk4E5u3GrA/Rl0mAAKDRVFozvgnuNI2BsqhDfHxthzeE gNyR3vyGoQ9gMS0Zn1wY20lgOcxz5TGO5O99DtID8PQlvyTd+9zJQj6mZthwTTpJSEdPTH3TT5pQyKJ/Ix7tPXftXzYfvDOmaWWCLtenw+Jp2GAnzqqURrPv VNaOrlEiIihQYldKjryK1uVY2AqVycQ7oPRJrx1BM44=
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ace] EST over CoAP
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments \(ace\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 20:50:15 -0000

Hi Hannes -

Basically, the argument I'm hearing again is that we have to have common 
protocols that work with the least capable devices in the same way that 
they work with more capable devices.   Which then is taken to mean that 
we have to limit the security of said protocols to what's available with 
those most limited devices.

This seems to be a bad argument both for the big guys and for the small 
guys.  And its really not about the hardware requirements for a specific 
device that should be the concern of the IETF, but about specifying the 
protocol requirements - said requirements being reasonable for the 
specific limited field of use.

E.g. The recommendation must be for a "good" RNG - that doesn't 
necessarily translate to a requirement for a hardware TRNG, but if 
that's what you need to get to "good", then that's what the builder 
should spec.

I'm wondering if its time to fork the Internet Standards path and create 
an IOT Standards RFC path that deals with these less capable devices, 
explains that these are not to be used for larger devices unless talking 
to the constrained devices, but which still gets the IETF standards 
process treatment?  RFC 7228 may have done us a disservice by not 
explaining what the minimum capable security services were for each of 
the classes.


On 5/14/2018 2:49 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> Here is my personal take on this: you have to do your threat assessment to find out what attacks you care about. This will determine your hardware requirements (not the other way around). At a minimum you will have to figure out how to provide randomness in your design and that can come at a very low cost. For example, if I use ST's MCU finder and search for microcontrollers that have TRNG support then I get 410 results (only for STM MCUs).
> If you aim for devices that also provide ECC/RSA crypto in hardware + tamper-resistant key storage then we will move past the RFC 7228-type of constrained IoT device classes. You have can a look of what this means in context of Arm IP:
> On a meta-level I have difficulties with the security design decisions made in IETF IoT-related groups since they swing back and forth between the extremes in pretty much no time. At the London IETF meeting I hear people talking about drafting guidelines for the use of new crypto algorithms with IoT devices since P256r1 and AES128-CCM is not good enough for them. At the same time I am having a hard time convincing people that using an unauthenticated identifier is not good for security.
> Ciao
> Hannes
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ace [] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
> Sent: 14 May 2018 16:54
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Ace] EST over CoAP
> Hannes Tschofenig <> wrote:
>      > Regarding the randomness requirement and the energy consumption. We
>      > have been a bit advocate for adding hardware-based random numbers to
>      > devices since randomness is a basic requirement for most security
>      > protocols.
> I think that this is the future, and I very much agree with you.
> There seems to be a stock of older designs which have gone through other kinds of validation (for instance, think about the engineering review of physical cases and PCB design for electric metering).
> My impression is that there is a desire to significantly update the security profile of these devices (some of which are in the field already).  What was deployed had poor security, or had proprietary protocols and there is a desire to move it up to "par".
> The other thing I hear is that the crypto libraries involved take some time to get FIPS-140 certified and so the one that the devices were deployed with do RSA only, and there is a desire to update them to ECDSA (or EdDSA), and means new keys.
> I think that any device with any kind of TPM would rather generate it's own keys.  Whether it's a physical TPM, or some kind of TrustZone,etc. version.
>      > In a nutshell, I think you are better of recommending OEMs to select
>      > the right hardware for the given task.
> I'd like to find some text that acknowledges the past, while setting things up better for the future.
>      > PS: For the proxy work (in context of DTLS/TLS) you might want to reach
>      > out to your co-worker Owen Friel.
> he's in other loops already, but he seems shy to post to lists.
>      > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are
> I wish your email system would omit this, as it's both meaningless and sometimes harmful.
> --
> Michael Richardson <>, Sandelman Software Works  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> Ace mailing list