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. My Project
  3. Secure 5-button keyfob with enclosure (was: 8-button keyfob)

Secure 5-button keyfob with enclosure (was: 8-button keyfob)

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved My Project
72 Posts 5 Posters 16.9k Views 7 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

    @elcaron the atsha ID is completely separated from the hmac calculation circuitry. The atsha204a calculates a symmetrical hmac (symmetrical in a non cryptography-meaning). It has to, or another atsha would not be able to redo the same calculation. So no, the serial of an atsha is not included in a hmac calculation. This is done externally as documented in the signing documentation. Therefore blacklisting is not an option, and the whitelisting feature has been developed, so that it is possible to revoke nodes without changing all hmac/PSK keys in the network. This is also the reason for why whitelisting is a completely optional feature (but highly recommended if you have nodes that are publicly accessible).

    E Offline
    E Offline
    elcaron
    wrote on last edited by
    #61

    @Anticimex Ok, I see my misunderstanding. But that would mean that a lost node (to obtain the ATSHA) and an accessible node (to extract a whitelisted ID but then left in place) combined would give access, wouldn't it?

    AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • E elcaron

      @Anticimex Ok, I see my misunderstanding. But that would mean that a lost node (to obtain the ATSHA) and an accessible node (to extract a whitelisted ID but then left in place) combined would give access, wouldn't it?

      AnticimexA Offline
      AnticimexA Offline
      Anticimex
      Contest Winner
      wrote on last edited by
      #62

      @elcaron yes, until you remove that nodes entry in the whitelist on the receiving side

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

      E 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • AnticimexA Anticimex

        @elcaron yes, until you remove that nodes entry in the whitelist on the receiving side

        E Offline
        E Offline
        elcaron
        wrote on last edited by
        #63

        @Anticimex The idea is to let one accessible node alone. Just get the id out and leave it where it is. So there would be no reason to take that node's id off the whitelist.

        AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • E elcaron

          @Anticimex The idea is to let one accessible node alone. Just get the id out and leave it where it is. So there would be no reason to take that node's id off the whitelist.

          AnticimexA Offline
          AnticimexA Offline
          Anticimex
          Contest Winner
          wrote on last edited by
          #64

          @elcaron I don't understand. Why would the attacker leave your node alone?

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

          E 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • E Offline
            E Offline
            elcaron
            wrote on last edited by
            #65
            This post is deleted!
            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • AnticimexA Anticimex

              @elcaron I don't understand. Why would the attacker leave your node alone?

              E Offline
              E Offline
              elcaron
              wrote on last edited by
              #66

              @Anticimex Oh, forget what I said. I thought that the whitelisting was on network access basis. But the doorlock has to trust the id via whitelisting, and of course it wouldn't trust a patio motion sensor.

              AnticimexA 2 Replies Last reply
              0
              • E elcaron

                @Anticimex Oh, forget what I said. I thought that the whitelisting was on network access basis. But the doorlock has to trust the id via whitelisting, and of course it wouldn't trust a patio motion sensor.

                AnticimexA Offline
                AnticimexA Offline
                Anticimex
                Contest Winner
                wrote on last edited by
                #67

                @elcaron then we are on the same page :)

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

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • E elcaron

                  @Anticimex Oh, forget what I said. I thought that the whitelisting was on network access basis. But the doorlock has to trust the id via whitelisting, and of course it wouldn't trust a patio motion sensor.

                  AnticimexA Offline
                  AnticimexA Offline
                  Anticimex
                  Contest Winner
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #68

                  @elcaron whitelisting is on a per-node basis.

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

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • E Offline
                    E Offline
                    elcaron
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #69

                    So apparently it it will be a while until I can do active testing. Right now I am struggling to get my network running at all.

                    I'll quickly post it here in case someone has an idea, else I'll open a thread next week when I actually have time to react to suggestions.

