Skip to content
  • MySensors
  • OpenHardware.io
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo
  1. Home
  2. Development
  3. software AES encryption for NRF24

software AES encryption for NRF24

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Development
43 Posts 9 Posters 21.3k Views 12 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • AnticimexA Anticimex

    @FotoFieber with a SenseBender, there is no reason for soft signing. It should have a ATSHA204A chip. But nice that you have working setup :)

    FotoFieberF Offline
    FotoFieberF Offline
    FotoFieber
    Hardware Contributor
    wrote on last edited by
    #19

    @Anticimex said:

    @FotoFieber with a SenseBender, there is no reason for soft signing. It should have a ATSHA204A chip. But nice that you have working setup :)

    Yes, but encryption and ATSHA204A is to big for the SenseBender... :(

    AnticimexA ximinezX 2 Replies Last reply
    0
    • FotoFieberF FotoFieber

      @Anticimex said:

      @FotoFieber with a SenseBender, there is no reason for soft signing. It should have a ATSHA204A chip. But nice that you have working setup :)

      Yes, but encryption and ATSHA204A is to big for the SenseBender... :(

      AnticimexA Offline
      AnticimexA Offline
      Anticimex
      Contest Winner
      wrote on last edited by
      #20

      @FotoFieber ah. Bummer :(

      Do you feel secure today? No? Start requiring some signatures and feel better tomorrow ;)

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • FotoFieberF FotoFieber

        @Anticimex said:

        @FotoFieber with a SenseBender, there is no reason for soft signing. It should have a ATSHA204A chip. But nice that you have working setup :)

        Yes, but encryption and ATSHA204A is to big for the SenseBender... :(

        ximinezX Offline
        ximinezX Offline
        ximinez
        wrote on last edited by
        #21

        @FotoFieber said:

        @Anticimex said:

        @FotoFieber with a SenseBender, there is no reason for soft signing. It should have a ATSHA204A chip. But nice that you have working setup :)

        Yes, but encryption and ATSHA204A is to big for the SenseBender... :(

        Old thread, but... In the dev branch, there's a RF24 refactor that is much smaller. With that, and removing test-mode, there's plenty of space on the sensebender:

        #define MY_RADIO_NRF24
        #define MY_SIGNING_ATSHA204
        #define MY_SIGNING_REQUEST_SIGNATURES
        #define MY_SIGNING_NODE_WHITELISTING {{.nodeId = GATEWAY_ADDRESS,.serial = {0xBO,0xGU,0xSK,0xEY,0xZZ,0xFC,0xAD,0x04,0xD1}}}
        #define MY_OTA_FIRMWARE_FEATURE
        #define MY_RF24_ENABLE_ENCRYPTION

        Sketch uses 23,196 bytes (75%) of program storage space. Maximum is 30,720 bytes.
        Global variables use 1,386 bytes (67%) of dynamic memory, leaving 662 bytes for local variables. Maximum is 2,048 bytes.

        Even with debug it's only at 91%.

        My W5100 gateway ends up at 107% with AES though, but it fits (with 592 bytes to spare) if I use a static address instead of DHCP.
        Serial Gateway ends up at only 65%.

        alexsh1A 1 Reply Last reply
        2
        • ximinezX ximinez

          @FotoFieber said:

          @Anticimex said:

          @FotoFieber with a SenseBender, there is no reason for soft signing. It should have a ATSHA204A chip. But nice that you have working setup :)

          Yes, but encryption and ATSHA204A is to big for the SenseBender... :(

          Old thread, but... In the dev branch, there's a RF24 refactor that is much smaller. With that, and removing test-mode, there's plenty of space on the sensebender:

          #define MY_RADIO_NRF24
          #define MY_SIGNING_ATSHA204
          #define MY_SIGNING_REQUEST_SIGNATURES
          #define MY_SIGNING_NODE_WHITELISTING {{.nodeId = GATEWAY_ADDRESS,.serial = {0xBO,0xGU,0xSK,0xEY,0xZZ,0xFC,0xAD,0x04,0xD1}}}
          #define MY_OTA_FIRMWARE_FEATURE
          #define MY_RF24_ENABLE_ENCRYPTION

          Sketch uses 23,196 bytes (75%) of program storage space. Maximum is 30,720 bytes.
          Global variables use 1,386 bytes (67%) of dynamic memory, leaving 662 bytes for local variables. Maximum is 2,048 bytes.

