Re: [Dtls-iot] DTLS multicast security

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On 19 Sep 2014, at 17:01, Michael StJohns <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> I agree with Ludwig that having a secure multicast is considered a benefit by many.
> My problem with this statement is that I would consider anti-gravity to be a benefit to many, but that AG has exactly the same scientific basis as symmetric key multicast security - none.  There's long, long experience on this topic that the document writers have ignored.

This discussion is a great demonstration that the IETF is unfit to do appropriate security.

Yes, there is no known way to do efficient multicast security at military security levels*).

I’m not interested in military security.
The use cases I’m interested in need neither nonrepudiation nor do they need to address a threat model that involves tampering with devices.

draft-mglt-dice-ipsec-for-application-payload demonstrates that we already have the IETF protocols in place to do appropriate security here.

All the various Philips proposals tried to do was to package this functionality in a way that fits better to the other security protocols that DICE is trying to improve.  (And, yes, that work wasn’t finished before it was derailed.)

If we cannot continue this work because it wouldn’t solve other use cases we don’t care about, that would be rather disappointing.

Grüße, Carsten

*) TESLA is not solving our problem either.