Hi Luiz & Vinicius, On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 08:58 -0800, Brian Gix wrote: > On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 10:35 +0200, Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote: > > Hi Vinicius, > > > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Vinicius Costa Gomes > > <vinicius.gomes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi Brian, > > > > > > On 11:03 Mon 24 Jan, Brian Gix wrote: > > >> Hi Vinicius, > > >> > > >> I am sorry that it has taken so long to test the snapshot that you > > >> placed on gitorious, but I have now done so. > > >> > > >> On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 19:05 -0300, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote: > > >> > Hi Brian, > > >> > > > >> > On 11:11 Fri 03 Dec, Brian Gix wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > Hi Claudio, Johan & All, > > >> > > > > >> > > Is this LE capable kernel that Ville is working on, the development stream > > >> > > for the LE Security Manager? And if so, is it in a partial fleshed out > > >> > > state? > > >> > > > >> > There is a simple implementation of SMP here[1] on my "devel" branch. I am > > >> > cleaning it up for sending it for review. > > >> > > > >> > If you want to help, have any comments or just want to tell us what you are > > >> > working on, please drop by #bluez on freenode, or send an email. > > >> > > >> I have been able to verify that the Just Works negotiation of the Short > > >> Term Key does work against an independent implementation of the LE > > >> Security Manager, as long as I have requested no MITM protection. I > > >> have the following comments: > > >> > > >> 1. You currently reject security if I *do* request MITM protection. > > >> This should not be done. The correct functionality should be to > > >> continue the negotiation. Even though I requested MITM, it will be > > >> clear to both sides that JUST_WORKS methodology has been used, and so > > >> when the Keys are generated and exchanged, both sides will indicate in > > >> their Key Database that they are no-MITM keys. If I then actually > > >> *needed* MITM protection, then whatever functionality requiring that > > >> level of security will fail with an insufficient security error code. > > >> However, security should *never* be rejected unless there is a > > >> fundamental incompatibility such as no level of security actually > > >> supported. This is the only functionality that I found to be actually > > >> incorrect. > > >> > > > > > > I was assuming that the meaning of setting the MITM protection bit, was that > > > it was *requiring* MITM protection, and when that couldn't be fulfilled the > > > Pairing Request should be rejected. > > > > > > So my assumption was incorrect, going to fix it soon. > > > > Well the spec says it is a requirement: > > > > "If the STK generation method does not result in an STK that provides > > sufficient security properties then the device shall send the Pairing > > Failed command with the error code âAuthentication Requirementsâ" - > > 2.3.5.1 Selecting STK Generation Method - Page 608 My interpretation of the paragraph at the end of page 608 is that if a device realizes that the security level that will results will not meet it's minimum security requirements, then it may reject and abort the pairing. I think it is a bad reading, though, for a device to reject a pairing if it thinks that the *other* device will not be satisfied. However that is the case here. In this case, it was the device that did *not* have the MITM option set (the low security device) that was rejecting the device *with* the MITM option set. > > >From Page 607: > "If both devices have out of band authentication data, then the > Authentication Requirements Flags shall be ignored when selecting the > pairing method and the Out of Band pairing method shall be used. If both > devices have not set the MITM option in the Authentication Requirements > Flags, then the IO capabilities shall be ignored and the Just Works > association model shall be used. Otherwise the IO capabilities of the > devices shall be used to determine the pairing method as defined in > Table 2.4." > > In the test case I ran, only One device (i.e. NOT BOTH) had the MITM > option set. So my reading is that the IO Capabilities should be ignored, > and JUST_WORKS used. > > Remember the phone use case: When it needs to pair with a remote device, > it is usually a GATT client that can support any level of security. It > does not know if this new remote device requires MITM security, or No > security. However as the link Master and Initiator, it has to choose > one. It Chooses MITM, and if the remote side supports MITM, then > pairing proceeds with a resulting MITM protection level. If the remote > device is a simple dumb device with no security, it also needs to > proceed without failing, but this time it completes with NO-MITM as the > protection level. If it fails because the remote doesn't require > security, then there is a fundamental incompatibility between the > devices, which in the SIG we have tried to avoid. > > > > > In my interpretation this is exactly what should happen when MITM is > > set but there is no way to generate an authenticated key as Table 2.4: > > Mapping of IO Capabilities to STK Generation Method suggest, in other > > words if one of sides has NoInputNoOutput and MITM is set we should > > return "Authentication Requirements" error. > > > -- Brian Gix bgix@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