          Even with debug it's only at 91%.

          My W5100 gateway ends up at 107% with AES though, but it fits (with 592 bytes to spare) if I use a static address instead of DHCP.
          Serial Gateway ends up at only 65%.

          alexsh1A Offline
          alexsh1A Offline
          alexsh1
          wrote on last edited by alexsh1
          #22

          @ximinez RF24 refactor - do you mean RF24 inside the MySensors folder? I tried it but still out of luck:

          Sketch uses 31,396 bytes (102%) of program storage space. Maximum is 30,720 bytes.
          Global variables use 1,762 bytes (86%) of dynamic memory, leaving 286 bytes for local variables. 
          
          AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • alexsh1A alexsh1

            @ximinez RF24 refactor - do you mean RF24 inside the MySensors folder? I tried it but still out of luck:

            Sketch uses 31,396 bytes (102%) of program storage space. Maximum is 30,720 bytes.
            Global variables use 1,762 bytes (86%) of dynamic memory, leaving 286 bytes for local variables. 
            
            AnticimexA Offline
            AnticimexA Offline
            Anticimex
            Contest Winner
            wrote on last edited by
            #23

            @alexsh1 from development branch, not master. 2.0.0-beta. Rf24 driver on that branch has been significantly optimized (together with other parts of the library).

            Do you feel secure today? No? Start requiring some signatures and feel better tomorrow ;)

            alexsh1A 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • AnticimexA Anticimex

              @alexsh1 from development branch, not master. 2.0.0-beta. Rf24 driver on that branch has been significantly optimized (together with other parts of the library).

              alexsh1A Offline
              alexsh1A Offline
              alexsh1
              wrote on last edited by alexsh1
              #24

              @Anticimex Thanks for heads up - I think I messed up different versions though I remember unpacking "Arduino-development". I deleted the whole folder and unzipped the files again and voila:

              Sketch uses 28,228 bytes (91%) of program storage space. Maximum is 30,720 bytes.
              Global variables use 1,462 bytes (71%) of dynamic memory, leaving 586 bytes for local variables. Maximum is 2,048 bytes.
              

              UPDATE: It turned out DEBUG took a lot of memory (DEBUG AND SIGNING DEBUG)

              FotoFieberF 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • alexsh1A alexsh1

                @Anticimex Thanks for heads up - I think I messed up different versions though I remember unpacking "Arduino-development". I deleted the whole folder and unzipped the files again and voila:

                Sketch uses 28,228 bytes (91%) of program storage space. Maximum is 30,720 bytes.
                Global variables use 1,462 bytes (71%) of dynamic memory, leaving 586 bytes for local variables. Maximum is 2,048 bytes.
                

                UPDATE: It turned out DEBUG took a lot of memory (DEBUG AND SIGNING DEBUG)

                FotoFieberF Offline
                FotoFieberF Offline
                FotoFieber
                Hardware Contributor
                wrote on last edited by FotoFieber
                #25

                @alexsh1
                @Anticimex

                Just tried

                #define MY_RADIO_NRF24
                #define MY_SIGNING_SOFT
                #define MY_SIGNING_REQUEST_SIGNATURES
                #define MY_RF24_ENABLE_ENCRYPTION
                

                This was working in the old dev branch but doesn't work for me anymore. Did you have luck with the combination of signing and encryption?

