[security] Introducing signing support to MySensors
-
@fleinze If you have upgraded the library version, the signing table might have shifted in EEPROM. You then need to run the clear EEPROM sketch to reset the stored state in order for the gw/nodes to re-learn the existing signing preferences of the network.
-
@fleinze said:
My thought is that if I have a mixed network (signing and non-signing nodes) for some sensors I do not need signing (i.e. temperature-sensors). But if I have a button sensor that can actually switch something on or off (via the controller), it would be a security benefit if the messages from the sensor to the gateway are signed.
This is the exact usecase for the gw default behavior to only require signing from nodes that require signing in return. But I also got "no sign" errors after I flashed development branch yesterday on node/gw and only after I wiped the GW EEPROM I got it back online. So please try that. If it still does not work, I have to look closer, and see why this has broken because it has been working like that when I submitted the signing behavior.
-
@Anticimex I tried to make it work:
- took a fresh copy of the development branch
- activated signing in MyConfig.h
- flashed the ClearEepromConfig sketch to both the test-gateway and the test-node.
- built the gateway with
MySigningAtsha204Soft signer;(requires signing by default) - built the node with
MySigningNone signer;
Still got the
no signmessage from the gateway...
Please have a look at this.
-
@fleinze mysigningnone is a special case. It won't make signatures, so could you instead try with either hard or soft atsha?
-
@fleinze also, you can mix hard and soft atsha signing in a network, but you can't mix with "none". If you mark a node that it can do signing or require signing and use the "none" backend, nodes that use atsha (hard or soft) will not accept the signatures.
-
@Anticimex
Ok, I built the node withMySigningAtsha204Soft signer(false);so it does not require signing and the gateway withMySigningAtsha204Soft signer;
-> no sign error.
How do I correctly build a node that does not sign in a mixed network (signing and non-signing nodes mixed)?
-
@fleinze
In a network where you have "mixed" nodes, I would suggest something like this:
The gateway has signing enabled and is set to require signatures and uses either hard or soft ATSHA (since you earlier wrote that you wanted the GW to sign messages to nodes that signed messages in return).
For all nodes that need to be secure, enable signing and pick either hard or soft ATSHA (depending on the node hardware) and set them to require signatures.
For all nodes that do not need to be secure, just disable signing alltogether, or pick any signing backend and set it to NOT require signatures.
The result should be like this:
A "insecure" node sends and receives unsigned messages to/from GW.
A "secure" node sends and receives signed messages to/from GW.
The GW will send signed messages to all nodes that has reported to the GW that they require signatures.
The GW will send unsigned messages to all nodes that has reported to the GW that they do NOT require signatures.
-
@Anticimex In your original post you said:
However, the difference is that the gateway will only require signed messages from nodes it knows in turn require signed messages.
I made pull request 208 to match this behavior in the code:
https://github.com/mysensors/Arduino/pull/208- If node is not a gateway, everything is as always. (1 || x)
- if node is gateway and the sender requires signed messages, check signature (0 || 1)
- if node is gateway and the sender does not requires signed messages, do not check signature (0 || 0)
please consider adding this.
-
@fleinze Ok, lets discuss this in the PR and conclude it in this thread later.
-
Ok, the problem is identified and @fleinze has provided a fix that resolves the issue which is now merged to the development branch.
Thanks for finding the issue and fixing it!
There is no change in the signing behavior as it is documented. Now gateway does as it is supposed to.
-
Great work @fleinze and @Anticimex !
Reading this thread (yes, all of it) has made me ready to start configuring my nodes to use signing. Better start now, while my sensor network is still small
-
Compiling with the latest dev branch SecureActuator example
#define MY_SIGNING_REQUEST_SIGNATURES
I get following error:
In file included from /Users/mm/Documents/Arduino165/libraries/MySensors/MySensor.h:157:0, from SecureActuator.ino:58: /Users/mm/Documents/Arduino165/libraries/MySensors/core/MyTransport.cpp: In function 'void transportProcess()': /Users/mm/Documents/Arduino165/libraries/MySensors/core/MyTransport.cpp:92:10: error: 'MY_IS_GATEWAY' was not declared in this scope if ((!MY_IS_GATEWAY || DO_SIGN(sender)) && ^ /Users/mm/Documents/Arduino165/libraries/MySensors/core/MyTransport.cpp:93:20: error: 'nc' was not declared in this scope destination == nc.nodeId && ^ Fehler beim Kompilieren.``` Is this a problem of the code or of my setup?
