Re: [homenet] security work items - what do we want to do?

Hi All, Barbara and I chatted about the discussion in this thread, and here's our summary, please correct us if we've gotten stuff wrong. - On item 1, work on the security considerations of draft-ietf-homenet-simple-naming will proceed as usual. - On item 2, (the perimeter security draft

Re: [homenet] security work items - what do we want to do?

> the AmazonEcho/GoogleHome/Mycroft/etc. devices seem like ideal platforms > to be the root of a secure network. Huh? -- Juliusz ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Re: [homenet] security work items - what do we want to do?

Andrew Sullivan wrote: >> On 24/01/18 13:32, Michael Richardson wrote: >> > >> > b) DNS naming and delegation in Last Call. > All of it, or just the simple one? I think the timeframe for "simple" > is "soonish" and the "real" one from the

Re: [homenet] security work items - what do we want to do?

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 01:51:08PM +, Stephen Farrell wrote: > On 24/01/18 13:32, Michael Richardson wrote: > > > > b) DNS naming and delegation in Last Call. All of it, or just the simple one? I think the timeframe for "simple" is "soonish" and the "real" one from the architecture

Re: [homenet] security work items - what do we want to do?

Hiya, On 24/01/18 19:21, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Stephen Farrell wrote: > > On 24/01/18 15:36, Ted Lemon wrote: > >> Yes, enrollment is the process by which trust is established. Google > >> home has an example, but it's rickety. It's actually not

Re: [homenet] security work items - what do we want to do?

Stephen Farrell wrote: > On 24/01/18 15:36, Ted Lemon wrote: >> Yes, enrollment is the process by which trust is established. Google >> home has an example, but it's rickety. It's actually not too bad for >> actual Google devices, but the third party

Re: [homenet] security work items - what do we want to do?

Ted Lemon wrote: > I don't know what unmanaged enrollment really looks like, but sure. > We've mostly been talking about models for managed enrollment, and > that seems to be the way the market has been going (with remarkable > suck-itude, if the Google Home

Re: [homenet] security work items - what do we want to do?

> I do agree we'd need to know e.g. whether Babel implementations would > plan to support what flavours of DTLS (e.g. pre-shared keys vs. bare > public keys vs. certs if they do plan to use DTLS), I'm not worried about Babel. I am worried about HNCP, since I fear there's nobody who's both able

Re: [homenet] security work items - what do we want to do?

On Jan 24, 2018, at 10:39 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > While I don't disagree with you, I do still wonder if we'd > not be better off using another term for cases where maybe > all that are involved are a couple of routers in the home, > and where there's no external

Re: [homenet] security work items - what do we want to do?

Hiya, On 24/01/18 15:36, Ted Lemon wrote: > Yes, enrollment is the process by which trust is established. Google > home has an example, but it's rickety. It's actually not too bad for > actual Google devices, but the third party enrollment process could > really benefit from some open standards

Re: [homenet] security work items - what do we want to do?

Yes, enrollment is the process by which trust is established. Google home has an example, but it's rickety. It's actually not too bad for actual Google devices, but the third party enrollment process could really benefit from some open standards (imho). > On Jan 24, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Stephen

Re: [homenet] security work items - what do we want to do?

Hiya, On 24/01/18 14:55, Ted Lemon wrote: > I don't know what unmanaged enrollment really looks like, but sure. > We've mostly been talking about models for managed enrollment, and > that seems to be the way the market has been going (with remarkable > suck-itude, if the Google Home enrollment

Re: [homenet] security work items - what do we want to do?

Hiya, On 24/01/18 13:32, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Stephen Farrell wrote: > > On 24/01/18 02:48, Michael Richardson wrote: > >> > >> Stephen Farrell wrote: > - Does this sound > >> roughly right or off the wall? >

Re: [homenet] security work items - what do we want to do?

Stephen Farrell wrote: > On 24/01/18 02:48, Michael Richardson wrote: >> >> Stephen Farrell wrote: > - Does this sound >> roughly right or off the wall? >> >> It sounds right. I think that bootstrap of security

Re: [homenet] security work items - what do we want to do?

Hiya, On 24/01/18 02:48, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Stephen Farrell wrote: > > - Does this sound roughly right or off the wall? > > It sounds right. > I think that bootstrap of security should become an recharter item in the > future. Some kind of BCP on

Re: [homenet] security work items - what do we want to do?

Stephen Farrell wrote: > - Does this sound roughly right or off the wall? It sounds right. I think that bootstrap of security should become an recharter item in the future. Some kind of BCP on interactions with MUD, SUIT, etc. IN THE FUTURE. NOT NOW. > 2. We

[homenet] security work items - what do we want to do?

Hi homenet folks, Barbara and I were chatting about the security work that may need to be done in the homenet wg in the coming months and here are our thoughts on that. We'd like to get folks' reactions to those: - Does this sound roughly right or off the wall? - If the former, do we think it's