Practical Considerations and Implementation Experiences in Securing Smart Object Networks
draft-ietf-lwig-crypto-sensors-02

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (lwig WG)
Last updated 2017-02-10
Replaces draft-aks-lwig-crypto-sensors
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Light-Weight Implementation Guidance                            M. Sethi
Internet-Draft                                                  J. Arkko
Intended status: Informational                                A. Keranen
Expires: August 14, 2017                                        Ericsson
                                                                 H. Back
                                                                 Comptel
                                                       February 10, 2017

  Practical Considerations and Implementation Experiences in Securing
                         Smart Object Networks
                   draft-ietf-lwig-crypto-sensors-02

Abstract

   This memo describes challenges associated with securing smart object
   devices in constrained implementations and environments.  The memo
   describes a possible deployment model suitable for these
   environments, discusses the availability of cryptographic libraries
   for small devices, presents some preliminary experiences in
   implementing cryptography on small devices using those libraries, and
   discusses trade-offs involving different types of approaches.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 14, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of

Sethi, et al.            Expires August 14, 2017                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft      Smart Object Security Experiences      February 2017

   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Related Work  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Challenges  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Proposed Deployment Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Provisioning  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Protocol Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Code Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Implementation Experiences  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  Example Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   10. Design Trade-Offs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   11. Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   12. Freshness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   13. Layering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   14. Symmetric vs. Asymmetric Crypto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   15. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   16. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   17. Informative references  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32

1.  Introduction

   This memo describes challenges associated with securing smart object
   devices in constrained implementations and environments.  In
   Section 3 we specifically discuss three challenges: the
   implementation difficulties encountered on resource-constrained
   platforms, the problem of provisioning keys and making the choice of
   implementing security at the appropriate layer.

   Secondly, Section 4 discusses a deployment model that the authors are
   considering for constrained environments.  The model requires minimal
   amount of configuration, and we believe it is a natural fit with the
   typical communication practices in smart object networking
Show full document text