Re: [smartpower-interest] [Fwd: Re: NIST_PAP_01-IP_in_Smart_Grid_v.1.0-Oct_30th_2009]

Igor Faynberg <faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 17 February 2010 20:14 UTC

Return-Path: <faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: smartpower-interest@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: smartpower-interest@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A0AC28C233 for <smartpower-interest@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:14:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_INVITATION=-2]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eWJEHpTx4zIy for <smartpower-interest@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:14:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1416028C226 for <smartpower-interest@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:14:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (h135-3-40-63.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id o1HKGNCB028957 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:16:23 -0600 (CST)
Received: from [135.222.134.173] (faynberg-c1.mh.lucent.com [135.222.134.173]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id o1HKGLQi029878; Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:16:23 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <4B7C4E95.5080105@alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:16:21 -0500
From: Igor Faynberg <faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com>
Organization: Alcatel-Lucent
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ed Jankiewicz <edward.jankiewicz@sri.com>
References: <4B7C4798.7040205@sri.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B7C4798.7040205@sri.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:50:53 -0800
Cc: smartpower-interest@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [smartpower-interest] [Fwd: Re: NIST_PAP_01-IP_in_Smart_Grid_v.1.0-Oct_30th_2009]
X-BeenThere: smartpower-interest@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com
List-Id: Smart Power Interest <smartpower-interest.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartpower-interest>, <mailto:smartpower-interest-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/smartpower-interest>
List-Post: <mailto:smartpower-interest@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:smartpower-interest-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartpower-interest>, <mailto:smartpower-interest-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:14:46 -0000

I agree with everything, but I think it is essential to emphasize other 
aspects of security, too:  not only authentication but also 
authorization, privacy (a serious concern for many reasons, the most 
often cited one being that low power utilization can be an invitation to 
burglars), non-repudiation, and non-replay.

This also strengthens the case for PKI, where the private-key signature 
ensures non-repudiation.

Igor

Ed Jankiewicz wrote:
> ...
> 2.  Security issues, in particular authentication, are fundamental and 
> should be considered from the earliest stages as non-negotiable.  
> Scalable and manageable key distribution is essential to ubiquitous 
> implementation of any protection scheme.  I personally agree with 
> Fred's points on the intractability of almost anything but public key 
> cryptography given the scale of this problem space - very many 
> distributed sensor/actuators in the network under central control, 
> where authentication is an absolute requirement.  Public key exchange 
> will minimize operational complexity and enable future growth of the 
> network.
>