-
@FotoFieber @hek something related to the recent refactoring? I have not had the opportunity to evaluate the effects on signing myself.
-
@FotoFieber said:
MY_SIGNING_REQUEST_SIGNATURES
Let's see how Jenkins feels about this
https://github.com/mysensors/Arduino/pull/231
-
@Anticimex Hello, I found this thread now. I'll ask a few more questions, sorry. This all seems really-really great.
-
If someone wishes to use TMRh20's RF24Mesh instead of MySensors how would one sign the messages sent with that library? Is is even possible? What should be done to use that functionality?
-
Also, as I understand it is possible to emulate the ATSHA204A, on what hardware is is possible (on Uno's ATMega too?)?
-
Is it also possible to use whitelisting with RF24Mesh somehow?
Again, sorry for any dumb questions and my poor English.
-
-
- Signing as described in this post is specific to users of the MySensors library. I suppose you could use any rf backend you like but you will need to use the MySensors library to get the nonce exchange and such. Or manually port the signing specifics out from the MySensors library and integrate them into another library. It's all open source.
- The software emulated atsha signing backend (for MySensors) is compatible with any Arduino product.
- See 1.
Lastly, there are no dumb questions, only dumb answers
-
Hello,
firstly, I must say that you're doing a great job and this section about security is very interesting.
Sorry, but I want to ask a question: as regards the whitelisting system, how can I add more nodes to the list of the trusted nodes of the gateway?
The part of code is this:[...] #ifdef MY_SECURE_NODE_WHITELISTING whitelist_entry_t node_whitelist[] = { { //I want to add nodes HERE: .nodeId = 55, // Just some value, this need to be changed to the NodeId of the trusted node .serial = {0x01,0x02,0x03,0x04,0x05,0x06,0x07,0x08,0x09} } // This need to change to the serial of the trusted node }; MySigningAtsha204 signer(true, 1, node_whitelist); // Select ATSHA204A software signing backend with one entry in the whitelist [...]but the gateway continue to fail the verification of the trusted nodes that I inserted.
To sum up, how can I add more nodeIDs and serials in addition to the number "55" presented in the example of the code?Thank you very much in advance,
Silver978
-
@Silver978 Thanks!
Try something like this:whitelist_entry_t node_whitelist[] = { { .nodeId = 55, // Just some value, this need to be changed to the NodeId of the trusted node .serial = {0x01,0x02,0x03,0x04,0x05,0x06,0x07,0x08,0x09} // This need to change to the serial of the trusted node }, { .nodeId = 56, // Just some value, this need to be changed to the NodeId of the trusted node .serial = {0x01,0x02,0x03,0x04,0x05,0x06,0x07,0x08,0x09} // This need to change to the serial of the trusted node }, { .nodeId = 57, // Just some value, this need to be changed to the NodeId of the trusted node .serial = {0x01,0x02,0x03,0x04,0x05,0x06,0x07,0x08,0x09} // This need to change to the serial of the trusted node } }; MySigningAtsha204 signer(true, 3, node_whitelist); // Select ATSHA204A software signing backend with three entries in the whitelistNote the changed argument in the constructor (3 and not 1)
-
@Anticimex I tried also this syntax but I haven't changed the argument of the signer, so that number indicates how many nodes the gateway must trust?
Thank you!
-
@Silver978 The number gives the number of entries in the whitelist the backend is expected to iterate over. Having a number for this allows the use of a potenitally very large whitelist but where "uninteresting" entries to this particular node can be ignored by having them last in the list and make sure the number does not cover those entries when searching the list.
-
@Anticimex Perfect, understood! Very good explanation and super-fast support, fantastic
Thank you very much again!
-
-
I would like to add security to my sensor network as well so I am very glad I found your thread. Your explanation are very detailed but I´m a guy who needs more practical examples. For example I would like to know, where exactly I have to activate this. I am using an arduino as an MQTT to Ethernet gateway and Mosquitto running on a raspberry pi. So all I have to do is activate the soft version in Myconfig.h, if not already activated, set a serial, re-upload to my arduino gateway and that´s it? I guess the Nodes have to get flashed again to get the serials as well, right?
-
@siod correct. You have to activate signing in both ends. The serial numbers you only need of you want to use whitelisting which is a bit more complex to set up. At the very least, for software signing, you need to enable it, have an unconnected analog pin on your boards, and set a hmac key.
-
EDIT: Topic post updates with a documentation link for those using the development branch.
-
Great topic as usual. I have a question please.
You mentioned "Because it is pure-software however, it does not provide as good nonces (it uses the Arduino pseudo-random generator) and the HMAC key is stored in SW and is therefore readable if the memory is dumped. "
Isn't this case also dangerous if the node which contains ATSHA chip was stolen ? The attacker will use the chip to be on the network ?
Thanks.
-
@ahmedadelhosni thanks!
Correct. That is why I also implemented whitelisting and node revocation. It's all described in the topic (and for development branch in doxygen, linked in the topic).
-
@Anticimex Thanks.
So this gets me to my next question
What I understood is that if I use whitelisting, I need to know the node ID of my sensor door to define it in the GW, correct ?
I guess the below code is in the GW.whitelist_entry_t node_whitelist[] = { { .nodeId = 55, // Just some value, this need to be changed to the NodeId of the trusted node .serial = {0x01,0x02,0x03,0x04,0x05,0x06,0x07,0x08,0x09} } // This need to change to the serial of the trusted node };another question, If I want to remove this node, do I have to reflash the GW and remove it ?
-
Yes.
-
@Anticimex mmmm
Can't it be implemented in a way so that whitelist is to be defined by the controller ?
For example, an internal message to be used to set the data.My concern is that auto assignation of nodes is flexible but at the same time you may need to choose which sensor node to be added to your whitelist. Thus if a Controller can show you all your nodes, like vera or domoticz, I guess this option can be added to the plugin to send an internal message to the GW to choose which sensor node to be added.
Am I saying something logic ?
-
Possibly. But that would mean that security features is dictaded by the controller plugins and I do not like that at all.
For months I have been trying to convince the Domoticz people that their ACK timeout is way to short and needs to be configurable for signing to work with Domoticz, but they do not even reply to me.
And I do not trust controllers at all and want to have full control over all configuration aspects of the signing solution. So I do not think it is good to move that logic off the nodes (whitelisting can also be used by a node, communicating with another node).
It is not only a GW that can have a whitelist. So although it might have been flexible to have it configurable, I think it compromises security (who knows, your controller could be hacked to inject a whitelist that permits a rogue node in your network).
Of course, security is at some level compromised anyway if the controller is hacked. But it is not the signing solution that is compromised in this case.
And ultimately, that feature would mean that the level of signing security and signing features for MySensors, becomes controller specific. And that I do not think is a good idea. If I want to change or improve the feature, the controller plugins all also have to be updated. It just becomes a too big turnaround for something as important as this in my opinion.
-
Yeah I got your point of view and convinced me. The only solution to implement this is that other communities works together to improve flexibility and security. This is not that easy of course as you have said.
Thanks a lot for your time.
-
Thanks for understanding
-
Also in all cases I see that if your controller is being hacked there will be no use to play with the whitelist
The attacker has full control already to blow my house if he wants to Anyway maybe I need to reflash using signing to understand things more.
Keep it up
-
Hi again.
I managed to set run the softsign and everything seems fine till now. I just want to understand the system much more if you please.
Now my Gateway sends this data when I turn on Light.
