Re: [Lwip] (on PUFs) Re: [IoT-DIR] Iotdir early review of draft-ietf-lwig-crypto-sensors-04

[Rene Struik <[e-mail]>]

Hi Hannes:

It is hard to answer a generic "useful for" question. Question for me is 
which hard security lifecycle problem you are trying to solve and how 
(presumably) physically unclonable functions could be a potential fit in 
addressing this problem; another question is where IoT security 
lifecycle is different than any security lifecycle (i.e., without the 
IoT "prefix").

My slides show two main uses of PUFs: burying keys and generating noisy 
non-repeating values (see my slides). There are some technical 
challenges as well and ways to give the technology a further "booster 
shot" (challenges/booster shot could be discussed offline).

Best regards, Rene

On 11/8/2017 2:31 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>
> Thanks for sharing your presentation, Rene.
>
> Do you consider PUFs useful for IoT security? That’s a point I 
> couldn’t really see from your slide deck.
>
> Ciao
>
> Hannes
>
> *From:*Rene Struik [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* 07 November 2017 15:53
> *To:* Samita Chakrabarti; Hannes Tschofenig
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* (on PUFs) Re: [Lwip] [IoT-DIR] Iotdir early review of 
> draft-ietf-lwig-crypto-sensors-04
>
> Hi Samita, Hannes, et al:
>
> I gave a presentation on physically unclonable functions at NIST key 
> management workshop 5 years ago (see [1]), which explains the main 
> concepts. Please note that the "unique device property" is lost as 
> soon as the PUF f or a deterministically-derived key K=H(f) is exposed 
> (see Slide 6 -- hence, the color coding in "red", not to be exposed 
> material). One needs to do extra tricks, i.e., design a 
> challenge-response protocol that witnesses possession of f without 
> revealing this, to use this for ongoing authentication. There are ways 
> to do this, though.
>
> Best regards, Rene
>
> [1] R. Struik, “Secure Key Storage and True Random Number Generation,” 
> presented at/NIST-KMW: NIST Cryptographic Key Management Workshop/, 
> Gaithersburg, MD, September 10-11, 2012
>
> Available from 
> https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/events/cryptographic-key-management-workshop-2012/documents/struik_nist_kmw_2012.pdf
>
>
> On 11/6/2017 11:21 PM, Samita Chakrabarti wrote:
>
>     Hi Hannes,
>
>     I have not done comparison with other technologies. But as I
>     mentioned that it exists. I like the fact it can generate unique
>     'intrinsic-id' based on the physical properties of the chip-set.
>     If IOT-DIR folks like to know more, perhaps I can find out if
>     there is a remote presentation and Q&A session possible from the
>     Intrinsic-id folks sometime in the near future. ( Disclaimer: I
>     have no particular interest other than knowing more about the
>     feasibility  of application of that technology) I was thinking
>     that this ID can be used in any mutual authentication protocols (
>     especially generating the private key). Do you have more
>     information on them or think otherwise ?
>
>     Regards,
>
>     -Samita
>
>     On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 1:39 AM, Hannes Tschofenig
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Samita,
>
>     Do you think PUFs are useful authentication technologies for IoT
>     devices?
>
>     Ciao
>     Hannes
>
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: IoT-DIR [mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Samita Chakrabarti
>     Sent: 06 November 2017 10:37
>     To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>     [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     Subject: [IoT-DIR] Iotdir early review of
>     draft-ietf-lwig-crypto-sensors-04
>
>     Reviewer: Samita Chakrabarti
>     Review result: Ready with Nits
>
>     I have reviewed draft-ietf-lwig-crypto-sensors-04 document for 
>     IOT-Directorate review. The following are my comments:
>
>     General : The document is easy reading and informative about
>     current and previous work. It is ready to publish with minor
>     changes based on review comments.
>
>     Other comments:
>     Introduction:
>      It might be useful to discuss/clarify that multi-level security
>     may be  important for IOT devices  all the way from 'bootstrapping
>     and management' to  application security. That perhaps can include
>     obtaining IP-addresses  securely, mutual authentication between
>     server and devices , etc. ( see
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-03) in those
>     cases where each  device has an IP address.
>
>     Section 2:
>     Regarding problems of provisioning and management of networks for
>     the IOT devices there may be additional issues – 1) different
>     types of IOT devices and the lack of standards way to provision
>     them as they might be talking different RF technologies and
>     running L2 protocols only. 2) The iot nodes may be moving
>     individually or collectively and change networks; identifying the
>     movement of the iot nodes or identifying a particular node at any
>     point of time uniquely requires an intrinsic identification which
>     might be useful to set during bootstrapping of the node
>
>     Regarding related work – does it consider IETF IOT security work
>     only? There have been some work and thought process going on
>     regarding blockchain IOT security in the industry. Perhaps that is
>     out-of-scope of this document, but I wanted to mention for
>     authors’ considerations.
>
>     Section 5:
>     Authors of the document may also want to browse a SRAM PUF based
>     technology which provides unique ID based authentication mechanism.
>     https://www.intrinsic-id.com/intrinsic-id-joins-wi-sun-alliance/
>
>     Section 9:
>     Does the example simulate any particular deployment model or
>     research experiments ? It might be good to clarify that. Section
>     10 and 11: Looks like section 11 is closely related to section 10.
>     Should they be combined together ?
>     Else some more text is needed in section 10 on design trade-offs.
>
>     Section 13:
>     Does this document recommend one layer of security to IOT devices
>     ? There are different types of IOT devices – some of them are very
>     tiny and some are more capable. Some definitely benefit for
>     multi-level security  than single layer of security.  L2 security
>     is generally recommended for for all IOT networks. Does data
>     object protection only protect the  application data (payload)  or
>     more ?
>
>     Thanks for the initiative in documenting the valuable work in IOT
>     security implementation and crypto comparison. -Samita
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     IoT-DIR mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-dir
>
>     IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments
>     are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the
>     intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do
>     not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any
>     purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     Lwip mailing list
>
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
>
> -- 
> email:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>  | Skype: rstruik
> cell: [phone] | US: [phone]
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are 
> confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended 
> recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose 
> the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or 
> copy the information in any medium. Thank you. 


-- 
email: [e-mail] | Skype: rstruik
cell: [phone] | US: [phone]