Jim, Yes, apparently we do talk past each other. Inline. On 2016-02-01 21:28, "Jim Schaad" <ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Göran, > >You apparently have missed the main point of what I was saying in my >message. > >I see both of these cases as having a single message to be protected: >1. I am sending a small message that does not get fragmented >2. I am sending a large message that needs to be fragmented into 5 >messages using the Block-wise transfer options. > >In both cases I am doing an integrity protection/encryption operation on >a single message that might later be fragmented into multiple pieces. I don’t understand how your solution protects CoAP metadata like Code, Content-Format and Uri-Path. I may be wrong but it seems you are only protecting CoAP payload, which is sufficient for certain use cases, but for other use cases we also need to protect metadata. The blockwise draft applies to both kind of use cases. > I do not want to integrity protect each of the 5 block transfer messages >independently because of a number of problems which you have pointed out >about messages getting re-fragmented in transit. My point of view is that messages should not be re-fragmented in transit. > Additionally, I do not want to deal with each messages separately >because I do not want to be in a situation where a block could be changed >for a different block from a different stream. This is not an issue if you integrity protect the appropriate Block option, which contains the number of the block and if it is the last. Re-fragmentation prevents Block options from being possible to integrity protect between client and server. > >This would be the case of sending A1 A2 A3 A4 and receiving A1 A2 B3 A4 >where each of the fragments individually verifies, but the entire stream >has been changed. Doing a single integrity operation over the entire >stream of (A1 A2 A3 A4) means that receiving (A1 A2 B3 A4) would fail to >validate because the entire stream of bytes would fail validation. This is not an issue if you integrity protect the appropriate Block option. > >This means that I treat security identically if the block options are >there or if the block options are not there. Yes, since you focus on an over-the-top solution you can do that. But the only over-the-top solution I know of that protects metadata is the one mentioned below which moves REST out of CoAP. > >There are other discussions that need to be dealt with about options and >how they interact with security, but the report of the group working on >this has not yet come up for review. I am just worried about getting this >draft finished. And I’m worried that this draft voids the candidate solutions for protecting payload and metadata. Göran > >jim > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Göran Selander [mailto:goran.selander@xxxxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 12:20 AM >> To: Jim Schaad <ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; ietf@xxxxxxxx >> Cc: draft-ietf-core-block@xxxxxxxx; core-chairs@xxxxxxxx; core@xxxxxxxx; >> barryleiba@xxxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: [core] Last Call: <draft-ietf-core-block-18.txt> >>(Block-wise transfers >> in CoAP) to Proposed Standard >> >> Hi Jim >> >> Thanks for picking up the thread. >> >> We spent some time in Prague thinking about this. You are right that >>there are >> different options with different characteristics. Here are the cases we >>have >> considered. >> >> Just to recap the objective, this is about protecting communication >>between >> CoAP client and CoAP server while allowing legitimate operations of one >>or >> more intermediary CoAP proxies. Client and server are assumed to have a >> security association. >> >> On a high level the candidate solutions are either built entirely on >>top of CoAP or >> add new CoAP options. >> >> Looking at the former first, one solution is to wrap just the CoAP >> payload/content, e.g. using COSE [1]. (We called this object security >>of content, >> OSCON). This is useful if the payload includes certain meta data, like >>in the case >> of CWT, or if certain information, such as resource identifier etc., is >>implicit >> from the security association. >> >> This solution however does not protect the metadata sent in the CoAP >>message, >> such as e.g. Code (GET/DELETE/etc), Uri-Path or Content Format. >> Even if such information would be integrity protected, e.g. using >>External-AAD in >> [1], it neither protects messages which do not have payload, like e.g. >>GET >> requests, nor does it address confidentiality desirable for a subset of >>such >> metadata for privacy reasons. >> >> An alternative solution on top of CoAP is to move the RESTful protocol >>out of >> CoAP and only use POST with some dummy Uri-Path, Content Format etc. In >>this >> way all messages could carry a protected object as in [1] and the >>nature of the >> interaction and