( I am using GatewayW5100 with Domoticz ) Development branch0;0;3;0;9;Eth: 0;0;3;0;18;PING 0;0;3;0;9;Eth: 2;7;1;0;2;1 0;0;3;0;9;send: 0-0-2-2 s=7,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=ok: 0;0;3;0;9;read: 2-2-0 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=0:01F470C061A0B9FF3DE248835736E2B85E31C8D6D1844AACAC 0;0;3;0;9;Signing backend: ATSHA204Soft 0;0;3;0;9;Message to process: 00020E01020731 0;0;3;0;9;Current nonce: 01F470C061A0B9FF3DE248835736E2B85E31C8D6D1844AACACAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 0;0;3;0;9;HMAC: 135DBD85528E869ECC86C9C53679795D7FDA7B789DB7A0A74053C94FE8D668F0 0;0;3;0;9;Signature in message: 015DBD85528E869ECC86C9C53679795D7FDA7B789DB7A0A7 0;0;3;0;9;send: 0-0-2-2 s=7,c=1,t=2,pt=0,l=1,sg=1,st=ok:1I want to know how was the following data calculated please:
- sg=0:01F470C061A0B9FF3DE248835736E2B85E31C8D6D1844AACAC
- Message to process: 00020E01020731
- Current nonce: 01F470C061A0B9FF3DE248835736E2B85E31C8D6D1844AACACAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
- HMAC: 135DBD85528E869ECC86C9C53679795D7FDA7B789DB7A0A74053C94FE8D668F0
- Signature in message: 015DBD85528E869ECC86C9C53679795D7FDA7B789DB7A0A7
So how was sg= calculated ?
What is message to process ?
The nonce is depending on analogue signal + what ? to get this value ?
I have already defined a random HMAC, but this one is different. It is a combination of what ?
Finally what is signature in message ?On the other side I am trying to sniff the data by a serialgateway which is trying to hack the network. It only read the following data:
0;0;3;0;9;read: 2-2-0 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=0:01F470C061A0B9FF3DE248835736E2B85E31C8D6D1844AACAC 2;255;3;0;17;01F470C061A0B9FF3DE248835736E2B85E31C8D6D1844AACACIt is the sg only which it succeeded to read. Also I do understood form the topic that the attacker can read values sent between nodes unencrypted, but here I can't figure out where is the unencrypted data which can be sniffed by the attacker but we don't bother ourselves with cas we protect our network by using signing.
Lots of questions but I am trying to understand the logic and architecture in details to understand what I am doing
Thanks a lot.
-
Hi,
I suggest you read the doxygen documentation for signing carefully as it answers the questions you have. Signing does not in any way prevent anyone from reading your messages. As I have described in the documentation, it provides authenticity. That is, you can trust the sender of a signed message to be yours and not someone else's.
-
@Anticimex Yeah I understand it doesn't prevent anyone from reading my messages, and that's what I am trying to do now. To hack the system depending on the data available. But when I read the post I understood that encryption is not a priority as signing is enough now to prevent an attacker from sending data, but it can read text. I thought I will find clear text describing that I am sending to node X value Y but I found this 2;255;3;0;17;01F470C061A0B9FF3DE248835736E2B85E31C8D6D1844AACAC
so I wanted to ask.Anyway I'll re read the documents more carefully and return to you back please. Thanks.
-
Encryption is available for both rf24 and rf69 radios. But encryption and signing are two different things, and I work with signing. And signing is more efficient against hackers than encryption. Encryption is more if you care about privacy.
-
@Anticimex @hek is it possible to encrypt the data sent over nrf modules using this https://github.com/DavyLandman/AESLib ???
-
@noelgeorgi AES encryption is already supported for both NRF24 and RFM69 radios. See MyConfig.h on the development branch for the flag to use. Doyxgen documentation I link to in this thread on the topic post also contain the personalization instructions for encryption on the development branch.
-
@Anticimex said:
@noelgeorgi AES encryption is already supported for both NRF24 and RFM69 radios. See MyConfig.h on the development branch for the flag to use. Doyxgen documentation I link to in this thread on the topic post also contain the personalization instructions for encryption on the development branch.
Thanks for the info.
I'm getting the following errors when compiling securitypersonalizer:Arduino: 1.6.7 (Linux), Board: "Arduino/Genuino Mega or Mega 2560, ATmega2560 (Mega 2560)" /home/technoman/Arduino/libraries/MySensors/examples/SecurityPersonalizer/SecurityPersonalizer.ino:83:28: fatal error: sha204_library.h: No such file or directory #include <sha204_library.h> ^ compilation terminated. exit status 1 Error compiling. This report would have more information with "Show verbose output during compilation" enabled in File > Preferences.doesnt the ATSHA204 library has ATSHA204.h
-
@noelgeorgi master or development branch?
-
@Anticimex development branch
-
@noelgeorgi have you made changes to the sketch? Jenkins builds it without problems.
