[security] Migrating from library version 2.1 to 2.2
-
@alowhum right, but if you update your sketches OTA, he can potentially sniff your key OTA as well and then he does not need to enter your house ;)
@anticimex I have a question - I have two GWs: one with ATSHA204A and one soft signing.
I have noticed that when doing #define PERSONALIZE_ATSHA204A, AES key is saved to ATSHA204A and EEPROM. Is this correct? In what case I need a combination of HMAC + AES keys? I do not do whitelisting -
@anticimex I have a question - I have two GWs: one with ATSHA204A and one soft signing.
I have noticed that when doing #define PERSONALIZE_ATSHA204A, AES key is saved to ATSHA204A and EEPROM. Is this correct? In what case I need a combination of HMAC + AES keys? I do not do whitelisting -
@alexsh1 AES key is never saved to atsha204. It is for encryption and always stored in eeprom.
-
@anticimex Now I got more confused. What keys do I need for atsha204a signing?
-
@anticimex Sorry, I think I need to re-read documentation. HMAC is for atsha204a signing and AES for encryption, right?
I am in the process of re-personalising now :)
-
@anticimex thank you! I set-up singing some time ago and it was working fine, but now I need to revise all that again.
@alexsh1 it is worth mentioning that if you personalize using 2.2.0, you are free to go back to earlier versions without re doing personalization. It is only when going from 2.1 to 2.2 it has to be redone due to the checksum. Of course, be aware that overwriting the checksum will cause signing to fail again.
Do you feel secure today? No? Start requiring some signatures and feel better tomorrow ;)
-
@alexsh1 it is worth mentioning that if you personalize using 2.2.0, you are free to go back to earlier versions without re doing personalization. It is only when going from 2.1 to 2.2 it has to be redone due to the checksum. Of course, be aware that overwriting the checksum will cause signing to fail again.
@anticimex said in [security] Migrating from library version 2.1 to 2.2:
@alexsh1 Of course, be aware that overwriting the checksum will cause signing to fail again.
And what has to be done in this case? Re-personalising both GW and a node?
-
@anticimex said in [security] Migrating from library version 2.1 to 2.2:
@alexsh1 Of course, be aware that overwriting the checksum will cause signing to fail again.
And what has to be done in this case? Re-personalising both GW and a node?
@alexsh1 re-personalize the node that lost the checksum. Each node (including gw) has a unique personalization and checksum (possibly). Just because one node looses the checksum or gets a mismatch does not mean any other node has the same problem. Everything is stored in eeprom locally.
