Re: Key Missing Feature for IoT

Tue, 09 Apr 2024 06:24:43 -0700 

Thx for detail answers.
Yes. I don't want you to spend months on a contribution only to have us decide it is not something we want to include in the JDK. 
I really appreciate that.
Yes, but PSK introduces security issues that need to be considered. We would have to be very careful about how we proceed and expose the functionality if we decide to support it.
I'm not sure to see security issue you have in mind. Do you have any resources to share about that ? 🙏 


Unfortunately, these are not decisions that can be made quickly. I do 
understand that there are some desirable things missing from the JDK 
DTLS implementation in order to better support IoT use cases, but I 
ask you to be patient while we investigate and determine if this is an 
area that we want to further invest in.

I understand. I didn't expect a short term solution but I just tried to 
see if I could help to improve this not so good situation for IoT Java 
Developer at mid/long term.



Note that reported features are needed for DTLS but for TLS too (except 
CID of course).



Additional community data is always helpful. 

So I will try to collect more data.

Thx again for your time.

Simon

Le 09/04/2024 à 15:07, Sean Mullan a écrit :

Hi Simon,

On 4/8/24 10:12 AM, Simon Bernard wrote:

Hi Sean,

   Thx for warning me about that.

   I understand that maybe this is too soon for contributing code ? and
also that finally this not so sure that you want to integrate (D)TLS
feature that I mentioned previously as Key IoT features.



Yes. I don't want you to spend months on a contribution only to have 
us decide it is not something we want to include in the JDK.



   So not sure what should I do now. In my first message, I try to 
expose

why I think some (D)TLS feature are strongly needed in Java Eco System
if that platform want to target IoT use cases (at least at server side)
and why the current situation is not so good.

   Here another example that show the "not so good" situation :
https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/issues/1604



Yes, but PSK introduces security issues that need to be considered. We 
would have to be very careful about how we proceed and expose the 
functionality if we decide to support it.



   Is there something that I can do to help you to make decision about
those topics ? (Or maybe you try to tell me politely to not have too
much hope on this because it's not the priority at all for you)



Unfortunately, these are not decisions that can be made quickly. I do 
understand that there are some desirable things missing from the JDK 
DTLS implementation in order to better support IoT use cases, but I 
ask you to be patient while we investigate and determine if this is an 
area that we want to further invest in.




   Maybe I should try to better summarize the situation and also collect
more use case and/or project that needs this kind of feature ? (Maybe I
should ask for feedback from Eclipse IoT community?)


Additional community data is always helpful.

Thanks,
Sean


   I don't know 🤷‍♀️, I'm a bit lost.

Simon


Le 02/04/2024 à 20:57, Sean Mullan a écrit :


Resending; fixed some of the link numbers.

Hi,

Sorry for the delay in replying as I have been busy with other issues.

Thank you for your interest in Java Security. Thank you Daniel for also
helping out with answering some of the questions.

As Daniel pointed out, there are currently Enhancements open for adding
CCM and PSK support to the JDK [1, 2]. Although these seem like nice to
have features, we have not done enough analysis to know how much effort
it would take and whether it is important enough for the Java Platform
to support with respect to other projects/enhancements we are working
on, such as incorporating new APIs like KEM [3] and KDF [4] and
forthcoming PQC crypto support.

However, I want to stress that we don't just accept any contributions
that you think are worthwhile. While we welcome contributions, we do
advise newcomers to read through the OpenJDK Developer's Guide [5], and
recommend working on smaller contributions and bug fixes and developing
a track record of trust. When considering enhancements, it is important
that the community, myself and other members of the Security Group [6]
agree that there is enough demand for that feature and that it is
something we would want to support in the Java Platform for years to
come. Those discussions should occur on this list. We may also conclude
that while we think it would be valuable, we are not ready to make a
decision about proceeding, and instead file an Enhancement for now.

I look forward to continuing this and other discussions on things you
would like to see in Java Security.

Thanks,
Sean

[1] https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8176395
[2] https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8049402
[3] https://openjdk.org/jeps/452
[4] https://openjdk.org/jeps/8189808
[5] https://openjdk.org/guide/#author-committer-reviewer
[6] https://openjdk.org/groups/security/

On 3/20/24 5:19 AM, Daniel Jeliński wrote:

any recommendation or example of this kind of work?


