[security] Introducing signing support to MySensors
-
@Anticimex Spot on -> there was a mistake :
#define MY_SIGNING_ATSHA204_PIN 3and should have been
#define MY_SIGNING_ATSHA204_PIN 17I was wondering why nonce was all zeros...
@alexsh1 excellent. Signing won't work well without proper communication with the chip :)
I considered just hanging if that happened but decided it was a bit too harsh and might disguise the problem in case UART debug isn't enabled. -
I cannot get my china USB to Serial device to work with the arduino boards, so I cannot program the board to run the personalization. As a work around a use a Arduino Uno board as the "USB to Serial" and now I can upload the sketch and the personalizer writes to serial output fine at 115200 baud.
But, when it wants me to press SPACE, it responds with "Unexpected answer. Skipping lock."I tried an other sketch that does Serial.read() and echos back the result. It does not work at 115200 but works at 9600 baud. At 9600 I get char 32 back as SPACE, but 160 or 130 or 254 at 115200. Maybe the Uno board cannot handle 115200?
So, question: Can the personalizer sketch be changed to use 9600 (or something slower than 115200)? I tried to change the Serial.begin(115200) to 9600, but it is still 115200.
(of course, I can alter the code to bypass the press SPACE to press any key, but I want to get to the bottom with the problem)
-
I cannot get my china USB to Serial device to work with the arduino boards, so I cannot program the board to run the personalization. As a work around a use a Arduino Uno board as the "USB to Serial" and now I can upload the sketch and the personalizer writes to serial output fine at 115200 baud.
But, when it wants me to press SPACE, it responds with "Unexpected answer. Skipping lock."I tried an other sketch that does Serial.read() and echos back the result. It does not work at 115200 but works at 9600 baud. At 9600 I get char 32 back as SPACE, but 160 or 130 or 254 at 115200. Maybe the Uno board cannot handle 115200?
So, question: Can the personalizer sketch be changed to use 9600 (or something slower than 115200)? I tried to change the Serial.begin(115200) to 9600, but it is still 115200.
(of course, I can alter the code to bypass the press SPACE to press any key, but I want to get to the bottom with the problem)
@Magnus-Pernemark
Question 1: so you run stable release or beta?
Answer 1: yes you can change baud rate but it is handled differently between stable and beta. -
I cannot get my china USB to Serial device to work with the arduino boards, so I cannot program the board to run the personalization. As a work around a use a Arduino Uno board as the "USB to Serial" and now I can upload the sketch and the personalizer writes to serial output fine at 115200 baud.
But, when it wants me to press SPACE, it responds with "Unexpected answer. Skipping lock."I tried an other sketch that does Serial.read() and echos back the result. It does not work at 115200 but works at 9600 baud. At 9600 I get char 32 back as SPACE, but 160 or 130 or 254 at 115200. Maybe the Uno board cannot handle 115200?
So, question: Can the personalizer sketch be changed to use 9600 (or something slower than 115200)? I tried to change the Serial.begin(115200) to 9600, but it is still 115200.
(of course, I can alter the code to bypass the press SPACE to press any key, but I want to get to the bottom with the problem)
@Magnus-Pernemark there is a configuration switch to disable UART verification you can use
-
I cannot get my china USB to Serial device to work with the arduino boards, so I cannot program the board to run the personalization. As a work around a use a Arduino Uno board as the "USB to Serial" and now I can upload the sketch and the personalizer writes to serial output fine at 115200 baud.
But, when it wants me to press SPACE, it responds with "Unexpected answer. Skipping lock."I tried an other sketch that does Serial.read() and echos back the result. It does not work at 115200 but works at 9600 baud. At 9600 I get char 32 back as SPACE, but 160 or 130 or 254 at 115200. Maybe the Uno board cannot handle 115200?
So, question: Can the personalizer sketch be changed to use 9600 (or something slower than 115200)? I tried to change the Serial.begin(115200) to 9600, but it is still 115200.
(of course, I can alter the code to bypass the press SPACE to press any key, but I want to get to the bottom with the problem)
-
@Magnus-Pernemark which version are you using?
The development version from github supports#define MY_BAUD_RATE 9600at the start of the sketch.
The 2.1.1 version has
Serial.begin(115200);in the sketch. Just change that.
@Anticimex I am so not familiar with the arduino/mysensors development yet, but I guess I use 2.1.1, since i used "Sketch / Include Library / Manage Library" and it had 2.1.1
@mfalkvidd Since I have the line Serial.begin(115200) I assume it is 2.1.1, but changing it to 9600 and uploading the sketch does nothing. I still need to open serial window with 115200, else I just see garbage as output from the mini pro.
I will try the development version and see if that helps.
-
@Anticimex I am so not familiar with the arduino/mysensors development yet, but I guess I use 2.1.1, since i used "Sketch / Include Library / Manage Library" and it had 2.1.1
@mfalkvidd Since I have the line Serial.begin(115200) I assume it is 2.1.1, but changing it to 9600 and uploading the sketch does nothing. I still need to open serial window with 115200, else I just see garbage as output from the mini pro.
I will try the development version and see if that helps.
-
@Magnus-Pernemark or you can just disable the confirmation altogether. Just define SKIP_UART_CONFIRMATION
@Anticimex hehe, true... but I am a developer by trade, and bypassing something just because it would be easier, feels so wrong. I might end up doing so, but I'll give it some more tries first. Problems are a very good way to learn, and in arduino development I am a total noobie, more used to C# and the .NET world.
-
@Anticimex hehe, true... but I am a developer by trade, and bypassing something just because it would be easier, feels so wrong. I might end up doing so, but I'll give it some more tries first. Problems are a very good way to learn, and in arduino development I am a total noobie, more used to C# and the .NET world.
-
@Magnus-Pernemark as a developer by trade, you should be bold enough to use the beta releases and live on the bleeding edge then ;)
@Anticimex I'll start living on the edge immediately. It's the way to go!
I switched to develop and could change the band rate, however develop version skips UART confirmation by default so I never had the problem there. Never needed to send any keys. Got the chip configured atleast.
I kind of started in the wrong end - designed my own pcbs, then start to know the development environment.
But I'll figure it out... just takes time.. thanks for the help!! -
@Anticimex I'll start living on the edge immediately. It's the way to go!
I switched to develop and could change the band rate, however develop version skips UART confirmation by default so I never had the problem there. Never needed to send any keys. Got the chip configured atleast.
I kind of started in the wrong end - designed my own pcbs, then start to know the development environment.
But I'll figure it out... just takes time.. thanks for the help!!@Magnus-Pernemark that's correct. Or, it is correct if you follow the "guided mode". If you wanna be hardcore, you drop the guided defines and set the individual flags according to your specific needs, and then you get to enable (or more precisely, not disable) UART confirmation (in case you want to test it).
-
Hi!
Starting to learn signing. I use a parallell system (with another channel) where I could test signing before I went on my live system. For now I just use soft signing, it works perfect!Now, I just want to test a node (motionsensor) that include:
#define MY_SIGNING_REQUEST_SIGNATURESThe gateway has no signing feature (it has not gone thru personalition process) In my head, the node shall reject to connect to this gateway, but after the signing fails, it start to send data to the gateway. Did I miss something here?
Debug text on node:
0 MCO:BGN:INIT NODE,CP=RNNNAS--,VER=2.2.0-beta 49 SGN:PER:OK 83 SGN:INI:BND OK 83 TSM:INIT 86 TSF:WUR:MS=0 94 TSM:INIT:TSP OK 96 TSM:INIT:STATID=101 98 TSF:SID:OK,ID=101 100 TSM:FPAR 102 SGN:SGN:NREQ=255 139 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-255-255,s=255,c=3,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK: 684 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-101,s=255,c=3,t=8,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:0 690 SGN:SKP:MSG CMD=3,TYPE=8 692 TSF:MSG:FPAR OK,ID=0,D=1 2148 TSM:FPAR:OK 2148 TSM:ID 2150 TSM:ID:OK 2152 TSM:UPL 2154 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0 2158 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=24,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:1 2168 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-101,s=255,c=3,t=25,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:1 2174 SGN:SKP:MSG CMD=3,TYPE=25 2177 TSF:MSG:PONG RECV,HP=1 2181 TSM:UPL:OK 2183 TSM:READY:ID=101,PAR=0,DIS=1 2187 SGN:PRE:SGN REQ 2189 SGN:PRE:WHI NREQ 2191 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0 2195 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0101 2203 SGN:PRE:XMT,TO=0 2205 SGN:PRE:WAIT GW 2207 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-101,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0:0100 2213 SGN:SKP:MSG CMD=3,TYPE=15 2217 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0 2222 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=0,t=17,pt=0,l=10,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:2.2.0-beta 2232 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0 2234 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0 2248 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-101,s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=0,l=1,sg=0:M 2254 !SGN:VER:NSG 2256 !TSF:MSG:SIGN VERIFY FAIL 2258 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0 2263 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=11,pt=0,l=13,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:Motion Sensor 2273 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0 2277 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=12,pt=0,l=3,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:1.0 2285 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0 2289 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=1,c=0,t=1,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK: 2295 MCO:REG:REQ 2297 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0 2301 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=26,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:2 2310 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-101,s=255,c=3,t=27,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:1 2316 !SGN:VER:NSG 2318 !TSF:MSG:SIGN VERIFY FAIL 2322 MCO:BGN:STP 2324 MCO:BGN:INIT OK,TSP=1 1 2326 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0 2330 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=1,c=1,t=16,pt=0,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:1 2338 MCO:SLP:MS=120000,SMS=0,I1=1,M1=1,I2=255,M2=255 2344 TSF:TDI:TSL 2347 MCO:SLP:WUP=1 2349 TSF:TRI:TSB 0 2351 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0 2355 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=1,c=1,t=16,pt=0,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0 2363 MCO:SLP:MS=120000,SMS=0,I1=1,M1=1,I2=255,M2=255 2367 TSF:TDI:TSL -
Hi!
Starting to learn signing. I use a parallell system (with another channel) where I could test signing before I went on my live system. For now I just use soft signing, it works perfect!Now, I just want to test a node (motionsensor) that include:
#define MY_SIGNING_REQUEST_SIGNATURESThe gateway has no signing feature (it has not gone thru personalition process) In my head, the node shall reject to connect to this gateway, but after the signing fails, it start to send data to the gateway. Did I miss something here?
Debug text on node:
0 MCO:BGN:INIT NODE,CP=RNNNAS--,VER=2.2.0-beta 49 SGN:PER:OK 83 SGN:INI:BND OK 83 TSM:INIT 86 TSF:WUR:MS=0 94 TSM:INIT:TSP OK 96 TSM:INIT:STATID=101 98 TSF:SID:OK,ID=101 100 TSM:FPAR 102 SGN:SGN:NREQ=255 139 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-255-255,s=255,c=3,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK: 684 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-101,s=255,c=3,t=8,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:0 690 SGN:SKP:MSG CMD=3,TYPE=8 692 TSF:MSG:FPAR OK,ID=0,D=1 2148 TSM:FPAR:OK 2148 TSM:ID 2150 TSM:ID:OK 2152 TSM:UPL 2154 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0 2158 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=24,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:1 2168 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-101,s=255,c=3,t=25,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:1 2174 SGN:SKP:MSG CMD=3,TYPE=25 2177 TSF:MSG:PONG RECV,HP=1 2181 TSM:UPL:OK 2183 TSM:READY:ID=101,PAR=0,DIS=1 2187 SGN:PRE:SGN REQ 2189 SGN:PRE:WHI NREQ 2191 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0 2195 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0101 2203 SGN:PRE:XMT,TO=0 2205 SGN:PRE:WAIT GW 2207 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-101,s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0:0100 2213 SGN:SKP:MSG CMD=3,TYPE=15 2217 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0 2222 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=0,t=17,pt=0,l=10,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:2.2.0-beta 2232 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0 2234 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0 2248 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-101,s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=0,l=1,sg=0:M 2254 !SGN:VER:NSG 2256 !TSF:MSG:SIGN VERIFY FAIL 2258 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0 2263 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=11,pt=0,l=13,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:Motion Sensor 2273 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0 2277 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=12,pt=0,l=3,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:1.0 2285 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0 2289 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=1,c=0,t=1,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK: 2295 MCO:REG:REQ 2297 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0 2301 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=255,c=3,t=26,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:2 2310 TSF:MSG:READ,0-0-101,s=255,c=3,t=27,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:1 2316 !SGN:VER:NSG 2318 !TSF:MSG:SIGN VERIFY FAIL 2322 MCO:BGN:STP 2324 MCO:BGN:INIT OK,TSP=1 1 2326 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0 2330 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=1,c=1,t=16,pt=0,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:1 2338 MCO:SLP:MS=120000,SMS=0,I1=1,M1=1,I2=255,M2=255 2344 TSF:TDI:TSL 2347 MCO:SLP:WUP=1 2349 TSF:TRI:TSB 0 2351 SGN:SGN:NREQ=0 2355 TSF:MSG:SEND,101-101-0-0,s=1,c=1,t=16,pt=0,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK:0 2363 MCO:SLP:MS=120000,SMS=0,I1=1,M1=1,I2=255,M2=255 2367 TSF:TDI:TSL@gus what is it that you think is not working? Just because your node require signatures does not prevent the node from sending data to your gateway which does not require signatures.
