Primitive End-to-End Security Requirements Group Name: SEC WG4 Source: Phil Hawkes, Qualcomm, Meeting.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CMDH Refinement Contribution: oneM2M-ARC-0397
Advertisements

SEC Clarification Group Name: WG4 (SEC-2014-xxxx) Decision  Meeting Date: Discussion  Source: OBERTHUR Technologies Information  Contact:
Problem of Current Notification Group Name: ARC WG Source: Heedong Choi, LG Electronics, Meeting Date: ARC 9.0 Agenda Item: TBD.
NAT TRAVERSAL FOR IPSEC Research Seminar on Datacommunications Software HIIT
Problem of non-Blocking Synchronous mode Group Name: ARC WG Source: Yuan Tao, Mitch Tseng, Huawei Technologies Meeting Date: ARC 15.0 Agenda Item: TBD.
Service Layer Session Management Group Name: WG2-ARC Source: IDCC, LGE, ZTE Meeting Date: TP16 Agenda Item:
CSE331: Introduction to Networks and Security Lecture 24 Fall 2002.
EE 4272Spring, 2003 Protocols & Architecture A Protocol Architecture is the layered structure of hardware & software that supports the exchange of data.
Diameter End-to-End Security: Keyed Message Digests, Digital Signatures, and Encryption draft-korhonen-dime-e2e-security-00 Jouni Korhonen, Hannes Tschofenig.
On Persistent AE Identifiers Group Name: SEC#12.2 Source: Phil Hawkes, Qualcomm Inc (TIA), Francois Ennesser,
Resource Announcement Procedures Group Name: WG2 Source: Rajesh Bhalla, Hao Wu - ZTE Meeting Date: Agenda Item: TBD.
MOBILE AD-HOC NETWORK(MANET) SECURITY VAMSI KRISHNA KANURI NAGA SWETHA DASARI RESHMA ARAVAPALLI.
2-levels Access control for HTTP binding Group Name: WG4 (& WG2/WG3 for information) Source: Shingo Fujimoto, FUJITSU, Meeting.
oneM2M-OIC Interworking Technical Comparison
IEEE MEDIA INDEPENDENT HANDOVER DCN: Title: MIIS and Its Higher Layer Transport Requirements: Ad hoc Update and Discussion on.
In-Band Access Control Framework Group Name: WG4 SEC Source: Qualcomm Meeting Date: Agenda Item:
Certificate Enrolment STEs Group Name: SEC#17.2 Source: Phil Hawkes, Qualcomm Inc, Meeting Date:
Announcement Resources ARC Announcement_Issues Group Name: WG2 Source: Barbara Pareglio, NEC Meeting Date: Agenda Item: Input Contribution.
Introduction of PRO WG activities Group Name: TP Source: Shingo Fujimoto, FUJITSU, Meeting Date: Agenda Item:
End-to-End security definition Group Name: SEC WG4 Source: Phil Hawkes, Qualcomm, Meeting Date:
PRO R01-URI_mapping_discussion Discussion on URI mapping in protocol context Group Name: PRO and ARC Source: Shingo Fujimoto, FUJITSU,
New Cryptographic Techniques for Active Networks Sandra Murphy Trusted Information Systems March 16, 1999.
Karlstad University IP security Ge Zhang
3GPP Rel-13 Interworking discussions
In-Band Access Control Framework Group Name: WG4 SEC Source: Qualcomm Meeting Date: Agenda Item:
Answer the Questions Regarding Pending Issues on Access Control Group Name: WG4 SEC Source: LG Electronics Meeting Date: Agenda Item: SEC#11.4.
Management of CMDH Policies Group Name: WG5-MAS Source: Wolfgang Granzow, Qualcomm, Meeting Date: Agenda Item: Management.
Usage Scenarios for CSE Group Name: WG2(ARC-WG) Source: Shingo Meeting Date: Agenda Item: Message.
Discussion on the problem of non- Blocking Synchronous mode Group Name: ARC WG Source: Yuan Tao, Mitch Tseng, Huawei Technologies Meeting Date: ARC 15.2.
Response Status Codes Concepts for oneM2M Group Name: WG3 Source: Philip Jacobs, Cisco, Meeting Date: Agenda Item: TS-0004.
AllJoyn-Interworking Discussion Group Name: TP WG2 ARC Source: Josef Blanz, Phil Hawkes, Qualcomm Inc., Meeting Date:
Customized Resource Types MAS Group Name: MAS + ARC + PRO WGs Source: Wolfgang Granzow, Qualcomm Inc., Meeting Date:
Discussion on the problem of non- Blocking Synchronous mode Group Name: ARC WG Source: Yuan Tao, Mitch Tseng, Huawei Technologies Meeting Date: ARC 15.2.
IP security Ge Zhang Packet-switched network is not Secure! The protocols were designed in the late 70s to early 80s –Very small network.
Interworking with an External Dynamic Authorization System Group Name: SEC WG Source: Qualcomm Inc., Wolfgang Granzow & Phil Hawkes Meeting Date: SEC#20.2,
M2M Service Session Management (SSM) CSF
E2EKey Resource Group Name: SEC WG Source: Qualcomm Inc., Wolfgang Granzow & Phil Hawkes Meeting Date: SEC#20.3, Agenda Item: End-to-End Security.
SE abstraction scenarios Group Name: SEC Source: Claus Dietze, Giesecke & Devrient Meeting Date: Agenda Item: WI SE abstraction.
App and Management End- to-End Security Requirements Group Name: SEC WG4 Source: Phil Hawkes, Qualcomm,
Security API discussion Group Name: SEC Source: Shingo Fujimoto, FUJITSU Meeting Date: Agenda Item: Security API.
Protocol Issues related to Plugtest Group Name: TST Source: Wolfgang Granzow, Qualcomm Inc., Meeting Date: Agenda.
App End-to-End Security Requirements Group Name: SEC WG4 Source: Phil Hawkes, Qualcomm, Meeting Date:
M2M Service Layer – DM Server Security Group Name: OMA-BBF-oneM2M Adhoc Source: Timothy Carey, Meeting Date:
End-to-End Primitive Security: Challenges and Suggestions Group Name: SEC WG Source: Qualcomm Inc., Phil Hawkes, Wolfgang Granzow, Josef Blanz Meeting.
Streaming Session Support in oneM2M Framework Group Name: WG2 Source: George Foti, Ericsson Meeting Date: Work Item :WI GPP_Rel13_IWK.
M2M Service Session Management (SSM) CSF Group Name: WG2-ARC Source: IDCC, LGE, ZTE Meeting Date: TP8 Agenda Item:
Adding Non-blocking Requests Contribution: oneM2M-ARC-0441R01R01 Source: Josef Blanz, Qualcomm UK, Meeting Date: ARC 7.0,
Authorization Architecture Discussion Group Name: SEC WG Source: Seongyoon Kim, LG Electronics, Meeting Date: 28 MAY, 2014 Agenda.
User Application Control (Keypress Events) SIPPING WG - IETF 53 Robert Fairlie-Cuninghame, Bert Culpepper, Jean-François Mulé.
Subscription and Notification Issue Group Name: WG2 Source: Qi Yu, Mitch Tseng- Huawei Technologies, Co. LTD. Meeting Date: ~23 Agenda Item:
Consideration Security Issues on Registration Group Name: WG4 (SEC) Source: Shingo Fujimoto, FUJITSU, Meeting Date:
Introduction to Service Session Management Group Name: WG2-ARC Source: IDCC, LGE, ZTE Meeting Date: TP8 Agenda Item:
Possible options of using DDS in oneM2M Group Name: ARC Source: KETI, Huawei, Hitachi, China Unicom Meeting Date: Agenda Item: DDS binding.
Specifying the Address of Management Client of Managed Entity Group Name: ARC Source: Hongbeom Ahn, SK Telecom, Meeting Date: TP#21 Agenda.
[authenticationProfile] <mgmtObj> specialization
3GPP MBMS protocol stack
End-to-End Security for Primitives
Group multicast fanOut Procedure
2nd Interoperability testing issues
Possible options of using DDS in oneM2M
oneM2M Service Layer Protocol Version Handling
MAF&MEF Interface Specification discussion of the next steps
3GPP Rel-13 Interworking discussions
Discussion to clarify online/offline behavior
Considering issues regarding handling token
CMDH Refinement Contribution: oneM2M-ARC-0397R01
Service Layer Dynamic Authorization [SLDA]
3GPP V2X Interworking Potential Impact
Summary of the MAF and MEF Interface Specification TS-0032
IEEE MEDIA INDEPENDENT HANDOVER
Presentation transcript:

