Practical Considerations and Implementation Experiences in Securing Smart Object Networks
draft-ietf-lwig-crypto-sensors-02
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (lwig WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Mohit Sethi , Jari Arkko , Ari Keränen , Heidi-Maria Back | ||
| Last updated | 2017-02-10 | ||
| Replaces | draft-aks-lwig-crypto-sensors | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text xml htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Reviews |
OPSDIR Telechat review
(of
-05)
Has Issues
RTGDIR Telechat review
(of
-05)
Has Nits
GENART Last Call review
(of
-05)
Ready with Issues
IOTDIR Early review
(of
-04)
Ready with Nits
SECDIR Early review
(of
-04)
Has Nits
|
||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-lwig-crypto-sensors-02
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
environments.
Thirdly, Section 7 discusses the availability of cryptographic
libraries. Section 8 presents some experiences in implementing
cryptography on small devices using those libraries, including
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
information about achievable code sizes and speeds on typical
hardware.
Finally, Section 10 discusses trade-offs involving different types of
security approaches.
2. Related Work
Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252] is a light-weight
protocol designed to be used in machine-to-machine applications such
as smart energy and building automation. Our discussion uses this
protocol as an example, but the conclusions may apply to other
similar protocols. CoAP base specification [RFC7252] outlines how to
use DTLS [RFC6347] and IPsec [RFC4303] for securing the protocol.
DTLS can be applied with pairwise shared keys, raw public keys or
with certificates. The security model in all cases is mutual
authentication, so while there is some commonality to HTTP in
verifying the server identity, in practice the models are quite
different. The CoAP specification says little about how DTLS keys
are managed. The use of IPsec with CoAP is described with regards to
the protocol requirements, noting that small implementations of IKEv2
exist [RFC7815] . However, the CoAP specification is silent on policy
and other aspects that are normally necessary in order to implement
interoperable use of IPsec in any environment [RFC5406].
[RFC6574] gives an overview of the security discussions at the March
2011 IAB workshop on smart objects. The workshop recommended that
additional work is needed in developing suitable credential
management mechanisms (perhaps something similar to the Bluetooth
pairing mechanism), understanding the implementability of standard
security mechanisms in small devices, and additional research in the
area of lightweight cryptographic primitives.
[I-D.moskowitz-hip-dex] defines a light-weight version of the HIP
protocol for low-power nodes. This version uses a fixed set of
algorithms, Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC), and eliminates hash
functions. The protocol still operates based on host identities, and
runs end-to-end between hosts, protecting all IP layer
communications. [RFC6078] describes an extension of HIP that can be
used to send upper layer protocol messages without running the usual
HIP base exchange at all.
[I-D.daniel-6lowpan-security-analysis] makes a comprehensive analysis
of security issues related to 6LoWPAN networks, but its findings also
apply more generally for all low-powered networks. Some of the
issues this document discusses include the need to minimize the
number of transmitted bits and simplify implementations, threats in
the smart object networking environments, and the suitability of
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
6LoWPAN security mechanisms, IPsec, and key management protocols for
implementation in these environments.
[I-D.irtf-t2trg-iot-seccons] discusses the overall security problem
for Internet of Things devices. It also discusses various solutions,
including IKEv2/IPsec [RFC7296], TLS/SSL [RFC5246], DTLS [RFC6347],
HIP [RFC7401] [I-D.moskowitz-hip-dex], PANA [RFC5191], and EAP
[RFC3748]. The draft also discusses various operational scenarios,
and challenges associated with implementing security mechanisms in
these environments.
[I-D.sarikaya-t2trg-sbootstrapping] discusses bootstrapping
mechanisms available for resource-constrained IoT devices.
3. Challenges
This section discusses three challenges: 1) implementation
difficulties, 2) practical provisioning problems, 3) layering and
communication models.
One of the most often discussed issues in the security for the
Internet of Things relate to implementation difficulties. The desire
to build small, battery-operated, and inexpensive devices drives the
creation of devices with a limited protocol and application suite.
Some of the typical limitations include running CoAP instead of HTTP,
limited support for security mechanisms, limited processing power for
long key lengths, sleep schedule that does not allow communication at
all times, and so on. In addition, the devices typically have very
limited support for configuration, making it hard to set up secrets
and trust anchors.
The implementation difficulties are important, but they should not be
overemphasized. It is important to select the right security
mechanisms and avoid duplicated or unnecessary functionality. But at
the end of the day, if strong cryptographic security is needed, the
implementations have to support that. Also, the use of the most
lightweight algorithms and cryptographic primitives is useful, but
should not be the only consideration in the design. Interoperability
is also important, and often other parts of the system, such as key
management protocols or certificate formats are heavier to implement
than the algorithms themselves.
The second challenge relates to practical provisioning problems.
These are perhaps the most fundamental and difficult issue, and
unfortunately often neglected in the design. There are several
problems in the provisioning and management of smart object networks:
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
o Small devices have no natural user interface for configuration
that would be required for the installation of shared secrets and
other security-related parameters. Typically, there is no
keyboard, no display, and there may not even be buttons to press.
Some devices may only have one interface, the interface to the
network.
o Manual configuration is rarely, if at all, possible, as the
necessary skills are missing in typical installation environments
(such as in family homes).
o There may be a large number of devices. Configuration tasks that
may be acceptable when performed for one device may become
unacceptable with dozens or hundreds of devices.
o Network configurations evolve over the lifetime of the devices, as
additional devices are introduced or addresses change. Various
central nodes may also receive more frequent updates than
individual devices such as sensors embedded in building materials.
Finally, layering and communication models present difficulties for
straightforward use of the most obvious security mechanisms. Smart
object networks typically pass information through multiple
participating nodes [I-D.arkko-core-sleepy-sensors] and end-to-end
security for IP or transport layers may not fit such communication
models very well. The primary reasons for needing middleboxes
relates to the need to accommodate for sleeping nodes as well to
enable the implementation of nodes that store or aggregate
information.
4. Proposed Deployment Model
[I-D.arkko-core-security-arch] recognizes the provisioning model as
the driver of what kind of security architecture is useful. This
section re-introduces this model briefly here in order to facilitate
the discussion of the various design alternatives later.
The basis of the proposed architecture are self-generated secure
identities, similar to Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGAs)
[RFC3972] or Host Identity Tags (HITs) [RFC7401]. That is, we assume
the following holds:
I = h(P|O)
where I is the secure identity of the device, h is a hash function, P
is the public key from a key pair generated by the device, and O is
optional other information. | here denotes the concatenation
operator.
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
5. Provisioning
As it is difficult to provision security credentials, shared secrets,
and policy information, the provisioning model is based only on the
secure identities. A typical network installation involves physical
placement of a number of devices while noting the identities of these
devices. This list of short identifiers can then be fed to a central
server as a list of authorized devices. Secure communications can
then commence with the devices, at least as far as information from
from the devices to the server is concerned, which is what is needed
for sensor networks.