Check out these JEPs, the description section:
https://openjdk.org/jeps/329
https://openjdk.org/jeps/8245551
https://openjdk.org/jeps/8281710

In the PSK case the main question is, how is the user going to
configure the keys?
Cheers,
Daniel

wt., 19 mar 2024 o 16:36 Simon Bernard <cont...@simonbernard.eu>
napisał(a):



Well I think AES-CCM is a decent candidate to start.

OK, I will probably take time to see if this is something within my
reach.

(I have limited time by week to give on that and not an expert on 
this

topic, so this will be mid/long term task)


Regarding PSK API, if you could put together a more complete 
proposal

of the API changes, together with an example of how this would look

from the API consumer side, this would be a good starting point 
for a

discussion

I'm not sure a mail is a right way to do that, any recommendation or
example of this kind of work ?
Eventually I can write some code/documentation in a personal github
repository.

Regards,
Simon

Le 18/03/2024 à 09:59, Daniel Jeliński a écrit :

Well I think AES-CCM is a decent candidate to start. If you 
choose to
work on this, you'll need to add support for AES/CCM to the JCE 
first.
Most of the code is already there: AES is implemented, CTR and 
CBC are
implemented, AEAD mode is implemented, so it's probably just a 
matter

of wiring these things together, and adding some known-answer tests,
which you can find here:

https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/Cryptographic-Algorithm-Validation-Program/CAVP-TESTING-BLOCK-CIPHER-MODES 




Yes, you'll need the Oracle Contributor Agreement before you can
contribute code to the JDK. Once you have it, you can open a PR. Use
8176395 in the PR title. The guide contains the instructions for
running selected tests only.


Regarding PSK API, if you could put together a more complete 
proposal

of the API changes, together with an example of how this would look

from the API consumer side, this would be a good starting point 
for a
discussion. I know this is a lot to ask, but this is necessary to 
make

progres on the PSK.

Cheers,
Daniel

pt., 15 mar 2024 o 16:43 Simon Bernard <cont...@simonbernard.eu>
napisał(a):

Thx for all this clarification.

    For example, how will the user configure the list of available
PSKs?

Regarding PSK API from other libraries :

AdvancedPskStore from Scandium 3.x which is not so straight
forward to use mainly because it supports async request :

https://github.com/eclipse-californium/californium/blob/3.11.0/scandium-core/src/main/java/org/eclipse/californium/scandium/dtls/pskstore/AdvancedPskStore.java 



PskStore from Scandium 2.x is more simple to understand but no
async way to request PSK :

https://github.com/eclipse-californium/californium/blob/2.8.0/scandium-core/src/main/java/org/eclipse/californium/scandium/dtls/pskstore/PskStore.java 



PSKKeyManager from Concrypt is a more JSSE oriented API (no async
too). I also understand that this API is available when coding for
Android but I think there is a drawback a client is not able to
select Identity based on InetSocketAddress of destination.
    -

https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/base/+/ba12af5/core/java/android/net/PskKeyManager.java 


    -

https://github.com/google/conscrypt/blob/2.5.2/common/src/main/java/org/conscrypt/PSKKeyManager.java 


Note that this class is deprecated in concrypt : I tried to get
more about this : https://github.com/google/conscrypt/issues/1197

TlsPSKIdentityManager is very simple and very limited API from
Bouncy Castle :

https://github.com/bcgit/bc-java/blob/1.72/tls/src/main/java/org/bouncycastle/tls/TlsPSKIdentityManager.java 



Note that most of them would probably have been thought with
(D)TLS 1.2 in mind. I don't know if this is adapted for (D)TLS 1.3.

Well, for AES-CCM a pull request would have been nice :)

I'm not so familiar with JSSE API/SunJSSE provider design for now.
Do you think AES-CCM is a good candidate to start ?
I guess if I want to try to help on this, I need to have a look at
: https://openjdk.org/guide/ (and also Contribution agreement)
Oh and working on JSSE when it's time to build/running tests is
there a more simple way than building/testing whole JDK ?

Simon

Le 15/03/2024 à 13:16, Daniel Jeliński a écrit :

Hi Simon,

Yes, the cipher suites in CipherSuite class are available in 
both TLS

and DTLS by default. TLS 1.3 uses different cipher suites from TLS
1.2, so both protocols need to be updated.

Regarding backporting to other versions of Java, backports are

reviewed on a case-by-case basis. TLS changes are usually 
backported,

but that's not a given.


