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. [security] Introducing signing support to MySensors

[security] Introducing signing support to MySensors

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Development
security
491 Posts 48 Posters 334.0k Views 30 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 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.

    alexsh1A Offline
    alexsh1A Offline
    alexsh1
    wrote on last edited by alexsh1
    #251

    @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!
    
    AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • alexsh1A alexsh1

      @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!
      
      AnticimexA Offline
      AnticimexA Offline
      Anticimex
      Contest Winner
      wrote on last edited by
      #252

      @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.

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

      alexsh1A 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • AnticimexA Anticimex

        @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.

        alexsh1A Offline
        alexsh1A Offline
        alexsh1
        wrote on last edited by alexsh1
        #253

        @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.
        
        AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • alexsh1A alexsh1

          @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.
          
          AnticimexA Offline
          AnticimexA Offline
          Anticimex
          Contest Winner
          wrote on last edited by
          #254

          @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 this

          Using this user supplied soft HMAC key:
          #define MY_SOFT_HMAC_KEY [deleted]
          

          if you have enabled this:

          #define STORE_SOFT_KEY
          #define USER_SOFT_KEY
          

          You 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".

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

          alexsh1A 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • AnticimexA Anticimex

            @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 this

            Using this user supplied soft HMAC key:
            #define MY_SOFT_HMAC_KEY [deleted]
            

            if you have enabled this:

            #define STORE_SOFT_KEY
            #define USER_SOFT_KEY
            

            You 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".

            alexsh1A Offline
            alexsh1A Offline
            alexsh1
            wrote on last edited by alexsh1
            #255

            @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 this

            Using this user supplied soft HMAC key:
            #define MY_SOFT_HMAC_KEY [deleted]
            

            if you have enabled this:

            #define STORE_SOFT_KEY
            #define USER_SOFT_KEY
            

            You 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?

            AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • alexsh1A alexsh1

              @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 this

              Using this user supplied soft HMAC key:
              #define MY_SOFT_HMAC_KEY [deleted]
              

              if you have enabled this:

              #define STORE_SOFT_KEY
              #define USER_SOFT_KEY
              

              You 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?

              AnticimexA Offline
              AnticimexA Offline
              Anticimex
              Contest Winner
              wrote on last edited by
              #256

              @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.

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

              alexsh1A 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • AnticimexA Anticimex

                @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.

                alexsh1A Offline
                alexsh1A Offline
                alexsh1
                wrote on last edited by
                #257

                @Anticimex Ok, but is there a reason why one would have HMAC key in both ATSHA204a and EEPROM?

                AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • alexsh1A alexsh1

                  @Anticimex Ok, but is there a reason why one would have HMAC key in both ATSHA204a and EEPROM?

                  AnticimexA Offline
                  AnticimexA Offline
                  Anticimex
                  Contest Winner
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #258

                  @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.

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

                  alexsh1A 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • AnticimexA Anticimex

                    @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.

                    alexsh1A Offline
                    alexsh1A Offline
                    alexsh1
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #259

                    @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

                    AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • alexsh1A alexsh1

                      @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

                      AnticimexA Offline
                      AnticimexA Offline
                      Anticimex
                      Contest Winner
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #260

                      @alexsh1 yes there have been a lot of changes but hopefully they are perceived as improvements. Feedback on signing usability is always welcome :)

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

                      alexsh1A 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • AnticimexA Anticimex

                        @alexsh1 yes there have been a lot of changes but hopefully they are perceived as improvements. Feedback on signing usability is always welcome :)

                        alexsh1A Offline
                        alexsh1A Offline
                        alexsh1
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #261

                        @Anticimex BTW, is signing compatible between 1.5.4 and 2.0b?

                        AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • alexsh1A alexsh1

                          @Anticimex BTW, is signing compatible between 1.5.4 and 2.0b?

                          AnticimexA Offline
                          AnticimexA Offline
                          Anticimex
                          Contest Winner
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #262

                          @alexsh1 no, it is not

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

                          alexsh1A 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • AnticimexA Anticimex

                            @alexsh1 no, it is not

                            alexsh1A Offline
                            alexsh1A Offline
                            alexsh1
                            wrote on last edited by alexsh1
                            #263

                            @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 :-(

                            AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • alexsh1A alexsh1

                              @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 :-(

                              AnticimexA Offline
                              AnticimexA Offline
                              Anticimex
                              Contest Winner
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #264

                              @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.

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

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • C Offline
                                C Offline
                                cingolanifede
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #265

                                Hi. Is there any difference in using RFM69? Signing is supported using that radio? Thanks

                                AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • C cingolanifede

                                  Hi. Is there any difference in using RFM69? Signing is supported using that radio? Thanks

                                  AnticimexA Offline
                                  AnticimexA Offline
                                  Anticimex
                                  Contest Winner
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #266

                                  @cingolanifede signing has nothing to to with which radio you choose so yes. It supports any transport, but to my knowledge it has only been actually tested with nrf24 and rfm69.