The above architecture is a perfect fit for sensor networks where
information flows from large number of devices to small number of
servers. But it is not sufficient alone for other types of
applications. For instance, in actuator applications a large number
of devices need to take commands from somewhere else. In such
applications it is necessary to secure that the commands come from an
authorized source.
This can be supported, with some additional provisioning effort and
optional pairing protocols. The basic provisioning approach is as
described earlier, but in addition there must be something that
informs the devices of the identity of the trusted server(s). There
are multiple ways to provide this information. One simple approach
is to feed the identities of the trusted server(s) to devices at
installation time. This requires either a separate user interface,
local connection (such as USB), or using the network interface of the
device for configuration. In any case, as with sensor networks the
amount of configuration information is minimized: just one short
identity value needs to be fed in. Not both an identity and a
certificate. Not shared secrets that must be kept confidential. An
even simpler provisioning approach is that the devices in the device
group trust each other. Then no configuration is needed at
installation time.
When both peers know the expected cryptographic identity of the other
peer off-line, secure communications can commence. Alternatively,
various pairing schemes can be employed. Note that these schemes can
benefit from the already secure identifiers on the device side. For
instance, the server can send a pairing message to each device after
their initial power-on and before they have been paired with anyone,
encrypted with the public key of the device. As with all pairing
schemes that do not employ a shared secret or the secure identity of
both parties, there are some remaining vulnerabilities that may or
may not be acceptable for the application in question.
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
In any case, the secure identities help again in ensuring that the
operations are as simple as possible. Only identities need to be
communicated to the devices, not certificates, not shared secrets or
e.g. IPsec policy rules.
Where necessary, the information collected at installation time may
also include other parameters relevant to the application, such as
the location or purpose of the devices. This would enable the server
to know, for instance, that a particular device is the temperature
sensor for the kitchen.
Collecting the identity information at installation time can be
arranged in a number of ways. The authors have employed a simple but
not completely secure method where the last few digits of the
identity are printed on a tiny device just a few millimeters across.
Alternatively, the packaging for the device may include the full
identity (typically 32 hex digits), retrieved from the device at
manufacturing time. This identity can be read, for instance, by a
bar code reader carried by the installation personnel. (Note that
the identities are not secret, the security of the system is not
dependent on the identity information leaking to others. The real
owner of an identity can always prove its ownership with the private
key which never leaves the device.) Finally, the device may use its
wired network interface or proximity-based communications, such as
Near-Field Communications (NFC) or Radio-Frequency Identity tags
(RFIDs). Such interfaces allow secure communication of the device
identity to an information gathering device at installation time.
No matter what the method of information collection is, this
provisioning model minimizes the effort required to set up the
security. Each device generates its own identity in a random, secure
key generation process. The identities are self-securing in the
sense that if you know the identity of the peer you want to
communicate with, messages from the peer can be signed by the peer's
private key and it is trivial to verify that the message came from
the expected peer. There is no need to configure an identity and
certificate of that identity separately. There is no need to
configure a group secret or a shared secret. There is no need to
configure a trust anchor. In addition, the identities are typically
collected anyway for application purposes (such as identifying which
sensor is in which room). Under most circumstances there is actually
no additional configuration effort from provisioning security.
Groups of devices can be managed through single identifiers as well.
In these deployment cases it is also possible to configure the
identity of an entire group of devices, rather than registering the
individual devices. For instance, many installations employ a kit of
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
devices bought from the same manufacturer in one package. It is easy
to provide an identity for such a set of devices as follows:
Idev = h(Pdev|Potherdev1|Potherdev2|...|Potherdevn)
Igrp = h(Pdev1|Pdev2|...|Pdevm)
where Idev is the identity of an individual device, Pdev is the
public key of that device, and Potherdevi are the public keys of
other devices in the group. Now, we can define the secure identity
of the group (Igrp) as a hash of all the public keys of the devices
in the group (Pdevi).
The installation personnel can scan the identity of the group from
the box that the kit came in, and this identity can be stored in a
server that is expected to receive information from the nodes. Later
when the individual devices contact this server, they will be able to
show that they are part of the group, as they can reveal their own
public key and the public keys of the other devices. Devices that do
not belong to the kit can not claim to be in the group, because the
group identity would change if any new keys were added to Igrp.
6. Protocol Architecture
As noted above, the starting point of the architecture is that nodes
self-generate secure identities which are then communicated out-of-
band to the peers that need to know what devices to trust. To
support this model in a protocol architecture, we also need to use
these secure identities to implement secure messaging between the
peers, explain how the system can respond to different types of
attacks such as replay attempts, and decide at what protocol layer
and endpoints the architecture should use.
The deployment itself is suitable for a variety of design choices
regarding layering and protocol mechanisms.
[I-D.arkko-core-security-arch] was mostly focused on employing end-
to-end data object security as opposed to hop-by-hop security. But
other approaches are possible. For instance, HIP in its
opportunistic mode could be used to implement largely the same
functionality at the IP layer. However, it is our belief that the
right layer for this solution is at the application layer. More
specifically, in the data formats transported in the payload part of
CoAP. This approach provides the following benefits:
o Ability for intermediaries to act as caches to support different
sleep schedules, without the security model being impacted.
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
o Ability for intermediaries to be built to perform aggregation,
filtering, storage and other actions, again without impacting the
security of the data being transmitted or stored.
o Ability to operate in the presence of traditional middleboxes,
such as a protocol translators or even NATs (not that we recommend
their use in these environments).
However, as we will see later there are also some technical
implications, namely that link, network, and transport layer
solutions are more likely to be able to benefit from sessions where
the cost of expensive operations can be amortized over multiple data
transmissions. While this is not impossible in data object security
solutions either, it is not the typical arrangement either.
7. Code Availability
For implementing public key cryptography on resource constrained
environments, we chose Arduino Uno board [arduino-uno] as the test
platform. Arduino Uno has an ATmega328 microcontroller, an 8-bit
processor with a clock speed of 16 MHz, 2 kB of SRAM, and 32 kB of
flash memory.
For selecting potential asymmetric cryptographic libraries, we
surveyed and came up with a set of possible code sources, and
performed an initial analysis of how well they fit the Arduino
environment. Note that the results are preliminary, and could easily
be affected in any direction by implementation bugs, configuration
errors, and other mistakes. It is advisable to verify the numbers
before relying on them for building something. No significant effort
was done to optimize ROM memory usage beyond what the libraries
provided themselves, so those numbers should be taken as upper
limits.