-
@Anticimex no, I'm using the sketch from the examples.....
am i missing some libraries????
-
@noelgeorgi if you have cloned the arduino git you have everything you need. I can build that sketch myself and have used it many times. I suspect you have a problem with your environment if you get compilation errors in it. We continously test the repository and build all examples nightly to make sure it all works as it is supposed to. You can see this at ci.mysensors.org
-
@Anticimex sorry for the interruption, i was using rsync to get eveything synced and i might have messed something uop, sha204 library was missing from my libraries folder, now everything works, thanks for the prompt and fast support.
-
-
@Anticimex - thanks for this. I finally got around to enabling signing on everything while I was testing out my new board design. I followed your schematic from your board design when I built mine and I just went through the instructions to configure the crypto chip and everything went smoothly. Thanks for the work and the good instructions!
-
@TD22057 that's really nice to hear! Are you using a stable release or the development/beta channel?
-
@Anticimex
I used the signing sketch on the dev branch - I'm in the process of shifting my stuff over to the dev branch from 1.5 now.
-
Ok, cool. As you might have noticed, personalization has changed a bit on development. Also, whitelisting works slightly differently/better.
-
Isn't blacklisting cool too to use ?
Like, if we know the "name" of the sensor lost, we push it to the black list and voila ? This way, we don't have to put a long list a agreed sensors if we have only two nodes outside the house.
... I think.
-
@Pierre-P because if a node is lost, you no longer control that node. So anyone could reprogram it to have it identify itself in any way possible. We have to assume an attacker has full source code access, so they can rewrite the signing algorithm to use a fake serial as salt for the signature to trick the GW to believe it is a new node. A whitelist mean the attacker has to know the ID/serial of one of the nodes you trust. Which they won't know unless they can get access to that node.
-
Thanks for the complet answer !
-
@Pierre-P you are welcome. Security is best when it is totally open and the implementation is aware of this. That makes it quite difficult to circumvent, and it also allows to be challenged. That way, with many eyes examining it, it gets stronger and stronger
I welcome all attempts to crack it. White or black hat style.
-
Hello all! What would require less flash memory? Signing by ATSHA204A Chip or by software?
-
Signing by ATSHA204A require less flash memory, but takes longer to execute (at least on 8MHz AtMega328).
-
@Anticimex assumed that, but this post on the forum got me confused: http://forum.mysensors.org/topic/2005/software-aes-encryption-for-nrf24/19
According to that post, he uses software on the SenseBender with Encryption because, according to him "...encryption and ATSHA204A is to big for the SenseBender... ".
I would like to add Signing and encryption to my nodes, but I don't know if it will fit on my Atmega328 flash!
-
Well, how much space you have depend on your sketch and on the features you enable in the library, so it is impossible to predict how your code will fit. I suggest you just try to enable what you want and compile, and you'll know
-
The easiest way to find out is to look at the output in Arduino IDE when you click "Verify".
There are some factors that affect size:
- Size of bootloader
- MySensors version (different versions of the library have different size requirements)
- MySensors features used (software signing, encryption, debug on or off, etc)
- Size of other libraries you use in your sketch
- Size of your sketch
-
ouch, @Anticimex was a bit faster
oh, and the problem in the thread you quoted @Soloam is encryption. At least at that time, encryption used too much space so there wasn't space to include either hardware or software signing.
-
Yes, encryption and signing! I'll try to order this and test it out! http://www.ebay.com/itm/5PCS-ATSHA204A-STUCZ-T-IC-CRYPTO-4-5KB-SWI-204A-SHA204A-/191782104901?hash=item2ca71aaf45:g:zEQAAOSwwE5WZk9O
-
And on development branch, @tekka has an open PR where he has cut down significantly on the size of the NRF24 driver as well.
-
And you might also have read mine and @mfalkvidd's stand on encryption, so don't be discouraged if you find that you can't fit both. Just skip the encryption in that case. It adds far less in security than signing does.
-
Yes, if I have to discard one it would be encryption! Thank you for the help @Anticimex and @mfalkvidd
-
Hello,
I currently testing various bootloader to measure impact on CPU speed on the power consumption.
I got a lot ofnonce errorwhen using 1 MHz configuration.Is signing feature possible at 1 MHz ?
