Re: [Iot-onboarding] [Mud] Some new stuff for

Michael Richardson <> Tue, 24 March 2020 21:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9CB63A12D0; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 14:50:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FiogKtV2Rdet; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 14:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65B493A0EFB; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 14:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCBB538982; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 17:49:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71C0916D; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 17:50:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Eliot Lear <>
cc: "M. Ranganathan" <>,,
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 17:50:31 -0400
Message-ID: <18173.1585086631@localhost>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Iot-onboarding] [Mud] Some new stuff for
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IoT onboarding mechanisms <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 21:50:36 -0000

Eliot Lear <> wrote:
    > One could even envision a MUD file without ACLs, not that
    > I would recommend it.

I can imagine a MUD file that just says, "I am a FOO controller"
(Otherwise, I have a fully functional web browser, please don't get in my way)

    > Third, if you are going to produce an SBOM, it seems to me you OUGHT to
    > describe what sort of access you expect the device to have so that if
    > an adversary picks off the SBOM for that particular device or device
    > type, you have some protection.

    > Fourth, if everyone does their own thing with device certificates they
    > are going to bloat, and become operationally unmanageable. I’m not
    > saying there isn’t room for more, but people should think of MUD more
    > as a means to access various statements the vendor wants to make, and
    > less about just ACLs.


Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-