Here is the set of libraries we found:
o AvrCryptolib [avr-cryptolib]: This library provides a variety of
different symmetric key algorithms such as AES and RSA as an
asymmetric key algorithm. We stripped down the library to use
only the required RSA components and used a separate SHA-256
implementation from the original AvrCrypto-Lib library
[avr-crypto-lib]. Parts of SHA-256 and RSA algorithm
implementations were written in AVR-8 bit assembly language to
reduce the size and optimize the performance. The library also
takes advantage of the fact that Arduino boards allow the
programmer to directly address the flash memory to access constant
data which can save the amount of SRAM used during execution.
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
o Relic-Toolkit [relic-toolkit]: This library is written entirely in
C and provides a highly flexible and customizable implementation
of a large variety of cryptographic algorithms. This not only
includes RSA and ECC, but also pairing based asymmetric
cryptography, Boneh-Lynn-Schacham, Boneh-Boyen short signatures
and many more. The toolkit provides an option to build only the
desired components for the required platform. While building the
library, it is possible to select a variety of mathematical
optimizations that can be combined to obtain the desired
performance (as a general thumb rule, faster implementations
require more SRAM and flash). It includes a multi precision
integer math module which can be customized to use different bit-
length words.
o TinyECC [tinyecc]: TinyECC was designed for using Elliptic Curve
based public key cryptography on sensor networks. It is written
in nesC programming language and as such is designed for specific
use on TinyOS. However, the library can be ported to standard C99
either with hacked tool-chains or manually rewriting parts of the
code. This allows for the library to be used on platforms that do
not have TinyOS running on them. The library includes a wide
variety of mathematical optimizations such as sliding window,
Barrett reduction for verification, precomputation, etc. It also
has one of the smallest memory footprints among the set of
Elliptic Curve libraries surveyed so far. However, an advantage
of Relic over TinyECC is that it can do curves over binary fields
in addition to prime fields.
o Wiselib [wiselib]: Wiselib is a generic library written for sensor
networks containing a wide variety of algorithms. While the
stable version contains algorithms for routing only, the test
version includes many more algorithms including algorithms for
cryptography, localization, topology management and many more.
The library was designed with the idea of making it easy to
interface the library with operating systems like iSense and
Contiki. However, since the library is written entirely in C++
with a template based model similar to Boost/CGAL, it can be used
on any platform directly without using any of the operating system
interfaces provided. This approach was taken by the authors to
test the code on Arduino Uno. The structure of the code is similar
to TinyECC and like TinyECC it implements elliptic curves over
prime fields only. In order to make the code platform
independent, no assembly level optimizations were incorporated.
Since efficiency was not an important goal for the authors of the
library while designing, many well known theoretical performance
enhancement features were also not incorporated. Like the relic-
toolkit, Wiselib is also Lesser GPL licensed.
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
o MatrixSSL [matrix-ssl]: This library provides a low footprint
implementation of several cryptographic algorithms including RSA
and ECC (with a commercial license). However, the library in the
original form takes about 50 kB of ROM which is not suitable for
our hardware requirements. Moreover, it is intended for 32-bit
systems and the API includes functions for SSL communication
rather than just signing data with private keys.
This is by no ways an exhaustive list and there exist other
cryptographic libraries targeting resource-constrained devices
8. Implementation Experiences
While evaluating the implementation experiences, we were particularly
interested in the signature generation operation. This was because
our example application discussed in Section 9 required only the
signature generation operation on the resource-constrained platforms.
We have summarized the initial results of RSA private key performance
using AvrCryptolib in Table 1. All results are from a single run
since repeating the test did not change (or had only minimal impact
on) the results. The keys were generated separately and were hard
coded into the program. All keys were generated with the value of
the public exponent as 3. The performance of signing with private
key was faster for smaller key lengths as was expected. However the
increase in the execution time was considerable when the key size was
2048 bits. It is important to note that two different sets of
experiments were performed for each key length. In the first case,
the keys were loaded into the SRAM from the ROM (flash) before they
were used by any of the functions. However, in the second case, the
keys were addressed directly in the ROM. As was expected, the second
case used less SRAM but lead to longer execution time.
More importantly, any RSA key size less than 2,048-bit should be
considered legacy and insecure. The performance measurements for
these keys are provided here for reference only.
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
+--------+--------------+--------------+-------------+--------------+
| Key | Execution | Memory | Execution | Memory |
| length | time (ms); | footprint | time (ms); | footprint |
| (bits) | key in SRAM | (bytes); key | key in ROM | (bytes); key |
| | | in SRAM | | in ROM |
+--------+--------------+--------------+-------------+--------------+
| 64 | 64 | 40 | 69 | 32 |
| 128 | 434 | 80 | 460 | 64 |
| 512 | 25076 | 320 | 27348 | 256 |
| 1024 | 199688 | 640 | 218367 | 512 |
| 2048 | 1587567 | 1,280 | 1740258 | 1024 |
+--------+--------------+--------------+-------------+--------------+
RSA private key operation performance
Table 1
The code size was less than 3.6 kB for all the test cases with
potential for further reduction. It is also worth noting that the
implementation performs basic exponentiation and multiplication
operations without using any mathematical optimizations such as
Montgomery multiplication, optimized squaring, etc. as described in
[rsa-high-speed]. With more SRAM, we believe that 1024/2048-bit
operations can be performed in much less time as has been shown in
[rsa-8bit]. 2048-bit RSA is nonetheless possible with about 1 kB of
SRAM as is seen in Table 1.
In Table 2 we present the results obtained by manually porting
TinyECC into C99 standard and running ECDSA signature algorithm on
the Arduino Uno board. TinyECC supports a variety of SEC 2
recommended Elliptic Curve domain parameters. The execution time and
memory footprint are shown next to each of the curve parameters.
SHA-1 hashing algorithm included in the library was used in each of
the cases. The measurements reflect the performance of elliptic
curve signing only and not the SHA-1 hashing algorithm. SHA-1 is now
known to be insecure and should not be used in live deployments. It
is clearly observable that for similar security levels, Elliptic
Curve public key cryptography outperforms RSA. These results were
obtained by turning on all the optimizations. These optimizations
include - Curve Specific Optimizations for modular reduction (NIST
and SEC 2 field primes were chosen as pseudo-Mersenne primes),
Sliding Window for faster scalar multiplication, Hybrid squaring
procedure written in assembly and Weighted projective Coordinate
system for efficient scalar point addition, doubling and
multiplication. We did not use optimizations like Shamir Trick and
Sliding Window as they are only useful for signature verification and
tend to slow down the signature generation by precomputing values (we
were only interested in fast signature generation). There is still
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
some scope for optimization as not all the assembly code provided
with the library could be ported to Arduino directly. Re-writing
these procedures in compatible assembly would further enhance the
performance.
