On 09/24/2014 05:01 AM, Mark Townsley wrote:
Thank you for all of the discussion on this important topic.
Without declaring consensus on how far we should go scope-wise in
terms of overall homenet security just yet, I'd like to know if, in
terms of HNCP itself from a bits-on-the-wire protocol perspective, can
we adopt this proposal proposal from Mikael? If yes, please say so. If
no, please say why not (and even better if you can propose text that
would alleviate your concern).
No. 1) Unsecured is unacceptable. 2) Pre-shared keys suck, and don't
addresses the authz problem. 3) PKI in the traditional
sense (eg certs) is an anti-goal.
The approach should be a more modern "start by using (naked) public keys
as a tool to facilitate the enrollment problem that
homenet MUST solve for, and produce solutions that address the security
threats, littleconf needs, and low-clue nature of homenets."
Mike, uncaffeinated
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
So my proposal is that we make HNCP capable of using several methods,
one is unsecure, one is secure by means of a shared secret, and then
add other optional methods using PKI that would enable the above
mentioned "accept each device manually" more secure way.
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
