IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [homenet] HNCP security?

Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net> Wed, 24 September 2014 12:01 UTC

Return-Path: <mark@townsley.net>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB6DF1A000A for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 05:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 xRIdKcjuKxA9 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 05:01:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-f45.google.com (mail-la0-f45.google.com [209.85.215.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 445DB1A0008 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 05:01:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f45.google.com with SMTP id el20so4053524lab.18 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 05:01:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version:subject:message-id:date:references:in-reply-to:to; bh=uk3XLI6lAG18Y0SFtYI7R1ioRYfBa7a/6REYQdg13fU=; b=Gh4P2L+SbNlfj+0e9CCSNwB1Co1/94M5y8CyNqVMXeTIK0eUadbIIQSIzQnyZ3CxB4 CI2cv/Lrwlj7mGAEzkk+IQzBwtLoZKhTuwQy6aIKm5iKCyzWW7dJcmJHzicbJqbL/TRh sxzN8aCWvsAXNzsvisgApxIt7mKVaD8lajoXAZlOap163G0wOrtjCzlS+uTwhsiQQHIO MSeW5OmyXctcDkNk6sRZzQ/i3ud3vk2+4+MOfB6+Xhdyhzvnu7lZgMWc8IszI1TglDWo K64S9JMJPsxr7f0exUW7cFyezIVRuqx36Y3akoxvpTfqwWTVDKYuvlZBvEmw+j8ZMRP1 QH3w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmTQSdoWrjdF087BlKx7dm+fpwq0Gf1w8sxi6dMjx0Wg5gfZhHn9kE7/024hvYeOOtxsmsi
X-Received: by 10.112.17.2 with SMTP id k2mr5827777lbd.28.1411560096146; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 05:01:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.20.46.5] ([79.170.214.36]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id v6sm5724068lbb.33.2014.09.24.05.01.35 for <homenet@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 24 Sep 2014 05:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-F120E6F6-0633-4819-88CC-6E75D0385B7B"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Message-Id: <D3AB1759-4070-4CB8-B1D2-292472BE3197@townsley.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:01:34 +0200
References: <7BDD2D54-1058-4196-9BAD-770544096C93@iki.fi> <830.1410875532@sandelman.ca> <47647B8C-E3E6-4291-9F31-FBEE5FF53BFC@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|ba68076a23b44efccb32951649dba30aq8FLVJ03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|47647B8C-E3E6-4291-9F31-FBEE5FF53BFC@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1409170820460.14735@uplift.swm.pp.se> <5419A19F.1030808@mtcc.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1409180643250.14735@uplift.swm.pp.se> <541A7C1E.6090005@openwrt.org> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E61130E839B6@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <FD0A639D-2B33-473C-9F91-5AD39B30BBF8@fugue.com> <0F4C6033-0D1F-4B5E-B47E-72F87F888C50@townsley.net> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1409240738210.14735@uplift.swm.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1409240738210.14735@uplift.swm.pp.se>
To: "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (11D201)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/h6buXcM3Yfjz2UElYzqQmcJIXM4
Subject: Re: [homenet] HNCP security?
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:01:40 -0000

Thank you for all of the discussion on this important topic. 

Without declaring consensus on how far we should go scope-wise in terms of overall homenet security just yet, I'd like to know if, in terms of HNCP itself from a bits-on-the-wire protocol perspective, can we adopt this proposal proposal from Mikael? If yes, please say so. If no, please say why not (and even better if you can propose text that would alleviate your concern). 

Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

> So my proposal is that we make HNCP capable of using several methods, one is unsecure, one is secure by means of a shared secret, and then add other optional methods using PKI that would enable the above mentioned "accept each device manually" more secure way.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email