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| Curve | Execution | Memory | Comparable RSA |
| parameters | time (ms) | Footprint | key length |
| | | (bytes) | |
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| 128r1 | 1858 | 776 | 704 |
| 128r2 | 2002 | 776 | 704 |
| 160k1 | 2228 | 892 | 1024 |
| 160r1 | 2250 | 892 | 1024 |
| 160r2 | 2467 | 892 | 1024 |
| 192k1 | 3425 | 1008 | 1536 |
| 192r1 | 3578 | 1008 | 1536 |
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
ECDSA signature performance with TinyECC
Table 2
We also performed experiments by removing the assembly code for
hybrid multiplication and squaring thus using a C only form of the
library. This gives us an idea of the performance that can be
achieved with TinyECC on any platform regardless of what kind of OS
and assembly instruction set available. The memory footprint remains
the same with our without assembly code. The tables contain the
maximum RAM that is used when all the possible optimizations are on.
If however, the amount of RAM available is smaller in size, some of
the optimizations can be turned off to reduce the memory consumption
accordingly.
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| Curve | Execution | Memory | Comparable RSA |
| parameters | time (ms) | Footprint | key length |
| | | (bytes) | |
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| 128r1 | 2741 | 776 | 704 |
| 128r2 | 3086 | 776 | 704 |
| 160k1 | 3795 | 892 | 1024 |
| 160r1 | 3841 | 892 | 1024 |
| 160r2 | 4118 | 892 | 1024 |
| 192k1 | 6091 | 1008 | 1536 |
| 192r1 | 6217 | 1008 | 1536 |
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
ECDSA signature performance with TinyECC (No assembly optimizations)
Table 3
Table 4 documents the performance of Wiselib. Since there were no
optimizations that could be turned on or off, we have only one set of
results. By default Wiselib only supports some of the standard SEC 2
Elliptic curves, but it is easy to change the domain parameters and
obtain results for for all the 128, 160 and 192-bit SEC 2 Elliptic
curves. SHA-1 algorithm provided in the library was used. The
measurements reflect the performance of elliptic curve signing only
and not the SHA-1 hashing algorithm. SHA-1 is now known to be
insecure and should not be used in real deployments. The ROM size
for all the experiments was less than 16 kB.
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| Curve | Execution | Memory | Comparable RSA |
| parameters | time (ms) | Footprint | key length |
| | | (bytes) | |
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| 128r1 | 5615 | 732 | 704 |
| 128r2 | 5615 | 732 | 704 |
| 160k1 | 10957 | 842 | 1024 |
| 160r1 | 10972 | 842 | 1024 |
| 160r2 | 10971 | 842 | 1024 |
| 192k1 | 18814 | 952 | 1536 |
| 192r1 | 18825 | 952 | 1536 |
+-------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------------+
ECDSA signature performance with Wiselib
Table 4
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
For testing the relic-toolkit we used a different board because it
required more RAM/ROM and we were unable to perform experiments with
it on Arduino Uno. We decided to use the Arduino Mega which has the
same 8-bit architecture like the Arduino Uno but has a much larger
RAM/ROM for testing relic-toolkit. Again, SHA-1 hashing algorithm
included in the library was used in each of the cases. The
measurements reflect the performance of elliptic curve signing only
and not the SHA-1 hashing algorithm. SHA-1 is now known to be
insecure and should not be used in real deployments. The library
does provide several alternatives with such as SHA-256.
The relic-toolkit supports Koblitz curves over prime as well as
binary fields. We have experimented with Koblitz curves over binary
fields only. We do not run our experiments with all the curves
available in the library since the aim of this work is not prove
which curves perform the fastest, and rather show that asymmetric
cryptography is possible on resource-constrained devices.
The results from relic-toolkit are documented in two separate tables
shown in Table 5 and Table 6. The first set of results were
performed with the library configured for high speed performance with
no consideration given to the amount of memory used. For the second
set, the library was configured for low memory usage irrespective of
the execution time required by different curves. By turning on/off
optimizations included in the library, a trade-off between memory and
execution time between these values can be achieved.
+-----------------+--------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Curve | Execution | Memory | Comparable RSA |
| parameters | time (ms) | Footprint | key length |
| | | (bytes) | |
+-----------------+--------------+----------------+-----------------+
| NIST K163 | 261 | 2,804 | 1024 |
| (assembly math) | | | |
| NIST K163 | 932 | 2750 | 1024 |
| NIST B163 | 2243 | 2444 | 1024 |
| NIST K233 | 1736 | 3675 | 2048 |
| NIST B233 | 4471 | 3261 | 2048 |
+-----------------+--------------+----------------+-----------------+
ECDSA signature performance with relic-toolkit (Fast)
Table 5
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
+-----------------+--------------+----------------+-----------------+
| Curve | Execution | Memory | Comparable RSA |
| parameters | time (ms) | Footprint | key length |
| | | (bytes) | |
+-----------------+--------------+----------------+-----------------+
| NIST K163 | 592 | 2087 | 1024 |
| (assembly math) | | | |
| NIST K163 | 2950 | 2215 | 1024 |
| NIST B163 | 3213 | 2071 | 1024 |
| NIST K233 | 6450 | 2935 | 2048 |
| NIST B233 | 6100 | 2737 | 2048 |
+-----------------+--------------+----------------+-----------------+
ECDSA signature performance with relic-toolkit (Low Memory)
Table 6
It is important to note the following points about the elliptic curve
measurements:
o As with the RSA measurements, curves giving less that 112-bit
security are insecure and considered as legacy. The measurements
are only provided for reference.
o The Arduino board only provides pseudo random numbers with the
random() function call. In order to create private keys with a
better quality of random number, we can use a true random number
generator like the one provided by TrueRandom library
[truerandom], or create the keys separately on a system with a
true random number generator and then use them directly in the
code.
o For measuring the memory footprint of all the ECC libraries, we
used the Avrora simulator [avrora]. Only stack memory was used to
easily track the RAM consumption.
At the time of performing these measurements and study, it was
unclear which exact elliptic curve(s) would be selected by the IETF
community for use with resource-constrained devices. However now,
[RFC7748] defines two elliptic curves over prime fields (Curve25519
and Curve448) that offer a high level of practical security for
Diffie-Hellman key exchange. Correspondingly, there is ongoing work
to specify elliptic curve signature schemes with Edwards-curve
Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA). [RFC8032] specifies the
recommended parameters for the edwards25519 and edwards448 curves.
From these, curve25519 (for elliptic curve Diffie-Hellman key
exchange) and edwards25519 (for elliptic curve digital signatures)
are especially suitable for resource-constrained devices.