                n׌�Ox>�XܚMZ������t��ֵ���<��
                �=�a�WY=��VP����E�P�pStarting repeater (RNNRAS, 2.0.0)
                TSM:INIT
                TSM:RADIO:OK
                TSP:ASSIGNID:OK (ID=15)
                TSM:FPAR
                TSP:MSG:SEND 15-15-255-255 s=255,c=3,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=bc:
                TSP:MSG:READ 0-0-15 s=255,c=3,t=8,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:0
                Skipping security for command 3 type 8
                TSP:MSG:FPAR RES (ID=0, dist=0)
                TSP:MSG:PAR OK (ID=0, dist=1)
                TSM:FPAR:OK
                TSM:ID
                TSM:CHKID:OK (ID=15)
                TSM:UPL
                TSP:PING:SEND (dest=0)
                Skipping security for command 3 type 24
                !TSP:MSG:SEND 15-15-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=24,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=fail:1
                TSP:MSG:READ 0-0-15 s=255,c=3,t=25,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:1
                Skipping security for command 3 type 25
                TSP:MSG:PONG RECV (hops=1)
                TSP:CHKUPL:OK
                TSM:UPL:OK
                TSM:READY
                Signing required
                Skipping security for command 3 type 15
                !TSP:MSG:SEND 15-15-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0,ft=1,st=fail:0101
                Failed to transmit signing presentation!Waiting for GW to send signing preferences...
                TSP:MSG:READ 0-0-15 s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0:0101
                Skipping security for command 3 type 15
                Mark node 0 as one that require signed messages
                Mark node 0 as one that do not require whitelisting
                Skipping security for command 3 type 16
                !TSP:MSG:SEND 15-15-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=2,st=fail:
                Failed to transmit nonce request!
                !TSP:MSG:SIGN fail
                Skipping security for command 3 type 16
                !TSP:MSG:SEND 15-15-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=4,st=fail:
                Failed to transmit nonce request!
                !TSP:MSG:SIGN fail
                TSP:MSG:READ 0-0-15 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=0:972DE10483D0864680CE821987E5823ABAEF8435F971670F04
                Skipping security for command 3 type 17
                Nonce received from 0. Proceeding with signing...
                Signing backend: ATSHA204Soft
                Message to process: 0F00060310FF
                Current nonce: 972DE10483D0864680CE821987E5823ABAEF8435F971670F04AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                HMAC: 7922F4E571510EC46BD3CAAF37A1C1627BAE2562BA0ADC210173076854649826
                Signature in message: 0122F4E571510EC46BD3CAAF37A1C1627BAE2562BA0ADC2101
                Message signed
                TSP:MSG:READ 0-0-15 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=0:59321F17D680FFDC461270BD2C22F77FBC6FF6DE90DD9A34E6
                Skipping security for command 3 type 17
                Nonce received from 0. Proceeding with signing...
                Signing backend: ATSHA204Soft
                Message to process: 0F00060310FF
                Current nonce: 59321F17D680FFDC461270BD2C22F77FBC6FF6DE90DD9A34E6AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                HMAC: 09031876715AD7ADBC81671982D07A46122D564110C59880AB733AACB111289E
                Signature in message: 01031876715AD7ADBC81671982D07A46122D564110C59880AB
                Message signed
                Skipping security for command 3 type 16
                !TSP:MSG:SEND 15-15-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=1,ft=6,st=fail:
                Failed to transmit nonce request!
                !TSP:MSG:SIGN fail
                Skipping security for command 3 type 16
                !TSP:MSG:SEND 15-15-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=1,ft=8,st=fail:
                Failed to transmit nonce request!
                !TSP:MSG:SIGN fail
                TSP:MSG:READ 0-0-15 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=1:24AB30408F0D10A7DB4CE357B22C908ED2438638C567DF52AE
                Skipping security for command 3 type 17
                Nonce received from 0. Proceeding with signing...
                Signing backend: ATSHA204Soft
                Message to process: 0F00060310FF
                Current nonce: 24AB30408F0D10A7DB4CE357B22C908ED2438638C567DF52AEAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                HMAC: C2B0487B88AD8AE2FD7FB63C21E841324ED48975681EB881A7EC556D74637B33
                Signature in message: 01B0487B88AD8AE2FD7FB63C21E841324ED48975681EB881A7
                Message signed
                TSP:MSG:READ 0-0-15 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=1:4CDF80D7AAF5358B4DA616FBB1556569F68818F331C6C681F3
                Skipping security for command 3 type 17
                Nonce received from 0. Proceeding with signing...
                Signing backend: ATSHA204Soft
                Message to process: 0F00060310FF
                Current nonce: 4CDF80D7AAF5358B4DA616FBB1556569F68818F331C6C681F3AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                HMAC: C12B5B8BD5EA6DD142908FBB02A06933E3FFBC399876B8B52E30BA9A1A66B4FC
                Signature in message: 012B5B8BD5EA6DD142908FBB02A06933E3FFBC399876B8B52E
                Message signed
                Skipping security for command 3 type 16
