Re: [homenet] Follow-up on HNCP security / trust draft
Hi Brian, thanks for your feedback. Certainly it's reasonable to include HNCP-specific security measures in the HNCP protocol specification. However, I'm not yet convinced that the mechanisms you describe really only apply to HNCP (see below). Correct, this is intended for merge with the HNCP draft so I kept its scope relatively narrow. I agree a generic - but separated - homenet threats document would be useful nevertheless such a document would actually need to reference a security evaluation of HNCP so I think it actually makes sense to have the HNCP security evaluation beforehand. I have a feeling that these mechanisms need to apply more widely than to HNCP transactions. If they are done well, they could be used for just about anything. That remark could be transcribed directly into the anima discussion, too, so we definitely need to coordinate here. Indeed, the current proposal uses a well known and RFC'ed mechanism to secure the unicast channel which can and also is already applied to various other applications. The only "original" addition here is the trust consensus mechanism as an alternative to the usual PSK and PKI trust management (which can also be used). If you think that this consensus mechanism is useful for Anima then I'd be happy to incorporate feedback from your side. Cheers, Steven ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
Re: [homenet] Follow-up on HNCP security / trust draft
Steven, First, I'd like to repeat a comment I made about a month ago: > So, what we *really* need is a full homenet threat analysis. In other words I think there's a real risk of overlooking exposures if we rely only on a threat analysis for HNCP itself. More below: On 20/11/2014 22:30, Steven Barth wrote: > Hello Everyone, > > unfortunately the presentation of the security and trust draft was bit > rushed in Hawaii. > > I intent to merge that draft with the main HNCP one if there are no > blocking objections. Certainly it's reasonable to include HNCP-specific security measures in the HNCP protocol specification. However, I'm not yet convinced that the mechanisms you describe really only apply to HNCP (see below). > So if you have some time please review it so we can get any issues or > unclarities out of the way soon. > > > Here is a quick outline of the draft's contents: > > * Threats to homenet border determination (with focus on automatic > algorithm) > * Threats to HNCP payloads (multicast, unicast) > * Ways to secure the unicast channel > * 3 security models: PSK, PKI, Trust Consensus > * Details about the Trust Consensus Mechanism > * Means to bootstrap Trust Relationships I have a feeling that these mechanisms need to apply more widely than to HNCP transactions. If they are done well, they could be used for just about anything. That remark could be transcribed directly into the anima discussion, too, so we definitely need to coordinate here. Brian > * Dealing with additional (routing) protocols (lack of) security features > > > Please see the slides for a short content summary. > http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/91/slides/slides-91-homenet-6.pdf > > And the full draft for reference. > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barth-homenet-hncp-security-trust-01 > > > > Cheers, > > Steven > > ___ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
[homenet] Follow-up on HNCP security / trust draft
Hello Everyone, unfortunately the presentation of the security and trust draft was bit rushed in Hawaii. I intent to merge that draft with the main HNCP one if there are no blocking objections. So if you have some time please review it so we can get any issues or unclarities out of the way soon. Here is a quick outline of the draft's contents: * Threats to homenet border determination (with focus on automatic algorithm) * Threats to HNCP payloads (multicast, unicast) * Ways to secure the unicast channel * 3 security models: PSK, PKI, Trust Consensus * Details about the Trust Consensus Mechanism * Means to bootstrap Trust Relationships * Dealing with additional (routing) protocols (lack of) security features Please see the slides for a short content summary. http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/91/slides/slides-91-homenet-6.pdf And the full draft for reference. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barth-homenet-hncp-security-trust-01 Cheers, Steven ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