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
We found that the NaCl [nacl] and MicoNaCl [micronacl] libraries
provide highly efficient implementations of Diffie-Hellman key
exchange with curve25519. The results have shown that these
libraries with curve25519 outperform other elliptic curves that
provide similar levels of security. Hutter and Schwabe [naclavr]
also show that signing of data using the curve Ed25519 from the NaCl
library needs only 23,216,241 cycles on the same microcontroller that
we used for our evaluations (Arduino Mega ATmega2560). This
corresponds to about 14510 milliseconds of execution time. When
compared to the results for other curves and libraries that offer
similar level of security (such as NIST B233, NIST K233), this
implementation far outperforms all others. As such, it is recommend
that the IETF community uses these curves for protocol specification
and implementations.
A summary library ROM use is shown in Table 7.
+------------------------+---------------------------+
| Library | ROM Footprint (Kilobytes) |
+------------------------+---------------------------+
| AvrCryptolib | 3.6 |
| Wiselib | 16 |
| TinyECC | 18 |
| Relic-toolkit | 29 |
| NaCl Ed25519 [naclavr] | 17-29 |
+------------------------+---------------------------+
Summary of library ROM needs
Table 7
All the measurements here are only provided as an example to show
that asymmetric-key cryptography (particularly, digital signatures)
is possible on resource-constrained devices. These numbers by no way
are the final source for measurements and some curves presented here
may not be acceptable for real in-the-wild deployments anymore. For
example, Mosdorf et al. [mosdorf] and Liu et al. [tinyecc] also
document performance of ECDSA on similar resource-constrained
devices.
9. Example Application
We developed an example application on the Arduino platform to use
public key crypto mechanisms, data object security, and an easy
provisioning model. Our application was originally developed to test
different approaches to supporting communications to "always off"
sensor nodes. These battery-operated or energy scavenging nodes do
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
not have enough power to be stay on at all times. They wake up
periodically and transmit their readings.
Such sensor nodes can be supported in various ways.
[I-D.arkko-core-sleepy-sensors] was an early multicast-based
approach. In the current application we have switched to using
resource directories [I-D.ietf-core-resource-directory] and publish-
subscribe brokers [I-D.ietf-core-coap-pubsub] instead.
Architecturally, the idea is that sensors can delegate a part of
their role to a node in the network. Such a network node could be
either a local resource or something in the Internet. In the case of
CoAP publish-subscribe brokers, the network node agrees to hold the
web resources on behalf of the sensor, while the sensor is asleep.
The only role that the sensor has is to register itself at the
publish-subscribe broker, and periodically update the readings. All
queries from the rest of the world go to the publish-subscribe
broker.
We constructed a system with four entities:
Sensor
This is an Arduino-based device that runs a CoAP publish-subscribe
broker client and Relic-toolkit. Relic takes 29 Kbytes of ROM,
and the simple CoAP client roughly 3 kilobytes.
Publish-Subscribe Broker
This is a publish-subscribe broker that holds resources on the
sensor's behalf. The sensor registers itself to this node.
Resource Directory
While physically in the same node in our implementation, a
resource directory is a logical function that allows sensors and
publish-subscribe brokers to register resources in the directory.
These resources can be queried by applications.
Application
This is a simple application that runs on a general purpose
computer and can retrieve both registrations from the resource
directory and most recent sensor readings from the publish-
subscribe broker.
The security of this system relies on an SSH-like approach. In Step
1, upon first boot, sensors generate keys and register themselves in
the publish-subscribe broker. Their public key is submitted along
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
with the registration as an attribute in the CORE Link Format data
[RFC6690].
In Step 2, when the sensor makes a measurement, it sends an update to
the publish-subscribe broker and signs the message contents with a
JOSE signature on the used JSON/SENML payload [RFC7515]
[I-D.ietf-core-senml]. The sensor can also alternatively use CBOR
Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] for signing
the sensor measurement.
In Step 3, any other device in the network -- including the publish-
subscribe broker, resource directory and the application -- can check
that the public key from the registration corresponds to the private
key used to make the signature in the data update.
Note that checks can be done at any time and there is no need for the
sensor and the checking node to be awake at the same time. In our
implementation, the checking is done in the application node. This
demonstrates how it is possible to implement end-to-end security even
with the presence of assisting middleboxes.
To verify the feasibility of our architecture we developed a proof-
of-concept prototype. In our prototype, the sensor was implemented
using the Arduino Ethernet shield over an Arduino Mega board. Our
implementation uses the standard C99 programming language on the
Arduino Mega board. In this prototype, the publish-subscribe broker
and the Resource Directory (RD) reside on the same physical host. A
64-bit x86 linux machine serves as the broker and the RD, while a
similar but physically different 64-bit x86 linux machine serves as
the client that requests data from the sensor. We chose the Relic
library version 0.3.1 for our sample prototype as it can be easily
compiled for different bit-length processors. Therefore, we were
able to use it on the 8-bit processor of the Arduino Mega, as well as
on the 64-bit processor of the x86 client. We used ECDSA to sign and
verify data updates with the standard NIST-K163 curve parameters
(163-bit Koblitz curve over binary field). While compiling Relic for
our prototype, we used the fast configuration without any assembly
optimizations.
The gateway implements the CoAP base specification in the Java
programming language and extends it to add support for publish-
subscribe broker and Resource Directory REST interfaces. We also
developed a minimalistic CoAP C-library for the Arduino sensor and
for the client requesting data updates for a resource. The library
has small SRAM requirements and uses stack-based allocation only. It
is interoperable with the Java implementation of CoAP running on the
gateway. The location of the publish-subscribe broker was configured
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
into the smart object sensor by hardcoding the IP address. We used
an IPv4 network with public IP addresses obtained from a DHCP server.
Some important statistics of this prototype are listed in table
Table 8. Our straw man analysis of the performance of this prototype
is preliminary. Our intention was to demonstrate the feasibility of
the entire architecture with public-key cryptography on an 8-bit
microcontroller. The stated values can be improved further by a
considerable amount. For example, the flash memory and SRAM
consumption is relatively high because some of the Arduino libraries
were used out-of-the-box and there are several functions which can be
removed. Similarly we used the fast version of the Relic library in
the prototype instead of the low memory version.
+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------+
| Flash memory consumption (for the entire prototype | 51 kB |
| including Relic library + CoAP + Arduino UDP) | |
| | |
| SRAM consumption (for the entire prototype including key | 4678 |
| generation + signing the hash of message + COAP + UDP + | bytes |
| Ethernet) | |
| | |
| Execution time for creating the key pair + sending | 2030 |
| registration message + time spent waiting for | ms |
| acknowledgement | |
| | |
| Execution time for signing the hash of message + sending | 987 |
| update | ms |
| | |
| Signature overhead | 42 |
| | bytes |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------+
Prototype Performance
Table 8
To demonstrate the efficacy of this communication model we compare it
with a scenario where the smart objects do not transition into the
energy saving sleep mode and directly serve temperature data to
clients. As an example, we assume that in our architecture, the
smart objects wake up once every minute to report the signed
temperature data to the caching broker. If we calculate the energy
consumption using the formula W = U * I * t (where U is the operating
voltage, I is the current drawn and t is the execution time), and use
the voltage and current values from the datasheets of the ATmega2560
(20mA-active mode and 5.4mA-sleep mode) and W5100 (183mA) chips used
in the architecture, then in a one minute period, the Arduino board
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
would consume 60.9 Joules of energy if it directly serves data and
does not sleep. On the other hand, in our architecture it would only
consume 2.6 Joules if it wakes up once a minute to update the broker
with signed data. Therefore, a typical Li-ion battery that provides
about 1800 milliamps per hour (mAh) at 5V would have a lifetime of 9
hours in the unsecured always-on scenario, whereas it would have a
lifetime of about 8.5 days in the secured sleepy architecture
presented. These lifetimes appear to be low because the Arduino
board in the prototype uses Ethernet which is not energy efficient.