Thanks.
David.
-
@carlierd could you specify a bit clearer what you mean by "nonce error"? Signing should work, but the atsha driver is not tested @ 1MHz and might get bad timing. Also, for soft (and hard) signing, if 1MHz is used, performance could degrade to the point that the nonce timeout needs to be increased.
-
Hello.
I am using soft signing.
find parent send: 255-255-255-255 s=255,c=3,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=bc: read: 255-255-255 s=255,c=3,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0: sensor started, id=255, parent=255, distance=255 find parent send: 255-255-255-255 s=255,c=3,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=bc: read: 0-0-255 s=255,c=3,t=8,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:0 parent=0, d=1 read: 0-0-255 s=255,c=3,t=8,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:0 req id send: 255-255-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=3,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=ok: read: 0-0-255 s=255,c=3,t=4,pt=0,l=1,sg=0:9 send: 9-9-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=2,l=2,sg=0,st=fail:1 read and drop: 9-9-0 s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=2,l=2,sg=0:1 read: 0-0-9 s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=2,l=2,sg=0:1 send: 9-9-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=fail: nonce tr err send: 9-9-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=fail: nonce tr err read and drop: 9-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:0 read: 0-0-9 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=0:0129D04B64916F5E805EFDF704C34F56B47E547FDDE93805BE id=9 send: 9-9-0-0 s=0,c=0,t=0,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=ok: send: 9-9-0-0 s=1,c=0,t=30,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=fail: [Setup duration: 9928 ms] send: 9-9-0-0 s=0,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=fail: nonce tr err send: 9-9-0-0 s=1,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=fail: nonce tr err send: 9-9-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=fail: nonce tr err Value is 1 Cycle is 1 3.39 v [753 ms]Thanks,
David.
-
@carlierd you have a lot of st=fail, so your problem is radio related, not signing related. I also see non nonce related messages fail so you need to stabilize your rf connection before signing can work. And since signing uses the maximum payload size, it has the least probability to succeed to be sent, so you could find that unsigned messages work while nonces and signed messages fail, but this is normal of the rf link is not fully working. If you get st=fail, it is a radio problem. See this discussion for details: http://forum.mysensors.org/topic/3386/mqttclientgateway-broken-after-upgrade-signature-failure
-
@Anticimex Hello. Everything is working at 16 or 8MHz so I am pretty sure it's not an issue with the material.
I will burn the bootloader again and create a new post if it's still not correct. I will also disable signing feature to be sure there is no impact.David.
-
@carlierd well, st=fail indicate transmission failure so it is pretty clear that you have a issue with rf, at least on that frequency. st=fail is not signing related. But, like previously discussed, enabling signing can trigger more st=fail because the payload gets bigger and is more sensitive to noise.
-
@calierd You can have a look here at the discussion I had with a similar problem which I was able to resolve finally. See the last reply in the aforementioned thread where I summarized how I resolved it, eventually.
-
@Anticimex @tomkxy
Perhaps the arduino and RFM69 can't run at 1MHz. I have capacitors and I tried with two different power sources. Without signing it's better but still a lot of st=fail. No matter, it was just for testing purpose
-
@calierd I cannot comment on RFM69 since I have non in operation. Sorry, try to place the nodes further apart and look whether it changes.
-
@Anticimex Thank you for the effort you have put into signing, this is great!
Would it make sense to explore the I2C version of ATSHA204A ? The reason I'm asking is speed.
-
Thanks @duovis,
Yes, I welcome anyone who has the HW to provide a IO routine for I2C-variants of ATSHA204A. I don't have the hw myself though.
-
@Anticimex Ok, I'll try to play with it and see if I can come up with something that works on I2C.
-
@duovis Great. I'll happily review any code. You should only need to worry about the low level stuff.
-
Hello all!
Two fast question! Can I have nodes working with ATSHA204A chip and others with software?
And, can I have nodes with signing on and others off? Or if I add signing to my network, all nodes must have it?
Thank you all!
-
@Soloam
You can mix nodes with soft signing and ATSHA signing as you like.
You can mix nodes with signing on and off as well. The GW will only sign messages to nodes that require it, and it will also only check signatures from nodes that require signatures. So you can have one node which support/require signing and another which don't. The GW will be able to exchange messages with both nodes.
