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

    @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
                                • FotoFieberF FotoFieber

                                  @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 Offline
                                  AnticimexA Offline
                                  Anticimex
                                  Contest Winner
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #39

                                  @FotoFieber Neither is encryption for NRF24 as it does not use IV:s. And the data you encrypt is predicable so the key can be derived quite easily, effectively eliminating the "protection" the encryption is supposed to give.

                                  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
                                    #40

                                    @Anticimex
                                    No IV? Then the AES Transport implementation is not secure, more ore less an obfuscation...

                                    Is this a known bug, that will be fixed?

                                    AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • FotoFieberF FotoFieber

                                      @Anticimex
                                      No IV? Then the AES Transport implementation is not secure, more ore less an obfuscation...

                                      Is this a known bug, that will be fixed?

                                      AnticimexA Offline
                                      AnticimexA Offline
                                      Anticimex
                                      Contest Winner
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #41

                                      @FotoFieber it is a known limitation and is currently not in scope for improvement for nrf24 because it require reliable sync which nrf radios are notoriously bad at providing. If you have an idea on how to fix it, a pr is always welcome :)

                                      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
                                        #42

                                        Hm, I am not an encryption expert. What about a Diffie-Hellmann key exchange and then use the key as IV?

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • AnticimexA Offline
                                          AnticimexA Offline
                                          Anticimex
                                          Contest Winner
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #43

                                          Me neither. I care about security, not obscurity. I see no reason to encrypt a '1' or a '0' and digital streams like audio and video is not supported anyway. But exchange of constant (but random) data is already used and supported since signing is based on nonce exchange. But I believe IV:s "evolve" with the messages encrypted which implies the messages need to be exchanged trustworthy and sender and receiver need to be om sync. But I know to little about that to be sure.
                                          In any case, I welcome any development that adds to security, and will happily review such code, but I don't have the bandwidth nor motivation to "drive" the development of encryption in the core library as I don't feel it adds enough value to be worth the effort.

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

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


                                          12

                                          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