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

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • alexsh1A Offline
                                    alexsh1A Offline
                                    alexsh1
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #267

                                    @Anticimex I must admit that signing is working really-really nicely on my custom made nodes (Soft sign and ATSHA204A)

                                    Apart from a small issue with the sensebender, which I believe is not a signing issue, it is working like a charm. All credit to you! Thank you

                                    Starting sensor (RNNNAS, 2.0.0-beta)
                                    Radio init successful.
                                    HTU21D Sensor1.1 - Online!
                                    isMetric: 1
                                    TempDiff :1098.00
                                    HumDiff  :136.75
                                    T: 998.00
                                    H: 36.75
                                    send: 5-5-0-0 s=0,c=1,t=0,pt=7,l=5,sg=0,st=ok:998.0
                                    send: 5-5-0-0 s=1,c=1,t=1,pt=7,l=5,sg=0,st=ok:36.7
                                    send: 5-5-0-0 s=2,c=1,t=38,pt=7,l=5,sg=0,st=ok:3.29
                                    send: 5-5-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=0,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,st=ok:106
                                    Signing required
                                    send: 5-5-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=0,l=2,sg=0,st=ok:
                                    Waiting for GW to send signing preferences...
                                    Skipping security for command 3 type 15
                                    read: 0-0-5 s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=0,l=2,sg=0:
                                    Mark node 0 as one that do not require signed messages
                                    Mark node 0 as one that do not require whitelisting
                                    send: 5-5-0-0 s=255,c=0,t=17,pt=0,l=10,sg=0,st=ok:2.0.0-beta
                                    send: 5-5-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,st=ok:0
                                    Skipping security for command 3 type 16
                                    read: 0-0-5 s=255,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0:
                                    Signing backend: ATSHA204Soft
                                    SHA256: 2C4A871ACCAE26760F41E547DD39B7B816FE22EEBCD8DFA2FE00000000000000
                                    Transmittng nonce
                                    send: 5-5-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=0,st=ok:2C4A871ACCAE26760F41E547DD39B7B816FE22EEBCD8DFA2FE
                                    Signature in message: 01C31110DAE29D5DCD3771F68B6F29B5CCCF43A3D5397CC8
                                    Message to process: 00050E0306FF4D
                                    Current nonce: 2C4A871ACCAE26760F41E547DD39B7B816FE22EEBCD8DFA2FEAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                                    HMAC: 0CC31110DAE29D5DCD3771F68B6F29B5CCCF43A3D5397CC89A82A89D87E931B8
                                    Signature OK
                                    read: 0-0-5 s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=0,l=1,sg=0:M
                                    send: 5-5-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=11,pt=0,l=24,sg=0,st=ok:Temp/Hum Sensor - HTU21D
                                    send: 5-5-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=12,pt=0,l=3,sg=0,st=ok:1.1
                                    send: 5-5-0-0 s=0,c=0,t=6,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=ok:
                                    send: 5-5-0-0 s=1,c=0,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=ok:
                                    send: 5-5-0-0 s=2,c=0,t=13,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=ok:
                                    Init complete, id=5, parent=0, distance=1
                                    TempDiff :971.94
                                    HumDiff  :0.02
                                    T: 26.06
                                    H: 36.72
                                    send: 5-5-0-0 s=0,c=1,t=0,pt=7,l=5,sg=0,st=ok:26.1
                                    send: 5-5-0-0 s=1,c=1,t=1,pt=7,l=5,sg=0,st=ok:36.7
                                    
                                    AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
                                    1
                                    • alexsh1A alexsh1

                                      @Anticimex I must admit that signing is working really-really nicely on my custom made nodes (Soft sign and ATSHA204A)

                                      Apart from a small issue with the sensebender, which I believe is not a signing issue, it is working like a charm. All credit to you! Thank you