                !TSP:MSG:SEND 15-15-0-0 s=1,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=1,ft=10,st=fail:
                Failed to transmit nonce request!
                !TSP:MSG:SIGN fail
                !TSM:UPL FAIL, SNP
                TSM:FPAR
                TSP:MSG:SEND 15-15-255-255 s=255,c=3,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=bc:
                TSP:MSG:READ 0-0-15 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=1:0EEFA88D4FB45539A0B20C586D989BF510FC83F270ABEC3E2A
                Skipping security for command 3 type 17
                Nonce received from 0. Proceeding with signing...
                Signing backend: ATSHA204Soft
                Message to process: 0F0006031001
                Current nonce: 0EEFA88D4FB45539A0B20C586D989BF510FC83F270ABEC3E2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                HMAC: 2AEEC1974BF5ED7DE100A555DD98E420E5CA0C33918F8BEFF3524B1FED047C52
                Signature in message: 01EEC1974BF5ED7DE100A555DD98E420E5CA0C33918F8BEFF3
                Message signed
                TSP:MSG:READ 0-0-15 s=255,c=3,t=8,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:0
                Skipping security for command 3 type 8
                TSP:MSG:FPAR RES (ID=0, dist=0)
                TSP:MSG:PAR OK (ID=0, dist=1)
                !TSP:SEND:TNR
                !TSP:SEND:TNR
                !TSP:SEND:TNR
                !TSP:SEND:TNR
                TSM:FPAR:OK
                TSM:ID
                TSM:CHKID:OK (ID=15)
                TSM:UPL
                TSP:PING:SEND (dest=0)
                Skipping security for command 3 type 24
                !TSP:MSG:SEND 15-15-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=24,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=fail:1
                TSP:MSG:READ 0-0-15 s=255,c=3,t=25,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:1
                Skipping security for command 3 type 25
                TSP:MSG:PONG RECV (hops=1)
                TSP:CHKUPL:OK
                TSM:UPL:OK
                TSM:READY
                Request registration...
                Skipping security for command 3 type 26
                !TSP:MSG:SEND 15-15-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=26,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=1,st=fail:2
                TSP:MSG:READ 0-0-15 s=255,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0:
                Skipping security for command 3 type 16
                Signing backend: ATSHA204Soft
                SHA256: 23DD90319EEA644480F44B15B3A95D6B20AD8380A953D40C7600000000000000
                Skipping security for command 3 type 17
                !TSP:MSG:SEND 15-15-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=0,ft=2,st=fail:23DD90319EEA644480F44B15B3A95D6B20AD8380A953D40C76
                Failed to transmit nonce!
                TSP:MSG:READ 0-0-15 s=255,c=3,t=27,pt=1,l=1,sg=1:1
                Signature in message: 011EA3852B9E54EF00F415B0A6121E25B32B9C5F976A090B
                Message to process: 000F0E231BFF01
                Current nonce: 23DD90319EEA644480F44B15B3A95D6B20AD8380A953D40C76AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                HMAC: 611EA3852B9E54EF00F415B0A6121E25B32B9C5F976A090BF2C96E0C02F28D72
                Signature OK
                Node registration=1
                Init complete, id=15, parent=0, distance=1, registration=1
                Skipping security for command 3 type 16
                !TSP:MSG:SEND 15-15-0-0 s=2,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=1,ft=3,st=fail:
                Failed to transmit nonce request!
                !TSP:MSG:SIGN fail
                TSP:MSG:READ 0-0-15 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=1:AA800D53018F5EAFCD48C21D3F702501539BFE5DF7E008B204
                Skipping security for command 3 type 17
                Nonce received from 0. Proceeding with signing...
                Signing backend: ATSHA204Soft
                Message to process: 0F0006031002
                Current nonce: AA800D53018F5EAFCD48C21D3F702501539BFE5DF7E008B204AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                HMAC: 2E1247A4A77CA0767BFD16B9A1FCE401EF39B4D76FA6A96EF0978CE322271A6F
                Signature in message: 011247A4A77CA0767BFD16B9A1FCE401EF39B4D76FA6A96EF0
                Message signed
                Skipping security for command 3 type 16
                !TSP:MSG:SEND 15-15-0-0 s=3,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=1,ft=5,st=fail:
                Failed to transmit nonce request!
                !TSP:MSG:SIGN fail
                TSP:MSG:READ 0-0-15 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=1:358C0D190097ABD8AB64BF680AF252EAC6036B73222A854502
                Skipping security for command 3 type 17
                Nonce received from 0. Proceeding with signing...
                Signing backend: ATSHA204Soft
                Message to process: 0F0006031003
                Current nonce: 358C0D190097ABD8AB64BF680AF252EAC6036B73222A854502AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                HMAC: 4A209EA1B12FB01659122DD26F2F3FB7EC15439DDEFEA90813AA0E8F87321683
                Signature in message: 01209EA1B12FB01659122DD26F2F3FB7EC15439DDEFEA90813
                Message signed
                Ping: 60 cm
                Skipping security for command 3 type 16
                !TSP:MSG:SEND 15-15-0-0 s=1,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=1,ft=7,st=fail:
                Failed to transmit nonce request!
                !TSP:MSG:SIGN fail
                TSP:MSG:READ 0-0-15 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=1:0677F380706F11E12CFC0C43FE9559F36D8FDAEB6854836E06
                Skipping security for command 3 type 17
                Nonce received from 0. Proceeding with signing...
                Signing backend: ATSHA204Soft
                Message to process: 0F0006031001
                Current nonce: 0677F380706F11E12CFC0C43FE9559F36D8FDAEB6854836E06AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                HMAC: 5E895658E4C08BCE1D6B5FC560D1AA608AB2AEDF9385EA80ABA1EDD8EE003EE5
                Signature in message: 01895658E4C08BCE1D6B5FC560D1AA608AB2AEDF9385EA80AB
                Message signed
                Send button 1 pressed
                Skipping security for command 3 type 16
                !TSP:MSG:SEND 15-15-0-0 s=4,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=1,ft=9,st=fail:
                Failed to transmit nonce request!
                !TSP:MSG:SIGN fail
                !TSM:UPL FAIL, SNP
                TSM:FPAR
                TSP:MSG:SEND 15-15-255-255 s=255,c=3,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=bc:
                TSP:MSG:READ 0-0-15 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=1:EE3BFA6BFDD922BB892AC9A1BF2079803D8C3C258B18DFA29B
                Skipping security for command 3 type 17
                Nonce received from 0. Proceeding with signing...
                Signing backend: ATSHA204Soft
                Message to process: 0F0006031004
                Current nonce: EE3BFA6BFDD922BB892AC9A1BF2079803D8C3C258B18DFA29BAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                HMAC: 7BEF3C478AD984729ED9A2717575A5325E66EF4C0CC9D3D761A1886A4BF4C4FD
                Signature in message: 01EF3C478AD984729ED9A2717575A5325E66EF4C0CC9D3D761
                Message signed
                TSP:MSG:READ 0-0-15 s=255,c=3,t=8,pt=1,l=1,sg=1:0
                Skipping security for command 3 type 8
                TSP:MSG:FPAR RES (ID=0, dist=0)
                TSP:MSG:PAR OK (ID=0, dist=1)
                !TSP:SEND:TNR
                TSM:FPAR:OK
                TSM:ID
                TSM:CHKID:OK (ID=15)
                TSM:UPL
                TSP:PING:SEND (dest=0)
                Skipping security for command 3 type 24
                !TSP:MSG:SEND 15-15-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=24,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=fail:1
                TSP:MSG:READ 0-0-15 s=255,c=3,t=25,pt=1,l=1,sg=1:1
                Skipping security for command 3 type 25
                TSP:MSG:PONG RECV (hops=1)
                TSP:CHKUPL:OK
                TSM:UPL:OK
                TSM:READY
                Send button 1 pressed
                Skipping security for command 3 type 16
                !TSP:MSG:SEND 15-15-0-0 s=4,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=1,ft=1,st=fail:
                Failed to transmit nonce request!
                !TSP:MSG:SIGN fail
                TSP:MSG:READ 0-0-15 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=1:9069C5ABD4E3E13F19A92D0B708ABB41C809B6D67654357C61
                Skipping security for command 3 type 17
                Nonce received from 0. Proceeding with signing...
                Signing backend: ATSHA204Soft
                Message to process: 0F0006031004
                Current nonce: 9069C5ABD4E3E13F19A92D0B708ABB41C809B6D67654357C61AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                HMAC: 01CCD77E9CC961B65E896180243DAB5E9174C0B88032D38261ED78BB619A00EF
                Signature in message: 01CCD77E9CC961B65E896180243DAB5E9174C0B88032D38261
                Message signed
                Skipping security for command 3 type 16
                !TSP:MSG:SEND 15-15-0-0 s=2,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=1,ft=3,st=fail:
                Failed to transmit nonce request!
                !TSP:MSG:SIGN fail
                TSP:MSG:READ 0-0-15 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=1:1B94EC3D5354C0431C3D49CEC8903433984E2DE5D04F2D00DD
                Skipping security for command 3 type 17
                Nonce received from 0. Proceeding with signing...
                Signing backend: ATSHA204Soft
                Message to process: 0F0006031002
                Current nonce: 1B94EC3D5354C0431C3D49CEC8903433984E2DE5D04F2D00DDAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                HMAC: D46DFC8ACCEE0FA7E6D282E8556F9EC7659804AD3D33163E9522F7769449F809
                Signature in message: 016DFC8ACCEE0FA7E6D282E8556F9EC7659804AD3D33163E95
                Message signed
                Ping: 61 cm
                Ping: 60 cm
                Ping: 60 cm
                TSP:MSG:READ 12-12-255 s=255,c=3,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0:
                TSP:MSG:BC
                TSP:MSG:FPAR REQ (sender=12)
                TSP:PING:SEND (dest=0)
                Skipping security for command 3 type 24
                !TSP:MSG:SEND 15-15-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=24,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=5,st=fail:1
                TSP:MSG:READ 0-0-15 s=255,c=3,t=25,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:1
                Skipping security for command 3 type 25
                TSP:MSG:PONG RECV (hops=1)
                TSP:CHKUPL:OK
                TSP:MSG:GWL OK
                TSP:MSG:SEND 15-15-12-12 s=255,c=3,t=8,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=6,st=ok:1
                Ping: 60 cm
                
