Re: [Iotops] Error categories in constrained IoT authentication

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 19 February 2021 17:13 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: iotops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iotops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED7433A121C for <iotops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 09:13:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 qA11kXV9pBes for <iotops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 09:13:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4354A3A12CA for <iotops@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 09:13:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40A02389D1; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 12:17:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id LNwRbx9Iy7Ym; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 12:16:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61C4F389D0; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 12:16:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0D4863; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 12:13:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "iotops\@ietf.org" <iotops@ietf.org>, Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl>
cc: =?us-ascii?Q?=3D=3Futf-8=3FB=3FR8O2cmFuIFNlbGFuZGVy=3F=3D?= <goran.selander=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <AM8P190MB0979BF8094F05FDD52B491ADFD879@AM8P190MB0979.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <49569FF2-938B-4584-B290-F16558F352F5@ericsson.com> <27125.1613409584@localhost> <7FFB63D7-801D-4E8B-8257-BE9BCF7BA6BF@ericsson.com> <AM8P190MB0979BF8094F05FDD52B491ADFD879@AM8P190MB0979.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
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-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 12:13:06 -0500
Message-ID: <27954.1613754786@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iotops/GQ4vsORP_DvZmy2iOpwAXt9SmoE>
Subject: Re: [Iotops] Error categories in constrained IoT authentication
X-BeenThere: iotops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IOT Operations <iotops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iotops>, <mailto:iotops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iotops/>
List-Post: <mailto:iotops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iotops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iotops>, <mailto:iotops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 17:13:29 -0000

Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl> wrote:
    > And one security consideration just to keep in mind: too much detail in
    > the error reporting is not good if it reveals information that an
    > attacker can use to do a next, more targeted attack.

Too little is useless.
I think that you explained it very well, and perhaps we can call this the
"Law of Dijk" in the future :-)

    > The HTTP/CoAP,
    > Netconf, or (D)TLS error definitions could indeed provide some
    > inspiration on what to include.  I found also an example of an error
    > code registry here:
    > https://www.iana.org/assignments/alto-protocol/alto-protocol.xhtml#error-codes
    > this kind of registry could be used to keep track of the codes and any
    > extensions to it.

How do you feel about non-failures, like, "I am trying to do X, but I am
timing out. I am still trying"


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide