Hi, Nathan,
>From the product release perspective, you may right. However, from the product development cycle view, something stange. Let?s think about that developer uses the Windows or Tizen which has the library in OS. Initially, as a study, people run the sample application. Second, make the initial product code without secure disable. Finally, developer enable the security into the resource and test. With SECURED=1 build, we only have the option to make the secure resource or non-secure resource, by value setting as like OCCreateResource(?. uint8_t OC_SECURE or 0). In case of non-secure resource setting, it will be very cumbersome that user should do a certain action such as placing the ACL related configuration file or so. Do the Alljoyn also require that step? What about the http browsing? I?m not sure that security WG guides the operation of non-secure resource also? If so, they needs to consider the development cycle also. BR, Uze Choi From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:iotivity-dev-boun...@lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Heldt-Sheller, Nathan Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 9:29 AM To: Gregg Reynolds; Dave Thaler Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] SECURE build flag setting as default configuration Hi folks, To clarify, the ?runtime option? (#2 and #3) is not equivalent to the compile switch Greg was describing. The runtime option simply allows for ?unsecure? vertical resources (aka application resources) to be created in such a way that they can be accessed anonymously (e.g. via CoAP). This is as opposed to requiring authenticated access (e.g. via CoAPS) for ?secure? vertical resources. In contrast, the SECURED=0 build flag removes portions of the security functionality from the stack, in an attempt to make legacy applications and unit tests (those written before the security layer was added) function without having to adapt to the security model. Whether or not such a build is still required, I do not know, but I think that at the very least the SECURED=1 mode should be the default ? and the only certifiable ? build option. And if I had to throw my two cents in, I?d also vote for removing the SECURED=0 build option entirely, unless we have a clear requirement to keep it, as it has been (and continues to be) a source of confusion and complexity. All the apps and units tests that have not yet been adapted to the security model will have to be updated (e.g. ACL entries added for vertical resources, etc.) but this seems like a better option than perpetuating a confusing and superfluous build flag. Thanks, Nathan From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:iotivity-dev-boun...@lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Reynolds Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:46 PM To: Dave Thaler <dthaler at microsoft.com> Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] SECURE build flag setting as default configuration On Sep 21, 2016 6:34 PM, "Dave Thaler" <dthaler at microsoft.com> wrote: > > Two responses? > > > > Gregg wrote: > > ? fwiw imho SECURED should be removed from the build system altogether. > Non-encryption security features should just always be enabled. > > > > Agree. > > > > ? But for debugging, something like --DISABLE_DTLS should be supported by > the build logic > > > Disagree. Debugging does not require a build-time option, just a run-time > option as Uze and I mentioned. > ok, but what kind of debugging? if you need to debug packets over the wire you need to disable dtls. But if you need to debug ACLs etc. maybe not? by "runtime option" do you refer to setting security for resources? it seems to me that a runtime option to turn off dtls is problematic. it would introduce a whole 'nother security issue to guard this, which AFAIK is not adressed by the OIC protocol dpec. (Bear with me, I'm still learning this stuff). gregg > Uze subsequently wrote: > > > By investigating several option for secure resource setting by real > > execution, I can list up the three possible ways. > > 1) SECURE=0 build > > 2) SECURE=1 build, Create Resource with non-secure flag. > OCCreateResource(?. uint8_t 0) > > 3) SECURE=1 build, Create Resource with secure flag. OCCreateResource(?. > uint8_t OC_SECURE) > > > > We should delete way #1 and leave ways 2 and 3. The ?SECURED? flag can then > be deleted since it?s always 1. > > > > Dave > > > > From: Gregg Reynolds [mailto:dev at mobileink.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 7:05 AM > To: Dave Thaler <dthaler at microsoft.com> > Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at > intel.com> > Subject: RE: [dev] SECURE build flag setting as default configuration > > > > On Sep 20, 2016 4:27 PM, "Dave Thaler" <dthaler at microsoft.com> wrote: > > > > I've now thought about this some more and I am now convinced that we should > > remove > > support for SECURE=0 builds (in master). > > > > As Uze mentioned, the choice to disable security should be a > > config/run-time decision, not > > a compile-time decision. There is no reason to consume build resources to > > build a version > > that cannot even be configured to enable security. > > > agreed in general but I think there is still a "problem", namely that > "security" conflates multiple distinct functionalities. encryption is one > thing; creds are another, and ACLs yet another. > > fwiw imho SECURED should be removed from the build system altogether. > Non-encryption security features should just always be enabled. But for > debugging, something like --DISABLE_DTLS should be supported by the build > logic. > > this suggests also that that API should be changed. OCInit should be > parameterized by persistent storage, and client code should not have to > separately call an init function for persistent storage. in other words > there should not be two ways to get going, one for SECURED=0 and one for > SECURED=1. client app code should never need to make a secured/unsecured > distinction. of course apps can still designate resources as secure or not > but that is a completely separate topic. > > my 2 cents. > > gregg -------------- next part -------------- HTML ?????? ??????????????... URL: <http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20160922/97893936/attachment.html>