content is contained in this object. This is probably >>violating the >> purpose of CoAP too much to be of any interest. >> >> Those are the only solutions we have considered on top of CoAP. I'm not >>sure if >> the solution you propose is related to one of these? >> >> All other solutions I'm aware of which address the general problem >>space, e.g. >> OSCOAP, are built "within" CoAP, using CoAP options to carry protected >>objects >> (such as [1]) which include integrity protection of the payload and >>meta-data. >> Now, what happens if the payload is large? If the originating endpoint >>does the >> fragmentation then the destination endpoint can verify the integrity. >>If a proxy >> using the blockwise draft (re-)fragments the payload (which also >>changes a >> Block option) such that it is different when reaching the destination >>endpoint, >> then integrity verification will fail. The destination endpoint cannot >>distinguish a >> legitimate introduction/change of payload and Block option from any >>other >> change of the message, hence it cannot verify integrity. This can be >>used to >> disable integrity protection at CoAP layer also for shorter messages, >>since the >> destination endpoint must treat the existence of a Block option as a >>generic >> "security off" button. >> >> This is quite different from the CoAP options standardized so far where >>you can >> protect individual messages between client and server at the same time >>as >> allowing legitimate proxy operation, even verifying that intermediate >>nodes has >> performed the correct CoAP option manipulations such as e.g. when >>forward >> proxies change the Uri-* options making the message reach the correct >> destination URI. >> >> IMHO CoAP should not allow an intermediate device to legitimately turn >>off >> integrity protecting between client and server. CoAP should definitely >>support >> integrity protection of short messages between client and server through >> proxies. This is where CoAP shines brightly. Given that, it is >>straightforward to >> integrity protect messages fragmented at the endpoints. >> And with the Block options integrity protected the entire message built >>up of the >> fragments is automatically protected as well. >> >> Göran >> >> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cose-msg >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2016-01-29 00:18, "Jim Schaad" <ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >Göran, >> > >> >I finally got caught up on reading the CORE mailing list (lots of >> >boredom on issues I don’t think I care about) and I did not find any >> >responses to your mail on this issue. I would like to propose a >> >different solution to the problem which I think you will find both >> >workable and potential not requiring any updates to the current draft. >> > >> >When I read this draft the first time, I read it as a network >> >fragmentation draft rather than as a messaging draft. As such I did >> >not have the same concerns about object security as you seem to have. >> >I made the decision that I would apply the security to the entirety of >> >the message being sent, and then fragment it into blocks afterwards. >> >Such an approach allows for a number of things that you are having >> >problems with to be ignored. >> > >> >How the fragmentation is done, is change or is removed become >> >immaterial as the end recipient would need to have all of the fragments >> >delivered and in the correct order in order to process the message and >> >do validation. >> > >> >Overhead is smaller because the overhead of encrypting/signing at the >> >object security level is done once rather than once per fragment. This >> >allows for fewer bytes to be sent across the wire. >> > >> >The headers of the first message in the fragment are the ones that the >> >object security system would be using both for security calculation >> >purposes and for the receiver to process the validated message. >> > >> >There are still some question that potentially need to be dealt with: >> > >> >1) Are the block option headers authenticated? The probable answer >> >should be no as they are designed to be changed by intermediaries. >> >This can be deferred until the general discussion about the rest of the >> >current headers. >> > >> >2) What options are required to be copied forward into subsequent >> >messages and which can be omitted? I was unable to find any guidance >> >on this issue from reading the document and thus would naively make the >> >assumption that all options not specified by this document are copied >> >forward and should be checked to make sure that they are unchanged in >> >future messages. However I doubt that is the desire of the authors. >> >This however is not a security specific issue and needs to be addressed >> >in this document. >> > >> >3) Do we want to apply per message security as well - that is an issue >> >that can and should be punted to a future