[Suit] Fwd: Firmware Update Paper

[Emmanuel Baccelli <[e-mail]>]

Hi Szymon

below some more information, since you ask ;)

In the experiment you point out (reported in Table 3 and 4 in [1]) the
transfer of the firmware binary + the manifest (totaling ~35kB) took about
11 seconds.
The 802.15.4 radio was used in 2.4GHz band in default mode (we used an
off-the-shelf SAMR21 board [2] for this experiment).
The signature verification was performed with the HACL library (ed25519) on
an ARM Cortex-M0+ and took approx. 7 seconds -- so yes, pretty long indeed,
in this case.

For other microcontrollers and/or with other signature schemes or
alternative implementations/libraries, the speed & memory footprint we
measured are compared in Tables 8, 7 and 6 (see [1]).

As observed in the paper:
    - the time spent on signature verification heavily depends on the type
of microcontroller, on the signature scheme, and on the specific
implementation;
    - crypto's footprint in Flash memory can significantly impact the size
of update binaries which need to be transferred over the network.

Cheers,

Emmanuel

[1] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=8725488
[2] https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT/wiki/Board:-Samr21-xpro

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 9:53 AM Szymon Słupik <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Thanks Emmanuel,
>
> So the PHY data rate was 250kb/s, right?
>
> WRT Figure 3 (tIme spent) 38% is signature verification and 60% is
> transfer. That seems like signature verification is taking a huge amount
> of time... or was it a different data rate?
>
> Best
>
> Simon
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 5:37 PM Emmanuel Baccelli <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Szymon
>>
>> in the paper [1] for our experiements we used CoAP as transport, over
>> UDP, 6LoWPAN and IEEE 802.15.4 low power radio.
>>
>> However the open source RIOT implementation which stemmed out also works
>> out-of-the-box on other link layers too (among others BLE [3], wired [1]
>> ...).
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Emmanuel
>>
>> [1] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=8725488
>> [2] https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT/tree/master/examples/suit_update
>> [3] https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT/pull/12391
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 12:58 AM Szymon Słupik <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Hannes,
>>>
>>> What transport did you use? I could not find that information explicitly
>>> stated in the paper...
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 12:20 AM Brendan Moran <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi David,
>>>>
>>>> The manifest generator that I released previously was apache
>>>> 2.0-licensed. I don't plan to change that for the next release. I'm also
>>>> developing a manifest parser which I anticipate being released under the
>>>> same license.
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> Brendan
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Suit <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of David Brown
>>>> Sent: 29 November 2019 18:36
>>>> To: Emmanuel Baccelli <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: [Suit] Firmware Update Paper
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 12:46:42PM +0100, Emmanuel Baccelli wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > The open source implementation stemming from our paper [1] is embedded
>>>> > into the RIOT operating system, which is indeed licensed with LGPL.
>>>> > The implementation is compliant with draft-ietf-suit-manifest-00 and
>>>> > has recently been merged into the main branch of RIOT, see [2].
>>>> > Reuse and further contributions to this code base are welcome!
>>>> >
>>>> > Relicensing this code is not planned as far as I know (@ code
>>>> co-authors:
>>>> > please correct me if I'm wrong).
>>>>
>>>> This is fine.  The authors of the code are free to license the code
>>>> however they wish.  I just want to make sure it is clear that this code is
>>>> not useful as a general example, and if the SUIT wishes to have reference
>>>> code, it will need to be licensed differently.
>>>>
>>>> > Related: we know of several companies, big and small, which use RIOT
>>>> > in their IoT products (and thus use software including -- but not
>>>> > limited to -- LGPL
>>>> > code) and they are quite happy with it.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure there are a few companies that are willing to use LGPL
>>>> licensed embedded code, but their existence doesn't negate that there are
>>>> large numbers of users who will be unable to use (or even look at) this
>>>> code.
>>>>
>>>> One example is that both Zephyr and MCUboot are licensed under the
>>>> Apache 2.0 license.  Most parties feel that the Apache 2.0 and the LGPL 2
>>>> license are incompatible, and this code cannot be linked together into a
>>>> single product.  Since I'd like to include SUIT support into MCUboot, this
>>>> means I'll have to be doing an implementation from scratch.
>>>>
>>>> It's not my place to argue about the licensing of RIOT, but I would
>>>> like to see reference code for SUIT that can be used as widley as possible,
>>>> and the licensing of this particular code prevents it from being used for
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Suit mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/suit
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Suit mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/suit
>>>>
>>>