💬 Security & Signing

[alowhum]

This page is not up to date, and this is causing some confusion:
https://github.com/tsathishkumar/MySController-rs/issues/15

[Anticimex]

@alowhum but that is not part of the core library, right? So this thread is perhaps not the best place for discussing 3rd party tools.

[alowhum]

"This thread contains comments for the article "Security & Signing" posted on MySensors.org."

@Anticimex This thread is the thread attached to a page on MySensors.org about security.

I pointed to that (awesome) tool on Github as an example that the page has caused some confusion about whether or not MySensors supports encryption.

[Anticimex]

@alowhum ok, thanks. Well we do. So please notify that author.

[Anticimex]

@alowhum as for the link back to mysensors documentation, that documentation is about message signing which is not to be confused with encryption. And on the top of the article is links to the latest documentation which should reflect the latest status on both signing and encryption.

[Anticimex]

@alowhum @hek we should perhaps retire that article or reduce it to a reference to the "actual" documentation instead to reduce the risk of confusion?

[hek]

Yes, maybe we could add a more prominent link in the article to the auto generated documentation. Right now the link easily missed in the ingress.... and it does not link directly to the overview documentation here:
https://www.mysensors.org/apidocs/group__MySigninggrpPub.html

I don't think we should scrap the page entirely as it contains the none API technical parts as a good overview.

[alowhum]

@hek said in 💬 Security & Signing:

https://www.mysensors.org/apidocs/group__MySigninggrpPub.html

That link still only refers to details about signing, and not encryption. So a user wanting to learn about security might still come away with the idea that only signing is supported.

[Anticimex]

@alowhum yes, it should link here: https://www.mysensors.org/apidocs/group__SecuritySettingGrpPub.html

[alowhum]

@anticimex Great!

[Yoshu]

Hi All not sure if this should be under gateway or security sections but just wondering If it is possible to run 2 seperate gateways for mysensors netwok

• a fully secured network with signing required both node and gateway for all nodes required to send and or receive signed data.
  -A second unsecured network for gerneral sensor data and equipment not requiring any security

[Anticimex]

@Yoshu it is possible. When you have two gateways, the networks will be completely isolated so you can run one of them secured while the other is not.
You might need to distinguish the nodes on in your controller by giving them static unique ID:s unless your controller ties the identifiers to each gateway or it might be difficult to determine which mysensors network a node belong to.

[lood29]

@Anticimex more important is to set different network id or you'll have lot of collisions and lost packets

[Anticimex]

@lood29 That is correct, assuming the same radio technology is used. Typically, you set up a separate gateway because you want to run a sensor network on a different radio family due to longer distances or similar.