                                      Starting sensor (RNNNAS, 2.0.0-beta)
                                      Radio init successful.
                                      HTU21D Sensor1.1 - Online!
                                      isMetric: 1
                                      TempDiff :1098.00
                                      HumDiff  :136.75
                                      T: 998.00
                                      H: 36.75
                                      send: 5-5-0-0 s=0,c=1,t=0,pt=7,l=5,sg=0,st=ok:998.0
                                      send: 5-5-0-0 s=1,c=1,t=1,pt=7,l=5,sg=0,st=ok:36.7
                                      send: 5-5-0-0 s=2,c=1,t=38,pt=7,l=5,sg=0,st=ok:3.29
                                      send: 5-5-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=0,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,st=ok:106
                                      Signing required
                                      send: 5-5-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=0,l=2,sg=0,st=ok:
                                      Waiting for GW to send signing preferences...
                                      Skipping security for command 3 type 15
                                      read: 0-0-5 s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=0,l=2,sg=0:
                                      Mark node 0 as one that do not require signed messages
                                      Mark node 0 as one that do not require whitelisting
                                      send: 5-5-0-0 s=255,c=0,t=17,pt=0,l=10,sg=0,st=ok:2.0.0-beta
                                      send: 5-5-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,st=ok:0
                                      Skipping security for command 3 type 16
                                      read: 0-0-5 s=255,c=3,t=16,pt=0,l=0,sg=0:
                                      Signing backend: ATSHA204Soft
                                      SHA256: 2C4A871ACCAE26760F41E547DD39B7B816FE22EEBCD8DFA2FE00000000000000
                                      Transmittng nonce
                                      send: 5-5-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=17,pt=6,l=25,sg=0,st=ok:2C4A871ACCAE26760F41E547DD39B7B816FE22EEBCD8DFA2FE
                                      Signature in message: 01C31110DAE29D5DCD3771F68B6F29B5CCCF43A3D5397CC8
                                      Message to process: 00050E0306FF4D
                                      Current nonce: 2C4A871ACCAE26760F41E547DD39B7B816FE22EEBCD8DFA2FEAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                                      HMAC: 0CC31110DAE29D5DCD3771F68B6F29B5CCCF43A3D5397CC89A82A89D87E931B8
                                      Signature OK
                                      read: 0-0-5 s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=0,l=1,sg=0:M
                                      send: 5-5-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=11,pt=0,l=24,sg=0,st=ok:Temp/Hum Sensor - HTU21D
                                      send: 5-5-0-0 s=255,c=3,t=12,pt=0,l=3,sg=0,st=ok:1.1
                                      send: 5-5-0-0 s=0,c=0,t=6,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=ok:
                                      send: 5-5-0-0 s=1,c=0,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=ok:
                                      send: 5-5-0-0 s=2,c=0,t=13,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,st=ok:
                                      Init complete, id=5, parent=0, distance=1
                                      TempDiff :971.94
                                      HumDiff  :0.02
                                      T: 26.06
                                      H: 36.72
                                      send: 5-5-0-0 s=0,c=1,t=0,pt=7,l=5,sg=0,st=ok:26.1
                                      send: 5-5-0-0 s=1,c=1,t=1,pt=7,l=5,sg=0,st=ok:36.7
                                      
                                      AnticimexA Offline
                                      AnticimexA Offline
                                      Anticimex
                                      Contest Winner
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #268

                                      @alexsh1 I'm really glad to hear that. Thank you! Glad that signing is being used and is perceived as something not to complicated to bother with. It sets us apart from many other projects dealing with the same thing :)

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

                                      alexsh1A 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • AnticimexA Anticimex

                                        @alexsh1 I'm really glad to hear that. Thank you! Glad that signing is being used and is perceived as something not to complicated to bother with. It sets us apart from many other projects dealing with the same thing :)

                                        alexsh1A Offline
                                        alexsh1A Offline
                                        alexsh1
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #269

                                        @Anticimex I did not say it was not complicated :)
                                        Just kidding - speaking just for myself, it did require some time investment to understand the concept and then upgrading my gateway and my nodes (I am still in the process of rolling signing across the rest of my nodes) to MySensors 2.0b. I probably spent more time upgrading MySensors lib and breaking some hardware in the meantime (the SMA connector on the nrf24l01+ PA+LNA) than the actual signing.

                                        AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • alexsh1A alexsh1

                                          @Anticimex I did not say it was not complicated :)
                                          Just kidding - speaking just for myself, it did require some time investment to understand the concept and then upgrading my gateway and my nodes (I am still in the process of rolling signing across the rest of my nodes) to MySensors 2.0b. I probably spent more time upgrading MySensors lib and breaking some hardware in the meantime (the SMA connector on the nrf24l01+ PA+LNA) than the actual signing.

                                          AnticimexA Offline
                                          AnticimexA Offline
                                          Anticimex
                                          Contest Winner
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #270

                                          @alexsh1 yeah, well if there is room for improvement in the documentation then feel free to help put with suggestions if there is anything unclear about that :) I use doxygen to document signing features, and a link is available on the GitHub "front-page" (the readme.md)

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

                                          alexsh1A 1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          8

                                          Online

                                          11.7k

                                          Users

                                          11.2k

                                          Topics

                                          113.0k

                                          Posts


                                          Copyright 2019 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