The values presented only provide an estimate (ignoring the energy
required to transition in and out of the sleep mode) and would vary
depending on the hardware and MAC protocol used. Nonetheless, it is
evident that our architecture can increase the life of smart objects
by allowing them to sleep and can ensure security at the same time.
10. Design Trade-Offs
This section attempts to make some early conclusions regarding trade-
offs in the design space, based on deployment considerations for
various mechanisms and the relative ease or difficulty of
implementing them. This analysis looks at layering and the choice of
symmetric vs. asymmetric cryptography.
11. Feasibility
The first question is whether using cryptographic security and
asymmetric cryptography in particular is feasible at all on small
devices. The numbers above give a mixed message. Clearly, an
implementation of a significant cryptographic operation such as
public key signing can be done in surprisingly small amount of code
space. It could even be argued that our chosen prototype platform
was unnecessarily restrictive in the amount of code space it allows:
we chose this platform on purpose to demonstrate something that is as
small and difficult as possible.
In reality, ROM memory size is probably easier to grow than other
parameters in microcontrollers. A recent trend in microcontrollers
is the introduction of 32-bit CPUs that are becoming cheaper and more
easily available than 8-bit CPUs, in addition to being more easily
programmable. In short, the authors do not expect the code size to
be a significant limiting factor, both because of the small amount of
code that is needed and because available memory space is growing
rapidly.
The situation is less clear with regards to the amount of CPU power
needed to run the algorithms. The demonstrated speeds are sufficient
for many applications. For instance, a sensor that wakes up every
now and then can likely spend a fraction of a second for the
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
computation of a signature for the message that it is about to send.
Or even spend multiple seconds in some cases. Most applications that
use protocols such as DTLS that use public key cryptography only at
the beginning of the session would also be fine with any of these
execution times.
Yet, with reasonably long key sizes the execution times are in the
seconds, dozens of seconds, or even longer. For some applications
this is too long. Nevertheless, the authors believe that these
algorithms can successfully be employed in small devices for the
following reasons:
o With the right selection of algorithms and libraries, the
execution times can actually be very small (less than 500 ms).
o As discussed in [wiman], in general the power requirements
necessary to send or receive messages are far bigger than those
needed to execute cryptographic operations. While there are newer
radios that significantly lower the energy consumption of sending
and receiving messages, there is no good reason to choose
platforms that do not provide sufficient computing power to run
the necessary cryptographic operations.
o Commercial libraries and the use of full potential for various
optimizations will provide a better result than what we arrived at
in this memo.
o Using public key cryptography only at the beginning of a session
will reduce the per-packet processing times significantly.
12. Freshness
In our architecture, if implemented as described thus far, messages
along with their signatures sent from the sensors to the publish-
subscribe broker can be recorded and replayed by an eavesdropper.
The publish-subscribe broker has no mechanism to distinguish
previously received packets from those that are retransmitted by the
sender or replayed by an eavesdropper. Therefore, it is essential
for the smart objects to ensure that data updates include a freshness
indicator. However, ensuring freshness on constrained devices can be
non-trivial because of several reasons which include:
o Communication is mostly unidirectional to save energy.
o Internal clocks might not be accurate and may be reset several
times during the operational phase of the smart object.
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
o Network time synchronization protocols such as Network Time
Protocol (NTP) [RFC5905] are resource intensive and therefore may
be undesirable in many smart object networks.
There are several different methods that can be used in our
architecture for replay protection. The selection of the appropriate
choice depends on the actual deployment scenario.
Including sequence numbers in signed messages can provide an
effective method of replay protection. The publish-subscribe broker
should verify the sequence number of each incoming message and accept
it only if it is greater than the highest previously seen sequence
number. The publish-subscribe broker drops any packet with a
sequence number that has already been received or if the received
sequence number is greater than the highest previously seen sequence
number by an amount larger than the preset threshold.
Sequence numbers can wrap-around at their maximum value and,
therefore, it is essential to ensure that sequence numbers are
sufficiently long. However, including long sequence numbers in
packets can increase the network traffic originating from the sensor
and can thus decrease its energy efficiency. To overcome the problem
of long sequence numbers, we can use a scheme similar to that of
Huang [huang], where the sender and receiver maintain and sign long
sequence numbers of equal bit-lengths but they transmit only the
least significant bits.
It is important for the smart object to write the sequence number
into the permanent flash memory after each increment and before it is
included in the message to be transmitted. This ensures that the
sensor can obtain the last sequence number it had intended to send in
case of a reset or a power failure. However, the sensor and the
publish-subscribe broker can still end up in a discordant state where
the sequence number received by the publish-subscribe broker exceeds
the expected sequence number by an amount greater than the preset
threshold. This may happen because of a prolonged network outage or
if the publish-subscribe broker experiences a power failure for some
reason. Therefore it is essential for sensors that normally send
Non-Confirmable data updates to send some Confirmable updates and re-
synchronize with the publish-subscribe broker if a reset message is
received. The sensors re-synchronize by sending a new registration
message with the current sequence number.
Although sequence numbers protect the system from replay attacks, a
publish-subscribe broker has no mechanism to determine the time at
which updates were created by the sensor. Moreover, if sequence
numbers are the only freshness indicator used, a malicious
eavesdropper can induce inordinate delays to the communication of
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
signed updates by buffering messages. It may be important in certain
smart object networks for sensors to send data updates which include
timestamps to allow the publish-subscribe broker to determine the
time when the update was created. For example, when the publish-
subscribe broker is collecting temperature data, it may be necessary
to know when exactly the temperature measurement was made by the
sensor. A simple solution to this problem is for the publish-
subscribe broker to assume that the data object was created when it
receives the update. In a relatively reliable network with low RTT,
it can be acceptable to make such an assumption. However most
networks are susceptible to packet loss and hostile attacks making
this assumption unsustainable.
