It seems that this would trigger the exchange of:

(1) 6 packets between JN and JA,
(2) 4 packets between JA and JCE on a multi hop path.

Communication of (1) happens in the shared slot so collisions are likely. 
Communication of (2) happens over multiple hops so it affects the network.

I am skeptical how this would look like in terms of delay for the initial 
formation of a large network and in your example bellow JA learns that JN is 
valid only in step (6) at the end of the exchange, when 4 packets have already 
traversed the whole network. In that sense, I don’t see any benefit from JA 
there, except that we can get rid of one packet, EAP identity request… Am I 
missing something?

What do we loose in terms of security if JN simply uses its PSK to generate a 
MAC protected COSE object that can fit in one radio frame that JA forwards to 
JCE? We said that we can protect from replay either using ASN or a monotonic 
counter local to JN. In that case, it would suffice that JCE verifies the 
object and creates a new one that JN can accept, encapsulating whatever 
domain-specific keys are necessary… 

This would result in:

(1) 2 packets between JN and JA,
(2) 2 packets between JA and JCE on a multi hop path.

This roughly reduces the latency by a factor of 3 for the most critical 
stochastic part, and by a factor of 2 for the deterministic part…
I realize that we are not doing challenge-response there but I am not clear 
what do we really loose since JCE takes care of replay protection from a rogue 
JN, and JN can make sure that it does not use the PSK with the same IV more 
than once?

Regards,
Mališa

 

> On 08 Sep 2015, at 13:03, Tero Kivinen <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> If you use 802.15.9 with IKEv2 (I use that as an example as I know it
> best), and you use mutual EAP-AKA for IKEv2 authentication the
> exchange would be as follows:
> 
> 
> JN              JA                       JCE/AAA
> ==              ==                       =======
> 
> IKE_SA_INIT ------>
> 
> <------ IKE_SA_INIT
> 
> IKE_AUTH ---------> (1)
> 
>                   EAP-Response/Identity --> (2)
> 
>                   <----- EAP-Request/AKA-Challenge
> 
> <---------- IKE_AUTH (3)
> 
> IKE_AUTH ---------> (4)
> 
>                   EAP-Response/AKA-Challenge --> (5)
> 
>                   <----- EAP-Success
> 
> <---------- IKE_AUTH (6)
> 
> After that exchange the JN and JA share key generated by IKEv2, and JN
> has been authenticated using EAP-AKA, and the JN can trust that JA is
> someone who can connect to JCE and that authenticates network for him.
> 
> 
> (1) This message already contains the ID, so the EAP Identity request
> and response messages are omitted.
> 
> (2) This EAP-Response/Identity is generated based on the IKEv2 ID
> inside the IKE_AUTH, and it is transmitted using whatever protocol
> that is there for JA to talk to JCE. The protocol could be RADIUS,
> Diameter, or EAP over CoAP or whatever. This authentication needs to
> be secured, so that nobody not in the network cannot do authentication
> requests, but as JA is already part of the network and shares key with
> JCE this should be easy.
> 
> (3) This IKE_AUTH contains the AKA-Challenge request received from
> JCE.
> 
> (4) This IKE_AUTH contains the AKA-Challenge response generated by JN.
> 
> (5) JA takes the AKA-Challenge response from IKE_AUTH and forwards it
> to the JCE. If JCE verifies the response, it will send EAP-Success
> indicating that JN should be allowed to join.
> 
> (6) this IKE_AUTH will contain the EAP-Success, and it will finish
> creating the keying material used between JN and JA. The JA will
> already at that point know that JN is authenticated, so it can also
> send all group shared keys inside that IKEv2 message to distribute
> group keys to the JN.
> 
> After that the JN can start TSCH related joining process, i.e.
> associate itself to the network to get short address, and allocate
> required transmission slots. All this is already secured by either the
> link key shared between JN and JA, or group key sent by the JA to the
> JN after JN has been authenticated.
> 
> Instead of IKEv2, you can most likely use also other KMPs specified in
> the 802.15.9 (802.1X, IKEv2, HIP, PANA, Dragonfly).

_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch

Reply via email to