Re: [homenet] Follow-up on HNCP security / trust draft

Steven,

First, I'd like to repeat a comment I made about a month ago:

> So, what we *really* need is a full homenet threat analysis.

In other words I think there's a real risk of overlooking exposures
if we rely only on a threat analysis for HNCP itself.

More below:

On 20/11/2014 22:30, Steven Barth wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
> 
> unfortunately the presentation of the security and trust draft was bit
> rushed in Hawaii.
> 
> I intent to merge that draft with the main HNCP one if there are no
> blocking objections.

Certainly it's reasonable to include HNCP-specific security measures
in the HNCP protocol specification. However, I'm not yet convinced that
the mechanisms you describe really only apply to HNCP (see below).

> So if you have some time please review it so we can get any issues or
> unclarities out of the way soon.
> 
> 
> Here is a quick outline of the draft's contents:
> 
> * Threats to homenet border determination (with focus on automatic
> algorithm)
> * Threats to HNCP payloads (multicast, unicast)
> * Ways to secure the unicast channel
> * 3 security models: PSK, PKI, Trust Consensus
> * Details about the Trust Consensus Mechanism
> * Means to bootstrap Trust Relationships

I have a feeling that these mechanisms need to apply more widely than
to HNCP transactions. If they are done well, they could be used for just
about anything. That remark could be transcribed directly into the anima
discussion, too, so we definitely need to coordinate here.

    Brian

> * Dealing with additional (routing) protocols (lack of) security features
> 
> 
> Please see the slides for a short content summary.
> http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/91/slides/slides-91-homenet-6.pdf
> 
> And the full draft for reference.
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barth-homenet-hncp-security-trust-01
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Steven
> 
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
> 