[core] key provisioning and device association
"Garcia Morchon, Oscar" <oscar.garcia@philips.com> Tue, 26 July 2011 15:07 UTC
Return-Path: <oscar.garcia@philips.com>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E25CC1F0C38 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.849
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.750, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iIv7cjHR0HpY for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TX2EHSOBE006.bigfish.com (tx2ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com [65.55.88.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F80F1F0C37 for <core@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail109-tx2-R.bigfish.com (10.9.14.242) by TX2EHSOBE006.bigfish.com (10.9.40.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:07:54 +0000
Received: from mail109-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail109-tx2-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B87A814E8465; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:07:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-SpamScore: -43
X-BigFish: VPS-43(zz217bL15d6O9251J14e4Mb73dMzz1202hzz8275ch1033IL8275dhz2dh2a8h668h839h944h61h)
X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 0:0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:168.87.56.20; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPVD:NLI; H:smtpx.philips.com; RD:smtpx.philips.com; EFVD:NLI
Received: from mail109-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail109-tx2 (MessageSwitch) id 1311692874252492_9423; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:07:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TX2EHSMHS017.bigfish.com (unknown [10.9.14.251]) by mail109-tx2.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ED5C36804B; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:07:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtpx.philips.com (168.87.56.20) by TX2EHSMHS017.bigfish.com (10.9.99.117) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.22; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:07:53 +0000
Received: from NLHILEXH05.connect1.local (172.16.153.71) by connect1.philips.com (172.16.156.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.106.1; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:07:27 +0200
Received: from NLCLUEXM03.connect1.local ([172.16.157.42]) by NLHILEXH05.connect1.local ([172.16.153.71]) with mapi; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:05:26 +0200
From: "Garcia Morchon, Oscar" <oscar.garcia@philips.com>
To: core WG <core@ietf.org>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:07:37 +0200
Thread-Topic: key provisioning and device association
Thread-Index: AcxLHrcWFeSb6ShZSz+uN66Hn0kYtwAAHOuAABiUMcAACLdhUA==
Message-ID: <5F6BB0D9318FCA4083FC774C9A9ECEF68C17FE7BFC@NLCLUEXM03.connect1.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: philips.com
Cc: "subir@research.telcordia.com" <subir@research.telcordia.com>
Subject: [core] key provisioning and device association
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/core>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:07:57 -0000
Dear all, Yesterday afternoon Yoshi, Subir and myself had a good discussion about approaches related for key provisioning and device association. We would like to create a forum to discuss this all together. Next we wanted to briefly share with you some of the main points (comments/ additions are welcome): - We think that this is an important aspect that should be considered within the working group. - we have to align and discuss different approaches. - approach in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ohba-core-eap-based-bootstrapping/ is a particular approach. We believe that it can work in many use cases; however, it really needs to be analyzed how well it fits, e.g., very resource-constrained devices/networks. At the end of this email you find a description of the involved messages. - as described in Section 6 in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-garcia-core-security/ , different applications might have different needs, in particular: - some approaches might be required due to legacy systems (e.g., AAA architectures usually rely on EAP methods) - some (new) lightweight approaches might be needed to fit in small devices/constrained networks. - In particular, in Prague was discussed the possibility of a very lightweight " Duckling and Mother " approach and I believe that Carsten had started to write an I-D in that direction based on DTLS. In this approach, DTLS was used to set up a common key to be used by a pair of devices. - I think it would be good to recover/think about Carsten's approach. - different approaches can/should be evaluated in: # messages/code size/security/flexibility ------------------------- A few ideas/steps to make next steps more concrete: a) it would be good to create a group "flexible bootstrapping" I-D which includes methods addressing key