Hi Samita again...:-) > In the first meeting of LowPan wg (BOF?), folks brought up the > security consideration issues. It was mentioned that 802.15.4 > link-layer security should be enough. The following paper > depicts some of the problem scenarios with 802.15.4 security: > > http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~nks/papers/15.4-wise04.pdf > > I was told by a security expert that 802.15.4 security is not > good enough. The above paper recomends a few modifications - does > anyone know if IEEE 802.15.4 workgroup is looking into improving > the link-layer security? > > I don't think IPsec security is a feasible solution on this kind > of small devices where 6lowpan would eventually run. It'd be > interesting to get people's viewpoint on this. > > Since we are routing at the link-layer, it would be better if we > have tighter link-level security and then application level security > using crypto. Perhaps the protocols running on top of LowPan > can run some security protocols that are appropriate for this kind > of network. > > Comments? > > -Samita >
Your comment seems very interesting for me to raise the awareness of 6lowpan security. Yes, 802.15.4 security is not good enough in my understanding. Also, IPSec is not appropriate to 6lowpan small device. So, I think *6lowpan security threat analysis* should be documended prior to moving specific solutions on. Obviously, 6lowpan requires security protocols. Regards, Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park) Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics. _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