object security draft. >> >However, I don't see the point except to protect the ACK/NACK or lack >> >of on each individual hop. But this is point-to-point not end-to-end. >> > >> >Jim >> > >> > >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: core [mailto:core-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Göran Selander >> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 11:07 PM >> >> To: ietf@xxxxxxxx >> >> Cc: draft-ietf-core-block@xxxxxxxx; core-chairs@xxxxxxxx; >> >>core@xxxxxxxx; barryleiba@xxxxxxxxx >> >> Subject: Re: [core] Last Call: <draft-ietf-core-block-18.txt> >> >>(Block-wise transfers in CoAP) to Proposed Standard >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> There was a thread on the CoRE WG mailing list a couple of months ago >> >>on the topic of blockwise and object security. The starting point was >> >>a question if CoAP proxies can (re-)partition messages into blocks as >> >>defined in this draft, and the implications on end-to-end security >> >>between client and server through such a proxy. The conclusions of >> >>that discussion has an impact on this draft, but there are no >> >>considerations of this kind made in version -18. More details are >> >>given below, including some alternative proposals for how to address >> >>this. >> >>Apologies >> >> for the long e-mail. >> >> >> >> >> >> Background: >> >> >> >> There is an ongoing discussion in CoRE and ACE WGs since a year on >> >>the >> >>end-to- >> >> end security properties of CoAP, i.e. protecting the communication >> >>between a client and a server through proxies. RFC 7252 and other >> >>specifications in the CoAP suite define a set of legitimate proxy >> >>operations on CoAP messages which requires DTLS to be terminated at >> >>proxies. This implies that the proxy has access not only with the >> >>data required for perform the intended proxy operation but is also >> >>able to eavesdrop or manipulate any part of the CoAP payload and >> >>metadata in transit between client and server without being protected >> >>or detected by DTLS. >> >> >> >> >> >> One way to mitigate this threat is to complement or replace DTLS with >> >>application layer protection of CoAP payload and metadata between >> >>client and server for the use cases where the proxy should not be >> >>fully trusted. >> >> This has been discussed in the CoRE WG meetings during the three last >> >>IETF F2F meetings and there are draft solutions using the message >> >>format being developed in the COSE WG. >> >> >> >> >> >> With the COAP proxy operations standardized so far it has been >> >>possible to protect the CoAP messages adequately with security on >> >>transport layer, application layer or a combination thereof. In the >> >>case where the legitimate proxy operation is predictable by client >> >>and server, application layer security can be defined to both verify >> >>that no illegitimate changes has been performed as well as verifying >> >>the legitimate changes. In the case where proxy operations are not >> >>predictable — even if the data the proxy is operating on cannot be >> >>protected — it has so far been possible to use other information >> >>elements to provide the required end-to-end security properities. >> >>For example, the CoAP header field Token may be changed by a proxy, >> >>but instead a transaction identifier can be introduced in the >> >>application security wrapper (COSE >> >> header) to define a message (exchange) identifier common to client >> >>and server. >> >> >> >> >> >> Blockwise: >> >> >> >> With the definition of blockwise transfer as specified in this draft >> >>a proxy may partition or re-partitioning a message into blocks where >> >>the size of the blocks are decided by the proxy. As a consequence, it >> >>is not possible to integrity protect individual blocks end-to-end >> >>between client and server: DTLS does not protect the message data >> >>within the proxy, and application layer integrity protection of >> >>individual blocks cannot be performed unless the partitioning into >> >>blocks as received by one endpoint is identical to that sent by the >> >>other endpoint. Hence, when CoAP Block options are used as defined in >> >>this draft, end-to-end security of the individual CoAP request and >> >>response breaks down. For example: a proxy may addBlock options, send >> >>any number of blocks with any payload to an endpoint without being >> >>possible to detect or protect against. In contrast to the existing >> >>standards in the CoAP suite, in this case it is not possible to bypass >> >>the construction and define a secure end-to-end block partitioning >> >>with less than disabling block partitioning as specified in this >> >>draft. >> >> >> >> >> >> One solution to this is to disallow proxies to re-partition a >> >>message, thus redefine the Block options such that they are possible >> >>to integrity protect end- to-end. Integrity protecting each block >> >>and