                    I have flashed the GatewayESP8266MQTT sketch to my gateway (Wemos D1 Mini + RFM69HCW). This is the output:

                    0;255;3;0;9;TSF:LRT:OK
                    0;255;3;0;9;TSM:INIT
                    0;255;3;0;9;TSF:WUR:MS=0
                    0;255;3;0;9;TSM:INIT:TSP OK
                    0;255;3;0;9;TSM:INIT:GW MODE
                    0;255;3;0;9;TSM:READY:ID=0,PAR=0,DIS=0
                    0;255;3;0;9;MCO:REG:NOT NEEDED
                    scandone
                    f 0, scandone
                    state: 0 -> 2 (b0)
                    state: 2 -> 3 (0)
                    state: 3 -> 5 (10)
                    add 0
                    aid 3
                    cnt 
                    
                    connected with MySSID, channel 1
                    dhcp client start...
                    ...ip:192.168.2.127,mask:255.255.255.0,gw:192.168.2.1
                    .IP: 192.168.2.127
                    0;255;3;0;9;MCO:BGN:STP
                    0;255;3;0;9;MCO:BGN:INIT OK,TSP=1
                    IP: 192.168.2.127
                    0;255;3;0;9;Attempting MQTT connection...
                    0;255;3;0;9;MQTT connected
                    0;255;3;0;9;Sending message on topic: home-le/mysensors/868/in/0/255/0/0/18
                    pm open,type:2 0
                    

                    The message is successfully published on the MQTT server.

                    I flashed the LightSensor sketch on another breadboard node (Arduino Pro Mini + RFM69HCW). This outputs

                    0 MCO:BGN:INIT NODE,CP=RRNNA--,VER=2.1.1
                    4 TSM:INIT
                    4 TSF:WUR:MS=0
                    8 TSM:INIT:TSP OK
                    10 TSM:FPAR
                    141 TSF:MSG:SEND,255-255-255-255,s=255,c=3,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:
                    2148 !TSM:FPAR:NO REPLY
                    2150 TSM:FPAR
                    2281 TSF:MSG:SEND,255-255-255-255,s=255,c=3,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:
                    4290 !TSM:FPAR:NO REPLY
                    4292 TSM:FPAR
                    4423 TSF:MSG:SEND,255-255-255-255,s=255,c=3,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:
                    6432 !TSM:FPAR:NO REPLY
                    6434 TSM:FPAR
                    6565 TSF:MSG:SEND,255-255-255-255,s=255,c=3,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:
                    8574 !TSM:FPAR:FAIL
                    8577 TSM:FAIL:CNT=1
                    8579 TSM:FAIL:PDT
                    

                    Which apparently indicated that no parent could be found. The gateway doesn't output anything.

                    I did not make any changes to the gateway sketch except for password and name stuff (especially no inclusion mode). Devices are a meter apart, one with a spring antenna, the other with a big screw-on antenna.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • MiKaM MiKa

                      @scalz THX for tip, pull-up CS to VDD solved problem! :+1:
                      @elcaron please add pull up to CS line

                      E Offline
                      E Offline
                      elcaron
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #70

                      @MiKa Version with pullup is pushed to Github

                      MiKaM 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • E elcaron

                        @MiKa Version with pullup is pushed to Github

                        MiKaM Offline
                        MiKaM Offline
                        MiKa
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #71

                        @elcaron Perfect, THX! :+1:

                        E 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • MiKaM MiKa

                          @elcaron Perfect, THX! :+1:

                          E Offline
                          E Offline
                          elcaron
                          wrote on last edited by elcaron
                          #72

                          @MiKa If you happen to have time, could you test the range with

                          1. a stable 2.7V supply and
                          2. a 1mF cap in parallel to the battery?

                          I am really not happy with the HT7333 solution, since the shelf life of the keyfob will be limited and the quite expensive LIR2032 can easily be damaged by undervoltage.
                          If the second test works, I could fit 4 220uF 6.3V tantalums next to the LED.
                          Else I would give the step-up thing another go. There are low profile inductors, but I didn't find any for cheap (shipping) at Aliexpress.

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


                          20

                          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