On 2016-07-21 14:49, Michael StJohns wrote:
On 7/21/2016 5:29 AM, Ludwig Seitz wrote:
On 2016-07-21 11:04, Michael Richardson wrote:

Why will ACE succeed when DICE failed?
Does ACE now have some knowledge or mechanism that DICE couldn't have
created
because it was out of scope?


ACE is (also) about authorization, which DICE wasn't. A compromised
lightbulb might well have the possibility to talk to a door lock
(using it's group key), but it would lack the authorization to do
anything with the lock.

IMHO that's what ACE add that DICE didn't have (and wasn't chartered
to have).

Hi Ludwig -

Sorry - you are incorrect.

The group key is also the authorization key in the model proposed. Any
entity that holds that key can forge a message that can cause the action
authorized by the issuance of that key. In your example, assuming that
the door lock and the lightbulb share the same group key, then
compromising the lightbulb allows you to control the door lock.


That is certainly not the model I had in mind. Why on earth would a sane Authorization Server issue OAuth access tokens that authorize operations on the door-locks and that are bound to the lightbulb-group key?

The way I see this play out is this: In the low latency cases, with low security requirements (such as turning on lights, or operating blinds) you can use the group key for authorization, but this authorization would be clearly scoped to the lights or blinds. Resources with higher security requirements (such as door-locks) shouldn't be on the same multicast-group to start with, but even if they were, they SHOULD NOT be configured to accept actuator commands authorized by access tokens bound to a multicast group key.

Would that address your concerns?

/Ludwig

--
Ludwig Seitz, PhD
SICS Swedish ICT AB
Ideon Science Park
Building Beta 2
Scheelevägen 17
SE-223 70 Lund

Phone +46(0)70-349 92 51
http://www.sics.se

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

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

Reply via email to