RPK is not implemented either; we have a declaration for the 
relevant

handshake extensions here:

https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/80ccc989a892e4d9f4e2c9395a100cfabbdcda64/src/java.base/share/classes/sun/security/ssl/SSLExtension.java#L239-L240, 



but the producers and consumers aren't defined.

Which kind of help do you need 🙂 ?

Well, for AES-CCM a pull request would have been nice :)

For the other topics, I think we'd need to agree on the scope of 
the
API changes needed. For example, how will the user configure the 
list

of available PSKs? Will we need an API change? If not, which of the
available APIs will we use to configure the keys?

Cheers,
Daniel




pt., 15 mar 2024 o 11:58 Simon Bernard <cont...@simonbernard.eu>
napisał(a):

Hi Daniel,

Thx for quick answer.

For PSK and AES, if this is added then this will be also for TLS ?
(not only DTLS  right ?) and for version 1.2 and 1.3 ? and also
when this feature will be added, would they be available on next
JDK version OR also old version ? (e.g. I know some recent
security feature was backported in java8)

Today, I was looking at Raw Public Key support (RPK) and I
understand this is not supported too. Am I right ?
RPK is also part of LWM2M specification and also refered in
(RFC7925§Section4.3 - TLS / DTLS -Profiles for the Internet of
Things) :
"The use of raw public keys with TLS/DTLS, as defined in
[RFC7250], is the first entry point into public key cryptography
without having to pay the price of certificates and a public key
infrastructure (PKI)."

    Help is welcome.

Which kind of help do you need 🙂 ?

Simon

Le 15/03/2024 à 11:38, Daniel Jeliński a écrit :

Hi Simon, welcome to security-dev!

You got the situation of DTLS right:
- PSK cipher suites were first requested in JDK-6476446, then in
JDK-8049402.
- connection identifier is not implemented, and not on the to-do
list yet;
- AES-CCM was requested in JDK-8008342, then in JDK-8176395. If I
understand correctly, this one should be relatively easier to
implement, using the implementation of the ChaCha20 cipher as an
example (see JDK-8140466, JDK-8204192).

It makes perfect sense to add these features to the OpenJDK. They
were
never high enough on the priority list to get implemented. Help is
welcome.

Cheers,
Daniel


czw., 14 mar 2024 o 17:31 Simon Bernard <cont...@simonbernard.eu>
napisał(a):

Hi all,

I'm the main Maintainer of Leshan. An open Source Java
Implementation of LWM2M protocol.

LWM2M is mainly based on coap and coap+tcp protocol.
Security is available by usage of coaps and coaps+tcp which are
based respectively on DTLS and TLS (mainly v1.2 for now)

Currently we only have support of coap and coaps. We are using
Scandium as DTLS implementation, this is an historical choice
because DTLS was not available OpenJDK initially.

Recently, I begin to work about adding coap+tcp and coaps+tcp to
Leshan and so I looked again on available security feature in
OpenJDK to see if I should rely on it but  I understand there
still missing key features for IoT.

My understanding, DTLS 1.2 was added but there is still no support
of :

Pre-Shared Key for (D)TLS 1.2 :  PSK is one of the most basic
techniques for TLS/DTLS since it is both computationally efficient
and bandwidth conserving. (RFC7925§Section4.2 - TLS / DTLS
-Profiles for the Internet of Things)
Connection Identifier for DTLS 1.2 (RFC 9146) : CID is key feature
to limit handshake in dynamic IP environment. (and also be used
for load balancing)
Cipher suite based on AES_128_CCM_8
(TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8, TLS_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8)
which are the recommended or mandatory ciphersuite for CoAP or to
create implementation compliant with RFC7925.

If I missed something and one of those feature is already
available let me know.

The point I want to raise here it that it's pretty hard for Java
IoT developer to support commons Security IoT Feature.

Community can eventually rely on Scandium but it is currently
maintain by only 1 person and doesn't follow JSSE API and only
target DTLS.
Other alternative is maybe Bouncy Castle but Pre-shared key seems
not available in their JSSE provider.
There is also possibility to bind native library but this is not
so easy and also have drawback.
All that solution sounds not so good...

So do you think it could make sense to add this kind of feature in
OpenJDK ?
Or Maybe there is already plan to add it ?

(I hope this is the right place for this kind of question)

Thx,

Simon

























					Reply via email to