                
                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • AnticimexA Offline
                  AnticimexA Offline
                  Anticimex
                  Contest Winner
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #26

                  Not sure if it is a typo or now but you list
                  #define MY_SIGNING_ASOFT but it should be #define MY_SIGNING_SOFT

                  In any case, you get st=fail which mean your radio setup is basically not working.
                  For any security to work, messages has to get through, and from your log, they don't:
                  "Failed to transmit signing presentation!"
                  "Failed to transmit nonce request!"
                  So I think from the log that signing and encryption is working, but occasionally you get messages dropped due to a poor radio link which manifests itself as failed transmissions.

                  Do you feel secure today? No? Start requiring some signatures and feel better tomorrow ;)

                  FotoFieberF 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • lyndaeldoL Offline
                    lyndaeldoL Offline
                    lyndaeldo
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #27

                    If implemented correctly, AES is AES; the output between two different implementations is identical, and therefore no distinction is possible in after-the-fact comparison -- if done correctly, the one is exactly the same as the other.

                    But there are a few points where differences can crop in:

                    Operation Mode
                    Truecrypt implements a modified counter mode called XTS. It's pretty well vetted and has withstood some serious abuse from some powerful attackers (such as the US Government).

                    From examining the p7zip source code, it appears that AES encoding for the 7-zip format operates in CBC mode. This is certainly not necessarily insecure; it's the mode most popularly used in protocols such as TLS, but it is potentially vulnerable to padding oracle attacks. See this discussion on operation modes for more information.

