On 12/09/2013 11:03 PM, Richard Barnes wrote: > As I recall, the major upshot of the workshop, from a security point of > view, was that (1) security protocols are tough but tractable, and (2) the > really hard problem is the introduction problem. By which I mean: > Smart/IoT devices are going to, by their nature, talk to something else > (otherwise they wouldn't need connectivity). The "introduction problem" is > the challenge of telling devices whom they should talk to, and how to > authenticate them, in such a way that doesn't allow an attacker to insert > himself, with the very limited interfaces that IoT devices tend to have. > At one layer, it's just an authentication / authorization problem, but > it's one that has much more impact on hardware/software configuration than > on protocol.
Doesn't the same problem exist in homenet? Perhaps with more immediately tractable devices, esp. if there's new work that can be done in terms of avoiding pervasive monitoring. Could be that homenet is an easier target for work related to this space, at least initially. > That is my understanding, at least, of how we arrived at the current state, > where most of the protocol work is focused on making the security protocols > nicer (e.g., CoAP, DICE). Nobody has found an approach to the introduction > problem that applies everywhere^Wa lot of places. > > In point of fact, most of the interesting IoT vulnerabilities we've seen so > far have not been due to either of the above problems, but rather to > manufacturers making stupid decisions that couldn't have been fixed by any > number of RFCs. Its not directly relevant to pervasive monitoring, but IMO the worst security thing about tiny devices is the lack of s/w or firmware update. Without that, we're basically screwed istm. And we don't look like we're getting that, not even in proprietary flavours. Or maybe I'm out of date on that? Would love to be. S. > > --Richard > > > > >> Brian >> >>> There is even an IAB document in development that touches this topic: >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-smart-object-architecture-03 >>> (Comments welcome) >>> >>> [Recent comments indicated that there is a desire to talk more about >>> IPv6, and the transition mechanisms. Great that we worked on so many -- >>> will for sure make it easier to fit them all on these devices.] >>> >>> As you know, we even have the IETF LWIG group that discusses these >> issues. >>> >>> If you look at recent events, like the Internet census >>> http://internetcensus2012.bitbucket.org/paper.html, then it should be >>> clear that even "small device" need security since otherwise we are >>> building the next generation botnet. This would not be good (tm). >>> >>> Ciao >>> Hannes >>> >>> >>> On 12/09/2013 07:47 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>>> On 09/12/2013 11:04, Stewart Bryant (stbryant) wrote: >>>> (on a different list and under a differeny Subject header) >>>> ... >>>> >>>>> Remembering of course that some platforms which wish >>>>> to use the Internet simply do not have the capability for >>>>> other than a very tiny very basic stack. >>>>> >>>>> I always use the PIC and the Arduino to remind myself what the >>>>> lower end of the franchise looks like. >>>> It seems to me that perpass should think a little bit about >>>> privacy and anti-surveillance issues for devices with tiny >>>> stacks, and see if that calls for any specific IETF work items. >>>> >>>> Brian >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> perpass mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> perpass mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > perpass mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass > _______________________________________________ perpass mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
