I have been doing some work with constrained devices and would be happy to talk about the problem in SAAG. I've spend a fair amount of time talking to few folks that I think of as part of the security mafia to try and understand how to describe some of the threats and try and get crisp about the overall goals - particularly in thinking about how the problem is different than security problems we have already solved.
I do have a sketch of a proposed solution which I think helps people understand the problem but may or may not be the right path to a good solution. If someone from the security community wanted to help me move this from a sketch to a well formed proposal, that would be great but I think the key thing for SAAG right now is the problem. I'm glad to do this with Carsten - he and I are at pretty opposite ends of the spectrum on some of this stuff but the union of our views likely covers a very large percentage of the broad communities views on the topic. Cullen On Oct 29, 2012, at 14:45 , Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hiya, > > So Carsten volunteered to give saag a heads-up on the > problem this time. If he and Cullen want to arm-wrestle > that's fine:-) I'm sure either would do a fine job. > > I didn't mean to say anything about the solace draft > being good, bad or indifferent. But I figured someone > is working on this problem somewhere and would like > to make sure that whatever solution looks like it'll > be adopted is something that wouldn't cause saag folk > to have fits. > > Cheers, > S. > > On 10/29/2012 08:32 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: >> >>>>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> writes: >> Stephen> Would it be timely to spend 10 minutes on this during the saag >> Stephen> session? >> >> I think, if you want to talk something SOLACE related which is more >> concrete than a possible SOLACE IRTF "charter", then maybe have Cullen >> talk about: >> >> http://www.lix.polytechnique.fr/hipercom/SmartObjectSecurity/papers/CullenJennings.pdf >> http://www.lix.polytechnique.fr/hipercom/SmartObjectSecurity/slides/Cullen1.pdf >> >> Stephen> I'd really like that the security area not end up being surprised >> Stephen> by whatever is eventually decided so getting a presentation at >> Stephen> saag would be useful at the point where you more or less know >> Stephen> the direction, but are still flexible enough to deal with someone >> Stephen> who e.g. points out significant security issues. >> >> Except that: >> 1) the constrained devices are more constrained than the IP phones >> described. >> >> 2) the constrained devices probably can not be attacked/p0wned until >> after they get on the network, and so actually authenticating to the >> network is the "application" >> >> Cullen's slides provide a really good starting explanation. >> While the details of the ultimate answer are going to be a bit different >> in small ways, the basic architecture he presents has been articulated >> repeatedly by many. >> >> So, if your aim is to get more security geeks thinking about attacks, >> and about defenses, in advance of an actual proposed protocol (and >> SOLACE is an I*R*TF group, recall. A protocol might not be the result >> anyway), then I suggest giving Cullen a few minutes to talk about his >> slide 7,8,9. >> >> Stephen> It might be that waiting another meeting cycle or two would be >> Stephen> better if the basic ideas aren't yet firmed up. >> >> One meeting cycle won't help. Four might. >> > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
