Tero Kivinen <[email protected]> wrote: > Michael Richardson writes: >> > Implementations MUST use different L2 keys when using different MIC >> > lengths, as using same key with different MIC lengths might be >> unsafe > (i.e., using same key for both MIC-32 and MIC-64). See IEEE >> 802.15.4 > Annex B.4.3 for more information. >> >> This seems like it isn't a problem. It would apply to network-wide >> keying only.
> It applies all keys, not only network-wide keys.
yes, but if one uses 802.15.9, then the likelyhood of repeated keys is pretty
low, right?
>> While I guess we could include multiple Link_Layer_Key with the same
>> key_id, and a different key_usage, that wasn't the intention. I guess
>> one could use a different K1 and K2 with a different MIC length, but
>> have no idea why a network would want to mix MIC-32 and MIC-64.
> Most common use might be someone using MIC-32 for beacons, but using
> MIC-64 for actual data or something like that.
Yes, but why do that?
What's the benefit?
> draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security seems to be using different keys
> when the mic length is different (k1, and k2), and when k1 and k2 are
> same it will always use same mic length, so there is no problem there.
> Anyways it might good idea to add the warning somewhere, just incase
> someone adds new combinations without realizing this problem.
okay.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