Depending on the hardware used by the smart objects, they may have
access to accurate hardware clocks which can be used to include
timestamps in the signed updates. These timestamps are included in
addition to sequence numbers. The clock time in the smart objects
can be set by the manufacturer or the current time can be
communicated by the publish-subscribe broker during the registration
phase. However, these approaches require the smart objects to either
rely on the long-term accuracy of the clock set by the manufacturer
or to trust the publish-subscribe broker thereby increasing the
potential vulnerability of the system. The smart objects could also
obtain the current time from NTP, but this may consume additional
energy and give rise to security issues discussed in [RFC5905]. The
smart objects could also have access to a mobile network or the
Global Positioning System (GPS), and they can be used obtain the
current time. Finally, if the sensors need to co-ordinate their
sleep cycles, or if the publish-subscribe broker computes an average
or mean of updates collected from multiple smart objects, it is
important for the network nodes to synchronize the time among them.
This can be done by using existing synchronization schemes.
13. Layering
It would be useful to select just one layer where security is
provided at. Otherwise a simple device needs to implement multiple
security mechanisms. While some code can probably be shared across
such implementations (like algorithms), it is likely that most of the
code involving the actual protocol machinery cannot. Looking at the
different layers, here are the choices and their implications:
link layer
This is probably the most common solution today. The biggest
benefits of this choice of layer are that security services are
commonly available (WLAN secrets, cellular SIM cards, etc.) and
that their application protects the entire communications.
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
The main drawback is that there is no security beyond the first
hop. This can be problematic, e.g., in many devices that
communicate to a server in the Internet. A Withings scale
[Withings], for instance, can support WLAN security but without
some level of end-to-end security, it would be difficult to
prevent fraudulent data submissions to the servers.
Another drawback is that some commonly implemented link layer
security designs use group secrets. This allows any device within
the local network (e.g., an infected laptop) to attack the
communications.
network layer
There are a number of solutions in this space, and many new ones
and variations thereof being proposed: IPsec, PANA, and so on. In
general, these solutions have similar characteristics to those in
the transport layer: they work across forwarding hops but only as
far as to the next middlebox or application entity. There is
plenty of existing solutions and designs.
Experience has shown that it is difficult to control IP layer
entities from an application process. While this is theoretically
easy, in practice the necessary APIs do not exist. For instance,
most IPsec software has been built for the VPN use case, and is
difficult or impossible to tweak to be used on a per-application
basis. As a result, the authors are not particularly enthusiastic
about recommending these solutions.
transport and application layer
This is another popular solution along with link layer designs.
TLS with HTTP (HTTPS) and DTLS with CoAP are examples of solutions
in this space, and have been proven to work well. These solutions
are typically easy to take into use in an application, without
assuming anything from the underlying OS, and they are easy to
control as needed by the applications. The main drawback is that
generally speaking, these solutions only run as far as the next
application level entity. And even for this case, HTTPS can be
made to work through proxies, so this limit is not unsolvable.
Another drawback is that attacks on link layer, network layer and
in some cases, transport layer, can not be protected against.
However, if the upper layers have been protected, such attacks can
at most result in a denial-of-service. Since denial-of-service
can often be caused anyway, it is not clear if this is a real
drawback.
data object layer
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
This solution does not protect any of the protocol layers, but
protects individual data elements being sent. It works
particularly well when there are multiple application layer
entities on the path of the data. The authors believe smart
object networks are likely to employ such entities for storage,
filtering, aggregation and other reasons, and as such, an end-to-
end solution is the only one that can protect the actual data.
The downside is that the lower layers are not protected. But
again, as long as the data is protected and checked upon every
time it passes through an application level entity, it is not
clear that there are attacks beyond denial-of-service.
The main question mark is whether this type of a solution provides
sufficient advantages over the more commonly implemented transport
and application layer solutions.
14. Symmetric vs. Asymmetric Crypto
The second trade-off that is worth discussing is the use of plain
asymmetric cryptographic mechanisms, plain symmetric cryptographic
mechanisms, or some mixture thereof.
Contrary to popular cryptographic community beliefs, a symmetric
crypto solution can be deployed in large scale. In fact, one of the
largest deployment of cryptographic security, the cellular network
authentication system, uses SIM cards that are based on symmetric
secrets. In contrast, public key systems have yet to show ability to
scale to hundreds of millions of devices, let alone billions. But
the authors do not believe scaling is an important differentiator
when comparing the solutions.
As can be seen from the Section 8, the time needed to calculate some
of the asymmetric crypto operations with reasonable key lengths can
be significant. There are two contrary observations that can be made
from this. First, recent wisdom indicates that computing power on
small devices is far cheaper than transmission power [wiman], and
keeps on becoming more efficient very quickly. From this we can
conclude that the sufficient CPU is or at least will be easily
available.
But the other observation is that when there are very costly
asymmetric operations, doing a key exchange followed by the use of
generated symmetric keys would make sense. This model works very
well for DTLS and other transport layer solutions, but works less
well for data object security, particularly when the number of
communicating entities is not exactly two.
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
15. Security Considerations
This entire memo deals with security issues.
16. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA impacts in this memo.
17. Informative references
[arduino-uno]
Arduino, "Arduino Uno", September 2015,
<http://arduino.cc/en/Main/arduinoBoardUno>.
[avr-crypto-lib]
AVR-CRYPTO-LIB, "AVR-CRYPTO-LIB", September 2015,
<http://www.das-labor.org/wiki/AVR-Crypto-Lib/en>.
[avr-cryptolib]
Van der Laan, E., "AVR CRYPTOLIB", September 2015,
<http://www.emsign.nl/>.
[avrora] Titzer, Ben., "Avrora", September 2015,
<http://compilers.cs.ucla.edu/avrora/>.
[huang] Huang, C., "Low-overhead freshness transmission in sensor
networks", 2008.
[I-D.arkko-core-security-arch]
Arkko, J. and A. Keranen, "CoAP Security Architecture",
draft-arkko-core-security-arch-00 (work in progress), July
2011.
[I-D.arkko-core-sleepy-sensors]
Arkko, J., Rissanen, H., Loreto, S., Turanyi, Z., and O.
Novo, "Implementing Tiny COAP Sensors", draft-arkko-core-
sleepy-sensors-01 (work in progress), July 2011.
[I-D.daniel-6lowpan-security-analysis]
Park, S., Kim, K., Haddad, W., Chakrabarti, S., and J.
Laganier, "IPv6 over Low Power WPAN Security Analysis",
draft-daniel-6lowpan-security-analysis-05 (work in
progress), March 2011.
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
[I-D.ietf-core-coap-pubsub]
Koster, M., Keranen, A., and J. Jimenez, "Publish-
Subscribe Broker for the Constrained Application Protocol
(CoAP)", draft-ietf-core-coap-pubsub-00 (work in
progress), October 2016.