Primitive End-to-End Security Requirements Group Name: SEC WG4 Source: Phil Hawkes, Qualcomm, Meeting Date: Agenda Item: WI-0016

Classifying scenarios Classify scenarios according who is trusted and who is untrusted (i.e. potential adversaries) Case 1: Only App/Mgmt End-points trusted – Trusted: App/mgmt end-points – Untrusted: Host CSE(s), Transit CSEs, everything not on delivery path – This is addressed in SEC “App and Mgmt End-to-End security requirements” Case 2: Host CSE also trusted – Trusted: App/mgmt end-points, Host CSE’s – Untrusted: Transit CSEs, everything not on delivery path – This is addressed in the present contribution Case 3: Transit CSE’s also trusted – Trusted: everything on the delivery path – Untrusted: everyone not on the delivery path – Hop-by-hop security: TLS/DTLS already covers this case. – No need to discuss this case further

About the Adversaries The Host CSE(s) are trusted – Host CSE of the resource, plus host CSEs for any announced copies of the resource All or some of the Transit CSEs are assumed to be untrusted for this case – Otherwise can just use the existing hop-by-hop security Protection is at the primitives level Can assume that the Transit CSE will know – The originator of the request in the From attribute – The receiver of the request in the To attribute (e.g. Host CSE in request) What protection can be provided – Confidentiality of primitive – Integrity of primitive – Detecting if messages are replayed received out of order Protocol core specification should say what to do in the event of replayed or out of order primitive – This is out of scope of the current discussion. 3

Primary target for this protection Primitives traversing more than one Mca or Mcc reference point. Note that this case addresses protecting a primitive (message) – in addition to protecting the resource (payload) in the primitive – Can’t protect the resource from the Host CSE – For those cases, see SEC “App and Mgmt End-to-End Security Requirements”

Use Case Characteristics What is being protected? – All Primitives traversing multiple Mca/Mcc hops MediaType – oneM2M Primitive media types defined in. TS-0004 (Core Protocol specification) clause 6.7 – All use XML or JSON representation Number of destinations? – Primitive have “Unicast” behavior: one sender, one receivers – Primitive producer always knows who the primitive consumer

Use Case Characteristics Transmission characteristics – Depends on the specific scenario – Should be support a range from one-off exchanges to very frequent exchanges Importance/Value of primitive to stakeholders – Depends on the specific scenario and payload – Should support a range from low to high Importance/Value

Analysis Conclusion Target – End-to-end security for primitives traversing multiple Mca/Mcc hops Characteristics – XML or JSON media type – Unicast security – Content producer knows who the content consumer is – Transmission of primitive exchange: range - “one-off” to frequent – Importance/Value of primitive: range – low to high Comments – A solution providing security for “one-off” primitive exchange with high overheads will be acceptable for high importance/value payloads These will probably need asymmetric (public key) crypto in every message – A need a solution providing security for larger numbers of primitive exchanges with low overheads

Recommended requirements The system shall support end-to-end primitive security mechanisms protecting primitive passed via untrusted entities. The system shall support an end-to-end primitive security mechanism for one-off primitive exchanges. The system shall support end-to-end primitive security mechanism establishing an end-to-end secure session for exchanging a large number of primitive exchanges.