Subject: [RSN] Anyone interested to work on security for Sensor Routing ?

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:05:30 -0400

Dear list members,

I guess that we all agree on the fact Routing Security is a  
particularly important topics for Sensor Networks. There is another  
key topic that we'd like to address: manageability (in a separate  
thread).

David and I decided to work soon on the security aspects; that said,  
if there are security experts on this list willing to help out,  
please let us know (let's use the list also).

We could also ask to the security AD to see whether they could  
appoint security experts.

Thanks.

JP.

_______________________________________________
RSN mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn

---

From: Kris Pister <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:21:01 -0700

I don't think that I can call myself a security expert, but I helped 
design the security for Wireless HART (just out to ballot yesterday!), 
and am slogging through^H^H^H^H...eagerly participating in the ISA SP100 
security working group.

I'd like to contribute.

ksjp

JP Vasseur wrote:
> if there are security experts on this list willing to help out, please 
> let us know (let's use the list also).
>
> We could also ask to the security AD to see whether they could appoint 
> security experts.
>
> Thanks.
>
> JP.
>

---

From: Philip Levis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:25:07 -0700

On Apr 17, 2007, at 10:05 AM, JP Vasseur wrote:

> David and I decided to work soon on the security aspects; that  
> said, if there are security experts on this list willing to help  
> out, please let us know (let's use the list also).
>

I'm very interested in manageability (in a separate thread).

Phil

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:36:03 +0100

Hi JP,
 
I am personally interested in  routing security
as well as anonymity issues. currently I invoved in security
and privacy assessment which seems very difficult to perform
so far. if anyone could have references, I would like to 
get a touch it. 
 
Best Regards,
 
Dan

________________________________

From: JP Vasseur [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tue 17/04/2007 18:05
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [RSN] Anyone interested to work on security for Sensor Routing ?

Dear list members,

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: "dculler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:21:26 -0700

It sounds like we have strong interest in the security aspects, so let's see
if we can frame the technical issues.  Then ee can determine with are
relevant to routing, and which need to be addressed elsewhere.  The
requirements draft needs to have a security section in any case.

To get things rolling, I'll try to lay out some of the obvious ones.
Hopefully, others will pick up the thread and take it deeper.  

* Where wireless is involved, physical security is very limited, so at the
very least communication ought to be encrypted.  In the case of 802.15.4,
AES128 is provided in compliant hardware, so we can assume link level
encryption.  With that as a basis, authentication protocols can be put in
place.  Wagner and others have looked at the vulnerabilities of these link
level mechanisms. Of course, there is the issue of key management.  One
issue particularly germaine to sensor networks, is that the devices will
often be without a user interface, so there is no way to type in the pass
phrase.  Actually, this is the case for many other embedded device without a
UI.  Typically there is some equivalent of a  service account that provides
a means of physical authentication and key insertion.  All of this is
important, but little of it spills over to routing unless the initial keys
must be entered via the network, which may be the only interface.

* We can assume that the usual mechanisms of firewalls, ACLs, etc. apply to
IP routing in sensor networks as they do elsewhere and have similar
strengths and weaknesses.  At the same time, we should probably observe that
an IP-connected gateway in front of a non-routed subnet is no security
panacea, since if the gateway is compromised the devices behind it are
effectively compromised. 

* Under assumptions of small MTU and low footprint, there are issues of when
and how public keys can be used.  Several studies have been conducted on
taking RSA and eliptic schemes down to MCU class devices.

* If routing protocols are utilized to establish routing tables, we must
attend to the vulnerability of these protocols and whether their
communication is authenticated, etc.  For example, where routing is cost
based, can the costs be easily spoofed?

* Certain routing protocol primitives are more vulnerable than others.  For
example, if route determination involves a flood of the network to discover
the path to the desire destination.  A node that simply requests a route to
a non-existent destination could potentially deny service throughout the
network.  Additionally, it could consume precious energy resources.  Thus,
there is some connection between parsimonious routing protocols and
vulnerability.

* Diversity and scale can potentially be utilized to a security advantage.
The more routing paths available, the more ability to deliver data despite
compromises.

* Routing security issued carry over to some degree to forwarding, as the
incoming packet must be consulted to determine a forwarding decision.  Thus,
either the destination (or route, if source routing is used) will be carried
in the clear or be decrypted at each routing hop.

* Security interacts with header compression.  For example, short
dynamically assigned addresses have somewhat different properties than
EUIDs.

* The potential to compromise of devices within physical premises exists for
hosts and routers, not just sensor nodes.  So physical compromise issues and
associated legal mechanisms are largely and orthogonal to sensor networking,
per se.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kris Pister [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 10:21 AM
To: JP Vasseur
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [RSN] Anyone interested to work on security for Sensor Routing
?

I don't think that I can call myself a security expert, but I helped design
the security for Wireless HART (just out to ballot yesterday!), and am
slogging through^H^H^H^H...eagerly participating in the ISA SP100 security
working group.