And as you can see in the log you get errors about missing signatures (and hence failed verifications) so it looks as expected to me.
You could try to paste your log into the log parser to get a easier to read output.Do you feel secure today? No? Start requiring some signatures and feel better tomorrow ;)
-
@gus what is it that you think is not working? Just because your node require signatures does not prevent the node from sending data to your gateway which does not require signatures.
And as you can see in the log you get errors about missing signatures (and hence failed verifications) so it looks as expected to me.
You could try to paste your log into the log parser to get a easier to read output. -
@Anticimex Ok, just thought when signing failed, the node was halted :confused:
So that control mechanism need to be implemented in my sketch then?
Great, I will use the log parser! -
@Anticimex Ahh, now I get it!! Thanks for helping me out here!
Cheers
-
Hello @Anticimex
Sometimes it happens that the Serial printing is not correct and it is okay when the baud rate is lower to 57600. I guess the default is 115200 when this error happens.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
⸮ M⸮Se⸮so⸮s security p⸮r⸮o⸮alizer ⸮
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------++------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
⸮ C⸮n⸮igur⸮t⸮on set⸮i⸮g⸮ ⸮
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| * G⸮i⸮e⸮ ⸮e⸮s⸮nali⸮ation/⸮t⸮ra⸮e of key⸮ ⸮n AT⸮H⸮204A |
| * ⸮T⸮HA204A based ⸮e⸮s⸮n⸮l⸮z⸮t⸮o⸮ ⸮
⸮ * Will l⸮ck ATSH⸮204⸮ c⸮n⸮i⸮u⸮atio⸮ |
⸮ * W⸮ll no⸮ req⸮i⸮e any UA⸮T co⸮fi⸮m⸮ti⸮ns ⸮
| * ⸮i⸮l ⸮to⸮e ⸮MA⸮ key to A⸮SH⸮204A |
| * Will store ⸮ES ke⸮ to ⸮E⸮R⸮M ⸮
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ -
Hello @Anticimex
Sometimes it happens that the Serial printing is not correct and it is okay when the baud rate is lower to 57600. I guess the default is 115200 when this error happens.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
⸮ M⸮Se⸮so⸮s security p⸮r⸮o⸮alizer ⸮
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------++------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
⸮ C⸮n⸮igur⸮t⸮on set⸮i⸮g⸮ ⸮
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| * G⸮i⸮e⸮ ⸮e⸮s⸮nali⸮ation/⸮t⸮ra⸮e of key⸮ ⸮n AT⸮H⸮204A |
| * ⸮T⸮HA204A based ⸮e⸮s⸮n⸮l⸮z⸮t⸮o⸮ ⸮
⸮ * Will l⸮ck ATSH⸮204⸮ c⸮n⸮i⸮u⸮atio⸮ |
⸮ * W⸮ll no⸮ req⸮i⸮e any UA⸮T co⸮fi⸮m⸮ti⸮ns ⸮
| * ⸮i⸮l ⸮to⸮e ⸮MA⸮ key to A⸮SH⸮204A |
| * Will store ⸮ES ke⸮ to ⸮E⸮R⸮M ⸮
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+@ahmedadelhosni yes, this can happen on some targets. It depend on the quality and precision of the oscillator. If output looks garbled, reducing the baud rate is a good place to start.
Do you feel secure today? No? Start requiring some signatures and feel better tomorrow ;)
-
@ahmedadelhosni yes, this can happen on some targets. It depend on the quality and precision of the oscillator. If output looks garbled, reducing the baud rate is a good place to start.
@Anticimex so this has nothing to do with the quality of my overall node ? I mean as a reference that this node will be stable or not during operation.
I ordered my atmega smd from mouser and all passive componets too. Only pcbs are from dirtypcbs. I thought getting high quality from mouser would be better.
Thanks.