                    Key Derivation
                    Truecrypt uses PBKDF2 to turn your password into an encryption key. It's difficult to come up with a better alternative than that. p7zip uses a salted SHA256 hash repeated over a configurable number of iterations. PBKDF2 is a bit more configurable, but 7-zip's alternative is functionally similar and arguably reaches the same goals.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • AnticimexA Anticimex

                      Not sure if it is a typo or now but you list
                      #define MY_SIGNING_ASOFT but it should be #define MY_SIGNING_SOFT

                      In any case, you get st=fail which mean your radio setup is basically not working.
                      For any security to work, messages has to get through, and from your log, they don't:
                      "Failed to transmit signing presentation!"
                      "Failed to transmit nonce request!"
                      So I think from the log that signing and encryption is working, but occasionally you get messages dropped due to a poor radio link which manifests itself as failed transmissions.

                      FotoFieberF Offline
                      FotoFieberF Offline
                      FotoFieber
                      Hardware Contributor
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #28

                      @Anticimex
                      Sorry for the typo.

                      Interestingly, the sketch is working perfect without signing.

                      I will try to add another power source and try again.

                      Do you have a working setup with encryption and signing?

                      AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • FotoFieberF FotoFieber

                        @Anticimex
                        Sorry for the typo.

                        Interestingly, the sketch is working perfect without signing.

                        I will try to add another power source and try again.

                        Do you have a working setup with encryption and signing?

                        AnticimexA Offline
                        AnticimexA Offline
                        Anticimex
                        Contest Winner
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #29

                        @FotoFieber When you use signing, the max message size is used, and this strains the rf link the most. Signing is still not your problem. It is clear from the log that messages fail to transmit, and that is a radio problem.

                        Do you feel secure today? No? Start requiring some signatures and feel better tomorrow ;)

                        alexsh1A 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • AnticimexA Anticimex

                          @FotoFieber When you use signing, the max message size is used, and this strains the rf link the most. Signing is still not your problem. It is clear from the log that messages fail to transmit, and that is a radio problem.

                          alexsh1A Offline
                          alexsh1A Offline
                          alexsh1
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #30

                          @Anticimex @FotoFieber

                          We have been through this a few times. Just a suggestion - shall we do an FAQ link explaining what you have just said (st=fail is a problem of radio and not singing). Ingerestingly enough I did not manage to resolve this issue with the Sensebender. I still get several fail to transmit nonce before it starts working fine. Only the Sensebender. All other nodes work flawlessly

                          AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • alexsh1A alexsh1

                            @Anticimex @FotoFieber

                            We have been through this a few times. Just a suggestion - shall we do an FAQ link explaining what you have just said (st=fail is a problem of radio and not singing). Ingerestingly enough I did not manage to resolve this issue with the Sensebender. I still get several fail to transmit nonce before it starts working fine. Only the Sensebender. All other nodes work flawlessly

                            AnticimexA Offline
                            AnticimexA Offline
                            Anticimex
                            Contest Winner
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #31

                            @alexsh1 It is already documented where all signing is documented:
                            https://ci.mysensors.org/job/Verifiers/job/MySensorsArduino/branch/master/Doxygen_HTML/group__MySigninggrp.html

                            Check the troubleshooting section for details. Link to all documentation is on the github frontpage and on the "head" post of the signing topic on this forum.

                            Do you feel secure today? No? Start requiring some signatures and feel better tomorrow ;)

                            alexsh1A 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • AnticimexA Anticimex

                              @alexsh1 It is already documented where all signing is documented:
                              https://ci.mysensors.org/job/Verifiers/job/MySensorsArduino/branch/master/Doxygen_HTML/group__MySigninggrp.html

                              Check the troubleshooting section for details. Link to all documentation is on the github frontpage and on the "head" post of the signing topic on this forum.

                              alexsh1A Offline
                              alexsh1A Offline
                              alexsh1
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #32

                              @Anticimex OK, that's super. I think we all became victims of nrf24l01+ terrible fake copies. Some of these work OK until....
                              Then a woodoo dance has to be performed (highly recommended) in order to make them work again.