I'd like to contribute.

ksjp

---

From: "Ki-Hyung Kim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:40:02 +0900

Hi, JP,

I am interested in the manageability issue.

-- 
Ki-Hyung Kim (김기형, 金起亨)
Associate Professor
Division of Information and Computer Eng., Ajou University, Suwon, Korea
442-749
Tel: +82-31-219-2433, Cel: +82-17-760-2551,  Fax: +82-31-219-2433
http://www.6lowpan.org
_______________________________________________
RSN mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsn

---

From: "Daniel Park" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:25:46 +0900

JP and David,

What's logic in this list ? Aren't you targeting for proposing a new
BOF at upcoming Chicago IETF ? If yes, please keep the regular process
in IETF. First, you should let us know the CHARTER of BOF including
work scopes, deliverables to be considered and expecially relationship
with others relevant WGs. As usual, PS (problem statements) is shown
in the first step toward BOF. I am fine your energetic driving, but I
am still not sure what this BOF want to archieve in IETF.
FYI in case you missed it:
http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-narten-successful-bof-02.txt

RSN seems Routing Area. Why you need a security stuff in here ? Most
concern in my mind is how to coordinate with 6lowpan (INT Area)
stuffs. You want to take over all of 6lowpan stuffs except the current
deliverables ?

Also, as you definitely know, I am working for 6lowpan security
analysis with several folks. I don't think you want to spoil all of
our efforts.

-- Daniel Park

-- 

Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
Mobile Convergence Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:19:34 -0400

Hi Daniel,

> analysis with several folks. I don't think you want to spoil all of

Apparently you look confused: please read the title: Security for  
Sensor Routing !
No the goal of this list is *not* to discuss any item not related to  
routing. The idea was to find people
interested by some work on security for the routing protocols, which  
is part of the problem statement/routing
requirements.
Thanks for the reminder on how to proceed at the IETF, I think that  
I'm very much aware of the process.
Yes there will be a BOF proposal, which may or may not be approved by  
the routing ADs. The next step will be to send the BOF proposal on  
this list and others.

Does that clarify ?

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: "Daniel Park" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:42:21 +0900

Ok JP, I am looking forward to seeing an official charter of BOF at
this stage. And...are you really thinking that I was confused ?
...Sigh.

-- Daniel Park

On 4/18/07, JP Vasseur <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Apparently you look confused: please read the title: Security for Sensor
> Routing !
> interested by some work on security for the routing protocols, which is part
> of the problem statement/routing
> requirements.
> Thanks for the reminder on how to proceed at the IETF, I think that I'm very
> much aware of the process.
> Yes there will be a BOF proposal, which may or may not be approved by the
> routing ADs. The next step will be to send the BOF proposal on this list and
> others.
>
> Does that clarify ?
>
> Thanks.
>
> JP.
>
> -- Daniel Park
>

---

From: "Joseph Kopena" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:11:59 -0400

> of the problem statement/routing

This statement is actually fairly confusing---is the goal of the list
to discuss general considerations in routing for sensor networks
(including presumably differentiation from existing efforts), or
security?  I think you meant to say this thread, as opposed to this
list, is for discussing security, but that is not clear.  Certainly
nothing previously implied that the list focus was on security.  This
would be good to clarify.

Thx

-- 
- joe kopena
  right here and now

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:15:31 -0400

Hi Joseph,

On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:11 PM, Joseph Kopena wrote:

>> Sensor
> (including presumably differentiation from existing efforts),

Yes.

> or

Sure let me try to clarify again: the ML only focusses on routing  
issues. A particular item relates to
the security issues for the routing protocol to which we were looking  
for contributors.

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: "Joseph Kopena" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:30:21 -0400

> the security issues for the routing protocol to which we were looking

Great; thanks for the clarification!

-- 
- joe kopena
  right here and now

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:29:40 -0400

Hi Kim,

> I am interested in the manageability issue.

Excellent, would you want to draft a manageability section and we'll  
start from there ?

Thanks.

JP.

> Division of Information and Computer Eng., Ajou University, Suwon,  
> Korea 442-749

---

From: Tiago Camilo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:30:41 +0100

Hi,
I am also interesting in working in manageability in terms of layer 3.
Thanks,
Tiago

JP Vasseur wrote:
>> On 4/18/07, *JP Vasseur* <[email-masked] 
>> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>>
>>     Dear list members,
>>
>>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:20:23 -0400

Hi,

> I am also interesting in working in manageability in terms of layer 3.

Great, just to make sure to avoid any confusion: we're not talking  
about Manageability for Sensor Networks
in general of course but manageability for the routing protocol  
designed for Sensor Networks.

Let me point to another ID: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft- 
ietf-pce-manageability-requirements-01.txt that provides some  
guidance on manageability sections in another context but that sheds  
some light on the spirit on the section we should be looking for, for  
this requirements ID.

Does that make sense ?

Thanks.

JP.

>> Excellent, would you want to draft a manageability section and  
>> we'll start from there ?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> JP.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Division of Information and Computer Eng., Ajou University,  
>>> Suwon, Korea 442-749