[I-D.ietf-core-resource-directory]
Shelby, Z., Koster, M., Bormann, C., and P. Stok, "CoRE
Resource Directory", draft-ietf-core-resource-directory-09
(work in progress), October 2016.
[I-D.ietf-core-senml]
Jennings, C., Shelby, Z., Arkko, J., Keranen, A., and C.
Bormann, "Media Types for Sensor Measurement Lists
(SenML)", draft-ietf-core-senml-04 (work in progress),
October 2016.
[I-D.ietf-cose-msg]
Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)",
draft-ietf-cose-msg-24 (work in progress), November 2016.
[I-D.irtf-t2trg-iot-seccons]
Garcia-Morchon, O., Kumar, S., and M. Sethi, "Security
Considerations in the IP-based Internet of Things", draft-
irtf-t2trg-iot-seccons-00 (work in progress), October
2016.
[I-D.moskowitz-hip-dex]
Moskowitz, R. and R. Hummen, "HIP Diet EXchange (DEX)",
draft-moskowitz-hip-dex-05 (work in progress), January
2016.
[I-D.sarikaya-t2trg-sbootstrapping]
Sarikaya, B., Sethi, M., and A. Sangi, "Secure IoT
Bootstrapping: A Survey", draft-sarikaya-t2trg-
sbootstrapping-03 (work in progress), February 2017.
[matrix-ssl]
PeerSec Networks, "Matrix SSL", September 2015,
<http://www.matrixssl.org/>.
[micronacl]
MicroNaCl, "The Networking and Cryptography library for
microcontrollers", <http://munacl.cryptojedi.org/>.
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
[mosdorf] Mosdorf, M. and W. Zabolotny, "Implementation of elliptic
curve cryptography for 8 bit and 32 bit embedded systems
time efficiency and power consumption analysis", Pomiary
Automatyka Kontrola , 2010.
[nacl] NaCl, "Networking and Cryptography library",
<http://nacl.cr.yp.to/>.
[naclavr] Hutter, M. and P. Schwabe, "NaCl on 8-Bit AVR
Microcontrollers", International Conference on Cryptology
in Africa , Springer Berlin Heidelberg , 2013.
[relic-toolkit]
Aranha, D. and C. Gouv, "Relic Toolkit", September 2015,
<http://code.google.com/p/relic-toolkit/>.
[RFC3748] Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H.
Levkowetz, Ed., "Extensible Authentication Protocol
(EAP)", RFC 3748, DOI 10.17487/RFC3748, June 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3748>.
[RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
RFC 3972, DOI 10.17487/RFC3972, March 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3972>.
[RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4303>.
[RFC5191] Forsberg, D., Ohba, Y., Ed., Patil, B., Tschofenig, H.,
and A. Yegin, "Protocol for Carrying Authentication for
Network Access (PANA)", RFC 5191, DOI 10.17487/RFC5191,
May 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5191>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC5406] Bellovin, S., "Guidelines for Specifying the Use of IPsec
Version 2", BCP 146, RFC 5406, DOI 10.17487/RFC5406,
February 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5406>.
[RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
"Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
[RFC6078] Camarillo, G. and J. Melen, "Host Identity Protocol (HIP)
Immediate Carriage and Conveyance of Upper-Layer Protocol
Signaling (HICCUPS)", RFC 6078, DOI 10.17487/RFC6078,
January 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6078>.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
January 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.
[RFC6574] Tschofenig, H. and J. Arkko, "Report from the Smart Object
Workshop", RFC 6574, DOI 10.17487/RFC6574, April 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6574>.
[RFC6690] Shelby, Z., "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Link
Format", RFC 6690, DOI 10.17487/RFC6690, August 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6690>.
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
[RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T.
Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
(IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>.
[RFC7401] Moskowitz, R., Ed., Heer, T., Jokela, P., and T.
Henderson, "Host Identity Protocol Version 2 (HIPv2)",
RFC 7401, DOI 10.17487/RFC7401, April 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7401>.
[RFC7515] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web
Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, May
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7515>.
[RFC7748] Langley, A., Hamburg, M., and S. Turner, "Elliptic Curves
for Security", RFC 7748, DOI 10.17487/RFC7748, January
2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7748>.
[RFC7815] Kivinen, T., "Minimal Internet Key Exchange Version 2
(IKEv2) Initiator Implementation", RFC 7815,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7815, March 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7815>.
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
[RFC8032] Josefsson, S. and I. Liusvaara, "Edwards-Curve Digital
Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)", RFC 8032,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8032, January 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8032>.
[rsa-8bit]
Gura, N., Patel, A., Wander, A., Eberle, H., and S.
Shantz, "Comparing Elliptic Curve Cryptography and RSA on
8-bit CPUs", 2010.
[rsa-high-speed]
Koc, C., "High-Speed RSA Implementation", November 1994,
<http://cs.ucsb.edu/~koc/docs/r01.pdf>.
[tinyecc] North Carolina State University and North Carolina State
University, "TinyECC", 2008,
<http://discovery.csc.ncsu.edu/software/TinyECC/>.
[truerandom]
Drow, C., "Truerandom", September 2015,
<http://code.google.com/p/tinkerit/wiki/TrueRandom>.
[wiman] Margi, C., Oliveira, B., Sousa, G., Simplicio, M., Paulo,
S., Carvalho, T., Naslund, M., and R. Gold, "Impact of
Operating Systems on Wireless Sensor Networks (Security)
Applications and Testbeds.", International Conference on
Computer Communication Networks (ICCCN'2010) / IEEE
International Workshop on Wireless Mesh and Ad Hoc
Networks (WiMAN 2010) , 2010.
[wiselib] Baumgartner, T., Chatzigiannakis, I., Fekete, S., Koninis,
C., Kroller, A., and A. Pyrgelis, "Wiselib", 2010,
<www.wiselib.org/>.
[Withings]
Withings, "The Withings scale", February 2012,
<http://www.withings.com/en/bodyscale>.
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Smart Object Security Experiences February 2017
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Mats Naslund, Salvatore Loreto, Bob
Moskowitz, Oscar Novo, Vlasios Tsiatsis, Daoyuan Li, Muhammad Waqas,
Eric Rescorla and Tero Kivinen for interesting discussions in this
problem space. The authors would also like to thank Diego Aranha for
helping with the relic-toolkit configurations and Tobias Baumgartner
for helping with questions regarding wiselib.
Authors' Addresses
Mohit Sethi
Ericsson
Jorvas 02420
Finland
EMail: mohit@piuha.net
Jari Arkko
Ericsson
Jorvas 02420
Finland
EMail: jari.arkko@piuha.net
Ari Keranen
Ericsson
Jorvas 02420
Finland
EMail: ari.keranen@ericsson.com
Heidi-Maria Back
Comptel
Helsinki 00181
Finland
EMail: heidi.back@comptel.com
Sethi, et al. Expires August 14, 2017 [Page 32]