corresponding Block options as defined in the current draft has >> >>additional benefits: If any block in the sequence fails verification, >> >>it can be individually requested to be resent. When all blocks has >> >>been verified the entire message has been verified. A receiving node >> >>may even perform certain actions based on received verified blocks >> >>before the entire message has been received. >> >> >> >> >> >> Instead of delegating to proxies to partition into blocks, the >>sending >> >>endpoint >> >> would need to anticipate or get information about the relevant block >> >>size, e.g. >> >> using a size indication in the link-format description [RFC6990]. >> >>Additional >> >> methods for blocksize discovery may also be defined. >> >> While this may not be as simple as leaving it entirely to the proxy >>to >> >>decide, >> >> considering the additional security benefits I believe this is the >> >>right trade off to >> >> make. >> >> >> >> >> >> An alternative solution is to prevent proxies from re-partitioning a >> >>message only >> >> in the case where end-to-end security of CoAP message is applied, >>which >> >>in >> >> current solution proposals is indicated with the presence of a >>certain >> >>CoAP >> >> option X (which e.g. contains the COSE object). >> >> This would have the same benefits as the previous solution, but >> >>requires the >> >> code in the proxy implementing this draft to be aware of option X, >>and >> >>hence >> >> that dependency needs to be specified in this draft. And option X is >>not >> >> standardized yet, so would require introducing a placeholder. >> >> >> >> >> >> There are other alternatives as well but this e-mail is already too >> >>long. >> >> The main point I wanted to make is that given that we now have a >>better >> >> understanding of how to achieve security between client and server >> >>through >> >> proxies compared to when RFC7252 was written, my opinon is that we >> >>should >> >> not ignore these security issues in new standards. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Göran >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2015-11-20 22:32, "The IESG" <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >The IESG has received a request from the Constrained RESTful >> >> >Environments WG (core) to consider the following document: >> >> >- 'Block-wise transfers in CoAP' >> >> > <draft-ietf-core-block-18.txt> as Proposed Standard >> >> > >> >> >The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and >>solicits >> >> >final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to >>the >> >> >ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2015-12-04. Exceptionally, comments >>may >> >> >be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the >> >> >beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >> >> > >> >> >Abstract >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > CoAP is a RESTful transfer protocol for constrained nodes and >> >> > networks. Basic CoAP messages work well for the small payloads >>we >> >> > expect from temperature sensors, light switches, and similar >> >> > building-automation devices. Occasionally, however, applications >> >> > will need to transfer larger payloads -- for instance, for >>firmware >> >> > updates. With HTTP, TCP does the grunt work of slicing large >> >> > payloads up into multiple packets and ensuring that they all >>arrive >> >> > and are handled in the right order. >> >> > >> >> > CoAP is based on datagram transports such as UDP or DTLS, which >> >> > limits the maximum size of resource representations that can be >> >> > transferred without too much fragmentation. Although UDP >>supports >> >> > larger payloads through IP fragmentation, it is limited to 64 KiB >> >> > and, more importantly, doesn't really work well for constrained >> >> > applications and networks. >> >> > >> >> > Instead of relying on IP fragmentation, this specification >>extends >> >> > basic CoAP with a pair of "Block" options, for transferring >>multiple >> >> > blocks of information from a resource representation in multiple >> >> > request-response pairs. In many important cases, the Block >>options >> >> > enable a server to be truly stateless: the server can handle each >> >> > block transfer separately, with no need for a connection setup or >> >> > other server-side memory of previous block transfers. >> >> > >> >> > In summary, the Block options provide a minimal way to transfer >> >> > larger representations in a block-wise fashion. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >The file can be obtained via >> >> >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-block/ >> >> > >> >> >IESG discussion can be tracked via >> >> >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-block/ballot/ >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> core mailing list >> >> core@xxxxxxxx >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core >> > > >