-
Great work indeed!
Thank you @Anticimex
-
@Soloam thanks
-
Slightly silly question, but did anyone manage to get signing working (MySigningAtsha204Soft signer;) on Arduino Uno on MS 1.5.4 on the Ethernet gateway please? I am going out of memory and really hate to upgrade it to Mega
-
@alexsh1 if you feel adventurous try 2.0.0-beta2, or if you are patient, go to 2.0.0 in a few months and redesigns will have made space available for you.
-
@Anticimex Thanks - I am currently trying an Ethernet GW and a node (Sensebender Micro) with dev branch. I am stuck at personalisation. I cannot lock data. Any idea what I am doing wrong?
This is Sensebender (with ATSHA204):
Personalization sketch for MySensors usage. ------------------------------------------- Device revision: 00020009 Device serial: {0x01,0x23,0x53,0x3F,0x52,0x6A,0x1A,0x06,0xEE} 0123533F526A1A06EE Skipping configuration write and lock (configuration already locked). Chip configuration: EEPROM DATA: SOFT_HMAC_KEY | FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF SOFT_SERIAL | FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF AES_KEY | FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF ATSHA204A DATA: SN[0:1] | SN[2:3] | 01 23 | 53 3F Revnum | 00 09 04 00 SN[4:7] | 52 6A 1A 06 SN[8] | Reserved13 | I2CEnable | Reserved15 | EE | 13 | 00 | 00 I2CAddress | TempOffset | OTPmode | SelectorMode | C8 | 00 | 55 | 00 SlotConfig00 | SlotConfig01 | 8F 80 | 80 A1 SlotConfig02 | SlotConfig03 | 82 E0 | A3 60 SlotConfig04 | SlotConfig05 | 94 40 | A0 85 SlotConfig06 | SlotConfig07 | 86 40 | 87 07 SlotConfig08 | SlotConfig09 | 0F 00 | 89 F2 SlotConfig0A | SlotConfig0B | 8A 7A | 0B 8B SlotConfig0C | SlotConfig0D | 0C 4C | DD 4D SlotConfig0E | SlotConfig0F | C2 42 | AF 8F UseFlag00 | UpdateCount00 | UseFlag01 | UpdateCount01 | FF | 00 | FF | 00 UseFlag02 | UpdateCount02 | UseFlag03 | UpdateCount03 | FF | 00 | FF | 00 UseFlag04 | UpdateCount04 | UseFlag05 | UpdateCount05 | FF | 00 | FF | 00 UseFlag06 | UpdateCount06 | UseFlag07 | UpdateCount07 | FF | 00 | FF | 00 LastKeyUse[0:3] | FF FF FF FF LastKeyUse[4:7] | FF FF FF FF LastKeyUse[8:B] | FF FF FF FF LastKeyUse[C:F] | FF FF FF FF UserExtra | Selector | LockValue | LockConfig | 00 | 00 | 55 | 00 Take note of this key, it will never be the shown again: #define MY_HMAC_KEY [deleted] Writing key to slot 0... Send SPACE character to lock data... Data lock failed. Response: D3 Halting!
-
@alexsh1 actually, I have never actually locked data. Could be a bug there. But I also highly recommend that you don't. If you do, you will never be able to change hmac key in that device.
-
@Anticimex So this is no problem if the key is not locked? I was just following the manual
On a separate note, I cannot get soft_serial written into the EEPROM:
#define LOCK_CONFIGURATION //#define LOCK_DATA //#define SKIP_KEY_STORAGE //#define USER_KEY //#define SKIP_UART_CONFIRMATION #define USE_SOFT_SIGNING #define STORE_SOFT_KEY #define USER_SOFT_KEY #define STORE_SOFT_SERIAL #define USER_SOFT_SERIAL #define STORE_AES_KEY #define USER_AES_KEY```I have defined the key under #define MY_SOFT_SERIAL [key]
Personalization sketch for MySensors usage. ------------------------------------------- This value will be stored in EEPROM as soft HMAC key: #define MY_SOFT_HMAC_KEY [deleted] Using this user supplied AES key: #define MY_AES_KEY [deleted] EEPROM configuration: SOFT_HMAC_KEY | [deleted] SOFT_SERIAL | FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF AES_KEY | [deleted] -------------------------------- Personalization is now complete.
