Hi Luiz, On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:17 AM Marcel Holtmann <marcel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Alain, > > > Starting with the 2.1 specification, it is my interpretation that it > > is not valid to support EIR but not SSP. I understand that SSP may be > > disabled from BlueZ's point of view, but this doesn't seem to be a > > legitimate/qualifiable configuration. Should we instead fail the > > legacy pairing if EIR was received as an invalid condition? > > I know that using EIR requires to also use SSP. However this is just a precaution in case the other device is an attacked and tries to trick us. > > You might get an inquiry result and not extended inquiry result, but you are still talking to a SSP device. This has to do with the fact that the reception of EIR is not guaranteed. In case of radio interference you might miss one and only get an ordinary inquiry result. > > If we indeed received an EIR and then get legacy pairing request, we could try to reject the pairing. However keep in mind that our inquiry cache is time limited and we through outdated information away. This might cause some race condition. So I rather read the remote host features to ensure we know the actual host features of the remote device. You are correct, the EIR response is not a guaranteed thing. For this reason, the host should try to resolve the name of the device before initiating bonding where a Remote Host Supported Feature Notification Event is generated to signal the remote side's support of SSP. As you allude to, a remote spoofing a legitimate SSP device may always just jam and downgrade to not SSP, but if you have any signals that SSP is supported by the device, it may be a good defensive posture. Receiving an EIR response or a Remote Host Supported Feature Event with the SSP bit set is a good indication that the device supports SSP and you should expect SSP to take place. Again, it is not a valid configuration to have EIR enabled but not SSP per my interpretation of the 2.1 specification. > > Regards > > Marcel >