                              AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • alexsh1A alexsh1

                                @Anticimex OK, that's super. I think we all became victims of nrf24l01+ terrible fake copies. Some of these work OK until....
                                Then a woodoo dance has to be performed (highly recommended) in order to make them work again.

                                AnticimexA Offline
                                AnticimexA Offline
                                Anticimex
                                Contest Winner
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #33

                                @alexsh1 Don't forget the goat sacrifice

                                Do you feel secure today? No? Start requiring some signatures and feel better tomorrow ;)

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • FotoFieberF Offline
                                  FotoFieberF Offline
                                  FotoFieber
                                  Hardware Contributor
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #34

                                  I have tried a different setups now

                                  • Arduino Mega2560, Arduino Uno
                                  • different NRF modules from different vendors, with and withoud amplifier, with different capacitors
                                  • different power supplies

                                  I always end up getting st-fail, even with encryption only. But it is working even with these fails... :smile:

                                  @Anticimex
                                  You have a working setup with encrpytion and the actual libraries from github without st-fail?

                                  Next tests:

                                  • change NRF and power supply on the gateway
                                  • and if all that doesn't help: make a setup without encryption
                                  AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • FotoFieberF FotoFieber

                                    I have tried a different setups now

                                    • Arduino Mega2560, Arduino Uno
                                    • different NRF modules from different vendors, with and withoud amplifier, with different capacitors
                                    • different power supplies

                                    I always end up getting st-fail, even with encryption only. But it is working even with these fails... :smile:

                                    @Anticimex
                                    You have a working setup with encrpytion and the actual libraries from github without st-fail?

                                    Next tests:

                                    • change NRF and power supply on the gateway
                                    • and if all that doesn't help: make a setup without encryption
                                    AnticimexA Offline
                                    AnticimexA Offline
                                    Anticimex
                                    Contest Winner
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #35

                                    @FotoFieber No, I have no set up at all for the moment. But I have been using both encryption and signing yes. And I can tell you again (and again and again) that st=fails has nothing to do with signing or encryption. Unless you don't use the same AES key for your nodes because if the message is encrypted, it is jibberish to the receiver and NRF does not natively support encryption so I don't thinnk it will be able to ack properly. I trust you are sure you have your keys properly configured per the instructions for version 2.0.0?

                                    Do you feel secure today? No? Start requiring some signatures and feel better tomorrow ;)

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • FotoFieberF Offline
                                      FotoFieberF Offline
                                      FotoFieber
                                      Hardware Contributor
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #36

                                      @Anticimex
                                      I have a very reduced sketch now (sending millis() every second) and yes, I have configured the keys as it should be.

                                      As long, as nobody can prove with a concrete setup, that with the actual git-version (with encryption and NRF24L01) it is working without st-fail, the possibility exists, that it there is a bug. :smile:

                                      AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • FotoFieberF FotoFieber

                                        @Anticimex
                                        I have a very reduced sketch now (sending millis() every second) and yes, I have configured the keys as it should be.

                                        As long, as nobody can prove with a concrete setup, that with the actual git-version (with encryption and NRF24L01) it is working without st-fail, the possibility exists, that it there is a bug. :smile:

                                        AnticimexA Offline
                                        AnticimexA Offline
                                        Anticimex
                                        Contest Winner
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #37

                                        @FotoFieber No. At least not for signing. As st=fail is something set by the transport/radio layer and signing has nothing to do with that. Encryption I discourage from using (detailed in the documentation) since it provides little benefit in the form used here.

                                        Do you feel secure today? No? Start requiring some signatures and feel better tomorrow ;)

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • FotoFieberF Offline
                                          FotoFieberF Offline
                                          FotoFieber
                                          Hardware Contributor
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #38

                                          @Anticimex
                                          As the bug is there even with encryption only, it can't be in the signing code.

                                          For privacy concerns, signing is no solution.

                                          AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          10

                                          Online

                                          11.7k

                                          Users

                                          11.2k

                                          Topics

                                          113.1k

                                          Posts


                                          Copyright 2025 TBD   |   Forum Guidelines   |   Privacy Policy   |   Terms of Service
                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • MySensors
                                          • OpenHardware.io
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular