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. Start using IV in AES encryption?

Start using IV in AES encryption?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Development
31 Posts 5 Posters 10.5k Views 4 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 Offline
    AnticimexA Offline
    Anticimex
    Contest Winner
    wrote on last edited by
    #22

    I share your view.

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

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • mfalkviddM Offline
      mfalkviddM Offline
      mfalkvidd
      Mod
      wrote on last edited by
      #23

      Oh, and thanks a lot for the feedback @Anticimex :star:
      Having someone asking the right questions makes a big difference.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • AnticimexA Offline
        AnticimexA Offline
        Anticimex
        Contest Winner
        wrote on last edited by Anticimex
        #24

        Well thanks for identifying the issue and a good explanation on why it is an issue.
        Having read through your initial posts once more, however, I think I found a minor detail that you may have gotten wrong.
        The message header also contain sender, so although you would be able to recognize ON command from a particular bode, you would not automatically know the command from other nodes as the header would differ.

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

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • mfalkviddM Offline
          mfalkviddM Offline
          mfalkvidd
          Mod
          wrote on last edited by
          #25

          Oh. I thought the sender was part of the unencrypted header.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • AnticimexA Offline
            AnticimexA Offline
            Anticimex
            Contest Winner
            wrote on last edited by
            #26

            I believe the entire message is encrypted. As far as I know the physical parts of both radio are multicast, and all data transfered, that is visible in the MySensors library, is MySensors specific and used for MySensors specific routing and such.

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

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • mfalkviddM Offline
              mfalkviddM Offline
              mfalkvidd
              Mod
              wrote on last edited by
              #27

              Alright. Then the zero IV becomes even less of a problem yes.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • ahmedadelhosniA Offline
                ahmedadelhosniA Offline
                ahmedadelhosni
                wrote on last edited by
                #28

                I am not an expert in encryption but I really like your discussion.

                I believe as you have said, signing is the most critical issue to focus on now, and also we can't neglect encryption in the future.

                Thanks for your effort.

                AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • sundberg84S Offline
                  sundberg84S Offline
                  sundberg84
                  Hardware Contributor
                  wrote on last edited by sundberg84
                  #29

                  No knowledge in this but i appreciate you guys (which know more) are having this discussion.

                  Not Mysensors, but it could be i guess - yesterday my RFLink (433mhz) told me it found a new device, a code for a on command. A quick search on the internet revealed it belong to a home alarm manufacturer which has 2 items sending 433mhz, their wireless motion detectors and a on/off remote for the alarm...

                  I guess I could do some damage with this...

                  Controller: Proxmox VM - Home Assistant
                  MySensors GW: Arduino Uno - W5100 Ethernet, Gw Shield Nrf24l01+ 2,4Ghz
                  MySensors GW: Arduino Uno - Gw Shield RFM69, 433mhz
                  RFLink GW - Arduino Mega + RFLink Shield, 433mhz

                  AnticimexA 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • sundberg84S sundberg84

                    No knowledge in this but i appreciate you guys (which know more) are having this discussion.

                    Not Mysensors, but it could be i guess - yesterday my RFLink (433mhz) told me it found a new device, a code for a on command. A quick search on the internet revealed it belong to a home alarm manufacturer which has 2 items sending 433mhz, their wireless motion detectors and a on/off remote for the alarm...

                    I guess I could do some damage with this...

                    AnticimexA Offline
                    AnticimexA Offline
                    Anticimex
                    Contest Winner
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #30

                    @sundberg84 yet another example of the incompetence of security providers for private homes. They are useless.

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

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • ahmedadelhosniA ahmedadelhosni

                      I am not an expert in encryption but I really like your discussion.

                      I believe as you have said, signing is the most critical issue to focus on now, and also we can't neglect encryption in the future.

                      Thanks for your effort.

                      AnticimexA Offline
                      AnticimexA Offline
                      Anticimex
                      Contest Winner
                      wrote on last edited by Anticimex
                      #31

                      @ahmedadelhosni signing just underwent a major overhaul recently on development branch. We are also looking into a node locking mechanism when the node suspects it is under attack from someone trying to brute force a signed message or trying to predict nonces calculated from a bad rng implementation. So security is very much being looked at. And even with missing IV, AES encryption would add some obfuscation to the messages and will in combination with signing still deter a lot of potential attackers.

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

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


                      9

                      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