Subject: [homenet] Follow-up on HNCP security / trust draft

From: Steven Barth <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 10:30:46 +0100

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:47:40 +1300

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:

> I intent to merge that draft with the main HNCP one if there are no

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).

> * 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

> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>

---

From: Steven Barth <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 11:43:12 +0100

Hi Brian,

thanks for your feedback.

> 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.

> 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