use cases. b) in particular, it would be good to create an extensible bootstrapping fitting different use cases. Two main needs are as follows (others?) case 1: lightweight applications that have to reuse as much as possible existing code and limit number of exchanged messages bytes (e.g., reuse of operational security protocols (e.g., DTLS) for key provisioning Device association to a security domain) case 2: legacy systems in which protocol reuse is needed. (use of specialized protocols) c) a particular approach - that might be included in the I-D - would be a modular method in which starting with a very basic method valid for resource-constrained devices, the method can be extended in such a way that might also cover legacy systems. This is just a first thought, but that might be good to further analyze it. The approach might have three levels of complexity: - Level 1: very basic "local" approach based on DTLS (as described by Carsten) and allowing for "Duckling and Mother" key provisioning between two devices. (two devices that are close by can setup a common key that can be used with DTLS later. For the ""Duckling and Mother" DTLS is reused so that No additional source code is needed") - Level 2: very basic "centralized" (D)TLS approach in which (D)TLS is used for key provisioning from a central device in the Internet. The key provisioning Might distribute in a secure way some keys to be used in a given security domain). (here DTLS is reused so no additional code is required) - Level 3: TLS can be reused as lower layer for EAP (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nir-tls-eap-12 ). If the same could be done with DTLS, EAP might be transported and CoAP devices could interact with existing AAA infrastructures. This approach however increases the requirements in source code in the devices and might involve a higher overhead. d) the above approach allows for fully interoperability, in the sense that the methods can be extended to address different use cases, but it also requires more standardization. Another approach would be to keep Step 1 and Step 2 based on DTLS as described above, and also have https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ohba-core-eap-based-bootstrapping/. e) Last week I did some research helped by University of Murcia (Spain) where an open implementation of PANA has been developed (http://sourceforge.net/projects/openpana/). Below you find a summary of exchanged messages for the PANA/EAP approach (EAP method based on certificates, PSK would be more lightweight). -------------------------------- I hope this helps, Comments/ideas are very welcome, Regards, Oscar. =================================================================================================== =================================================================================================== >From OpenPana (http://sourceforge.net/projects/openpana/) developed by University of Murcia (Spain) PANA CLIENT INITIATION: 16 bytes PANA AUTH REQUEST (PRF & INTEGRITY Algorithms exchange): 40 bytes PANA AUTH ANSWER (PRF & INTEGRITY Algorithms exchange): 40 bytes PANA AUTH REQUEST (Carrying EAP Packet & NONCE AVP): 60 bytes PANA AUTH ANSWER (Carrying NONCE AVP): 44 bytes PANA AUTH REQUEST (Carrying EAP Packet only (EAP RESPONSE)): 36 bytes PANA AUTH ANSWER (Without AVP): 16 bytes PANA AUTH REQUEST (Carrying EAP Packet only (EAP REQUEST)): 32 bytes PANA AUTH ANSWER (Without AVP): 16 bytes PANA AUTH REQUEST (Carrying EAP Packet only (CLIENT HELLO)): 88 bytes PANA AUTH ANSWER (Without AVP): 16 bytes PANA AUTH REQUEST (Carrying EAP Packet only (SERVER HELLO)): 1324 bytes PANA AUTH ANSWER (Without AVP): 16 bytes PANA AUTH REQUEST (Carrying EAP Packet only (EAP RESPONSE)): 32 bytes PANA AUTH ANSWER (Without AVP): 16 bytes PANA AUTH REQUEST (Carrying EAP Packet only (TLSV1)): 1112 bytes PANA AUTH ANSWER (Without AVP): 16 bytes PANA AUTH REQUEST (Carrying EAP Packet only (SSL)): 1432 bytes PANA AUTH ANSWER (Without AVP): 16 bytes PANA AUTH REQUEST (Carrying EAP Packet only (EAP REQUEST)): 32 bytes PANA AUTH ANSWER (Without AVP): 16 bytes PANA AUTH REQUEST (Carrying EAP Packet only (TLSV1)): 1364 bytes PANA AUTH ANSWER (Without AVP): 16 bytes PANA AUTH REQUEST (Carrying EAP Packet only (TLSV1)): 96 bytes PANA AUTH ANSWER (Without AVP): 16 bytes PANA AUTH REQUEST (Carrying EAP Packet only (EAP RESPONSE)): 32 bytes PANA AUTH ANSWER (Without AVP): 16 bytes PANA AUTH REQUEST (Carrying EAP Packet (EAP SUCCESS), Key-Id, Result-Code, Session-Lifetime & Auth AVPS): 92 bytes PANA AUTH ANSWER (Carrying Key-Id & Auth Avps): 56 bytes (Three short comments: (i) message sizes require fragmentation so that the # of packets in the air will be higher; (ii) PANA-AUTH-REQUEST are PANA-AUTH-ANSWER small (16 B) because EAP piggybacking is not active; (iii) if EAP piggybacking is active, the # of messages would decrease.) The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
- [core] key provisioning and device association Garcia Morchon, Oscar