[security] Introducing signing support to MySensors
-
@Anticimex Actually something now came to my mind. Can't the attacker flash a gateway sketch easier and control all nodes now ? :D He has a trusted ATSHA with HMAC.
Am I missing something ?@ahmedadelhosni also, if your public node is stolen and your gateway had a whitelist (and your other nodes has whitelists) the attacker would not know the serials of your other nodes, and therefore not be able to sign messages to them (assuming your other nodes require signed and whitelist enabled messages).
-
@ahmedadelhosni signing has no (and will not have) a dependency to encryption so serial will never be sent OTA.
For MySensors v3 a complete new security scheme will obsolete the current one, so I won't make significant changes to the existing framework. Of course pull requests are always welcome for review.@Anticimex aha so you mean that since our message frame contains the payload (not encrypted ) + signature so it is not applicable to send it OTA ?
So do you have any documentation for tracking 3.0 progress ?
-
@Anticimex aha so you mean that since our message frame contains the payload (not encrypted ) + signature so it is not applicable to send it OTA ?
So do you have any documentation for tracking 3.0 progress ?
@ahmedadelhosni no, I mean that I don't want features relating to signing to depend on encryption. Things like serials and hmac keys must never be sent OTA even with encryption enabled since the current encryption available (at least in SW) is very weak due to protocol limitations.
Progress on v3 is currently not moving because the core team is busy with other things.
We want to make a security solution that is robust, easy to use and properly secure so we do not want to rush anything. We are well under way with deciding the core principles but I will not publish the working documents because we quite frankly do not have time to handle questions from the public. Especially when we have not finalized the design.Rest assured fully qualified people are investigating and discussing the matter. In due course the results will become public as we are working with an open source project so anything concrete will show on github.
Do you feel secure today? No? Start requiring some signatures and feel better tomorrow ;)
-
@ahmedadelhosni no, I mean that I don't want features relating to signing to depend on encryption. Things like serials and hmac keys must never be sent OTA even with encryption enabled since the current encryption available (at least in SW) is very weak due to protocol limitations.
Progress on v3 is currently not moving because the core team is busy with other things.
We want to make a security solution that is robust, easy to use and properly secure so we do not want to rush anything. We are well under way with deciding the core principles but I will not publish the working documents because we quite frankly do not have time to handle questions from the public. Especially when we have not finalized the design.Rest assured fully qualified people are investigating and discussing the matter. In due course the results will become public as we are working with an open source project so anything concrete will show on github.
-
@Anticimex Great. Thanks for your time.
@ahmedadelhosni don't mention it. I strive to be as transparent as possible when it comes to security. And please, please let me know if there is anything missing from the documentation or things that can be improved in it.
We keep the next level security somewhat under wraps for now since we are not completely sure ourselves on how it is supposed to work just yet. Once we decide on that, we may publish something to get general feedback from anyone who might have input on the design (if so it will be a highly technical document) but most likely this will be a development process where anyone can test and evaluate it on a branch (like the development branch today) long before anything becomes an official release.
We will try to document it continuously as it evolves once we get to start doing actual code. -
@ahmedadelhosni
We lock the atsha to make sure it can't be readable.
It does not matter that samd supports locking or not. The atmega328p does not. For now, we have a security scheme that supports any target, so we have to have a system that works for all.
For MySensors v3, an entirely new security scheme is under consideration. But it will mean dropping support for the atmga328p as it is not powerful enough.
As for what others do, I suggest you ask them :)
Security can be implemented in many ways. Each with drawbacks and benefits. The one currently in use is a scheme that can work on basically any target with reasonable security and performance. It has drawbacks, yes, but at the time of implementation, these were considered acceptable.
For the future, more sophisticated schemes can be used which are easier to use, arguably more secure but more complex in terms of computational power and protocol. The core team is investigating various solutions.@Anticimex said in [security] Introducing signing support to MySensors:
For MySensors v3, an entirely new security scheme is under consideration. But it will mean dropping support for the atmga328p as it is not powerful enough.
Eeekk... Does that mean any nodes based on the pro-mini etc will no longer work with v3.0 signing? Or will there be backwards compatibility to still use these with ATSHA204 as we do today?
-
@Anticimex said in [security] Introducing signing support to MySensors:
For MySensors v3, an entirely new security scheme is under consideration. But it will mean dropping support for the atmga328p as it is not powerful enough.
Eeekk... Does that mean any nodes based on the pro-mini etc will no longer work with v3.0 signing? Or will there be backwards compatibility to still use these with ATSHA204 as we do today?
@skywatch The security solution known as "signing" and "encryption" today will still be available in v3, but will then be referred as "legacy" signing. It will be considered obsolete and only bugfixing will take place, but it will still be supported. Also for the current newer devices, but it might not be ported to upcoming platforms with higher performence.
-
That was a fast reply! :) - Thank you, at least I can carry on building now :)
Where are the latest docs for signing and encryption for ver 2.2.0-rc.1? A few links on the site no longer work and I am having trouble finding what to do (eg HW signing, attach ATSHA204 like this, then do this, then do the other thing and in your sketch do this etc.....) You get the idea! ;)
-
That was a fast reply! :) - Thank you, at least I can carry on building now :)
Where are the latest docs for signing and encryption for ver 2.2.0-rc.1? A few links on the site no longer work and I am having trouble finding what to do (eg HW signing, attach ATSHA204 like this, then do this, then do the other thing and in your sketch do this etc.....) You get the idea! ;)
-
Wouldn't you believe it? - I just found this....
https://www.mysensors.org/apidocs-beta/group__MySigninggrpPub.html
-
Just had a quick look and that is a good explaination and example code too - This should be on the main site as it is much clearer and more user friendly than the current content.... Just my 0.02€
-
No problems. I have enough to learn a lot from now! :)
Just curious though as to what would be replacing the AT328p for v3.0 and signing and encryption - thinking to maybe order some now and get used to them..... Raspberry pi zeros everywhere or ...?
-
No problems. I have enough to learn a lot from now! :)
Just curious though as to what would be replacing the AT328p for v3.0 and signing and encryption - thinking to maybe order some now and get used to them..... Raspberry pi zeros everywhere or ...?
-
@alowhum progress on that is best viewed here: https://github.com/mysensors/MySensors/issues/1118
Progress is quite slow at the moment because I am busy with other things of personal nature, like buying a house and moving into it, so don't expect much to happen this year (unless anyone would like to help out :))
