Re: [Ace] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-ace-usecases-09: (with COMMENT)

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 22 October 2015 13:59 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF8181ACDA6; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 06:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] autolearn=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 3fIJ5QfRrqMY; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 06:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (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 724621ACDB0; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 06:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.201.11]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t9MDxJdG004719; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 15:59:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p5DC7F6AE.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.199.246.174]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3nhVfv4JxgzHxGp; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 15:59:19 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <20151022132903.23826.2689.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 15:59:18 +0200
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 467215124.590428-2fe0e48fd64f0b753c2b5e230dd602b1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9727B59F-CD2D-4A32-8F7B-F5C89EE2E388@tzi.org>
References: <20151022132903.23826.2689.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3096.5)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/hWhtQko98oH1GvVnn_emgar5SSs>
Cc: ace-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, ace@ietf.org, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net, draft-ietf-ace-usecases@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ace] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-ace-usecases-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ace@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 22 Oct 2015 13:59:33 -0000

Hi Stephen,

I agree with all of these.
However, they are not specific to ACE; they are general security considerations for constrained devices (or IoT things in general).
I think what we need to do is collect the security considerations we have in, say, RFC 7252, RFC 7228, etc., combine this with the points below and a few more that came up, and generate a referenceable “Security Considerations for Constrained Devices on the Internet” document.  I’d love to reference that from any document I’m working on.

Grüße, Carsten


> On 22 Oct 2015, at 15:29, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> 
> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ace-usecases-09: Yes
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-usecases/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Excellent and well written document, thanks. I think there are
> five things you could usefully add, see below. That said, I
> agree that this cannot and should not try to be fully complete
> so I won't argue (much:-) if you prefer to omit these. We/you
> can figure out what if any text to add I'm sure, but I'm happy
> to chat about that.
> 
> 1. Software update is really needed and often missing and
> usually hard. There's at least a need to authenticate and
> authorize new firmware, when there is any update. That may not
> be the same as authorizing a new config.
> 
> 2. Alice buys a new device, and would like to know if it is
> calling home or what it is doing before she configures it, or
> perhaps before she accepts it in her network. Even if she
> accepts it, she may want to be able to monitor the data it
> is sending "home" e.g. to ensure her TV is not sending 
> data when she inserts a USB stick, if that is undesired.
> 
> 3. Device fingerprinting is a threat that ought be considered
> by solution developers, especially if there is no reliable
> software update. Probably the best to be done is to try to
> make it hard for unauthorized parties to fingerprint a device,
> but that's also hard.
> 
> 4. Commercial Devices will be end-of-lifed by vendors, and yet
> Alice still needs to be able to use, and perhaos to update,
> the device. That calls for some kind of authorization handover
> which is not quite the same as a change of ownership.
> 
> 5. Penetration testing will happen and devices should not barf
> even then. Maybe that's a security consideration worth a
> mention.
> 
> See also the secdir review. [1] It'd be good to see a 
> response to that.
> 
>   [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06101.html
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ace mailing list
> Ace@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
>