-
@alexsh1 Hopefully the manual informs about the risks with locking data (that you cannot change the key afterwards). Atmel is somewhat vague on the security implications; they say that you can not read the key anyway but it is "more secure" to lock data. But personally, I have not found a way to read it, and I prefer to be able to change my HMAC key in my devices if it should be compromised.
Strange that you don't get the soft serial. I see nothing obviously wrong with your config. But I do see that you probably sensored your uart log a bit too hard because there are other lines missing there.
You should have seen thisUsing this user supplied soft HMAC key: #define MY_SOFT_HMAC_KEY [deleted]if you have enabled this:
#define STORE_SOFT_KEY #define USER_SOFT_KEYYou are sure you have no #undef or some accidental comment or similar. As you see in the personalizer code, it is not that complicated. If the flags are enabled, you should at least get some printouts. But since (if your UART dump is correct) you get nothing, I suspect the flags are not really "on".
-
@Anticimex said:
Strange that you don't get the soft serial. I see nothing obviously wrong with your config. But I do see that you probably sensored your uart log a bit too hard because there are other lines missing there.
You should have seen thisUsing this user supplied soft HMAC key: #define MY_SOFT_HMAC_KEY [deleted]if you have enabled this:
#define STORE_SOFT_KEY #define USER_SOFT_KEYYou are sure you have no #undef or some accidental comment or similar. As you see in the personalizer code, it is not that complicated. If the flags are enabled, you should at least get some printouts. But since (if your UART dump is correct) you get nothing, I suspect the flags are not really "on".
OK, it was Arduino glitch - any changes in the sketch were not reflected on the compilation. Rebooted my PC and restarted Arduino and all works as expected.
A few questions: Mixing ATSHA204 and soft signing - Does HMAC key (one stored in ATSHA204 of say a node and another one in GW's EEPROM) have to be the same? Also I understand one can store HMAC key on both ATSHA204 and EEPROM of one device (say, Sensebender)? I understand that SOFT_KEY has to be unique for every device?
-
@alexsh1 Ok, well Arduino IDE sucks totally.
You can mix ATSHA204A and soft signing as much as you like. But for any two nodes to exchange signed data the HMAC keys have to be identical.
Yes, you can store a HMAC key in both ATSHA204A and EEPROM. These can be different if you like (and I recommend they are as the EEPROM can be dumped if the node falls into the wrong hands).
However, if you want that node to communicate signed data to another node, that node must use a matching HMAC key.
SOFT_KEY is the HMAC key stored in EEPROM, it must not be unique for every device. If it is, no device will be able to sign data to any other node and expect that node to accept that data.
SOFT_SERIAL on the other hand, must be unique to serve any useful purpose for whitelisting. If you use the ATSHA204A, the serial fused in the device will be used and that cannot be changed, and is according to Atmel, unique.
-
@Anticimex Ok, but is there a reason why one would have HMAC key in both ATSHA204a and EEPROM?
-
@alexsh1 no, not really. If you have a atsha204a the only reason to not use it would be performance. Software signing executes slightly faster due to the single write protocol of the atsha.
-
@Anticimex Thanks very much for your help - I must admit it was a bit of a challenge to jump straight away from a stable 1.5.4 to 2.0 beta
-
@alexsh1 yes there have been a lot of changes but hopefully they are perceived as improvements. Feedback on signing usability is always welcome
-
@Anticimex BTW, is signing compatible between 1.5.4 and 2.0b?
-
@alexsh1 no, it is not
-
@Anticimex Right, this is why I am not able to sign 1.5.4 nodes with 2.0b GW.
In fact when I inserted #define MY_SIGNING_REQUEST_SIGNATURES into the GW code, some nodes stopped working and I think it has to be with signing as GW is throwing a lot of messages that signing failed.Bottom line is that I need to upgrade pretty much all sensors
-
@alexsh1 yes, Unfortunately. But it is a huge release upcoming. And a major version step, hence the incompatibilities. Hopefully, the changes made will make it easier to do future maintenance.
-
Hi. Is there any difference in using RFM69? Signing is supported using that radio? Thanks
