RFC: LE Security Manager and next steps
Hi Vinicius & All,
I am starting to move forward on the LE Security Manager for bluez. I am currently using the patches submitted by Vinicius for bluetooth-next, and hope that they are accepted by Gustavo soon, but at some point, I will be forced to move forward with or without that acceptance.
My more immediate attention is therefore placed on key storage (LTK, IRK, CSRK), and high level APIs, in particular Passkey agents for MITM support.
If anyone is working these problem already, I would like to discuss details, so that we are not coming up with competing solutions. The main reason I would like Vinicius' patches accepted sooner rather than later is so that I (and others) can start contributing these next pieces without creating a divergence headache.
To begin with, I am planning on making the key storage part of the existing system used by BR/EDR. I am primarily concerned with Dual Mode devices, and we believe that from a "big system" point of view, that most of the differences between remote dual-mode and remote LE-only can be largely abstracted and out of sight by high level apps. The main differences between LE keys and BR/EDR keys of course is that there are multiple keys per "pairs of devices", and except for LTKs, they are used very differently.
Also, I understand that some people think that Write-Cmd signing (CSRK) and verification should be a function of GATT/ATT in User space, and others think it should be handled down in the SM kernel on the way out (and in). I know that the crypto library is being brought into the kernel for STK resolution, and this would seem to point towards kernel based signing and verification.
Privacy is the biggest problem however. Identity *resolution* can of course be done at the kernel level but if addresses change, we will need to come up with a plan as to how to deal with everything up to and including dbus object-paths that currently include an ascii representation of the BD Addr as part of the path. At the highest (DBus) level I am thinking that a signal on the original object path might work when we connect/detect a new address for an existing device, and an object path which is then an extension of the originally paired device:
If Original was:
/org/bluez/3456/hci0/dev_XX_XX_XX_XX_XX_XX
The Private could be:
/org/bluez/3456/hci0/dev_XX_XX_XX_XX_XX_XX/priv_YY_YY_YY_YY_YY_YY
Anyway, we are starting work on this soon, so if there is competing/complimentary work being done, I would really like to hear from you. There is a lot to be done here, and I'd like to have the architectural conversations sooner rather than later.
I would also like to hear from you if you simply have a good idea of how you think these LE pieces should be architected, and haven't started writing code.
Signature · 4 lines
Brian Gix [email protected] Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum
Hi Brian,
Quoted 8 lines · Brian Gix
Hi Vinicius & All,
I am starting to move forward on the LE Security Manager for bluez. I am currently using the patches submitted by Vinicius for bluetooth-next, and hope that they are accepted by Gustavo soon, but at some point, I will be forced to move forward with or without that acceptance.
I hope so too. There are still some still some details to be sorted out, but I think that the meat of those patches will stay as they are right now.
Quoted 11 lines
My more immediate attention is therefore placed on key storage (LTK, IRK, CSRK), and high level APIs, in particular Passkey agents for MITM support.
If anyone is working these problem already, I would like to discuss details, so that we are not coming up with competing solutions. The main reason I would like Vinicius' patches accepted sooner rather than later is so that I (and others) can start contributing these next pieces without creating a divergence headache.
I have a very simple implementation of the key distribution part, for now it is focused on only the LTK. As I did a lot of experiments while writing it, the code still a mess. I hope to have a cleaner version soon and will send a RFC, so more people can take a look and test it, which was extremely useful the last time :-)
I think that the most important fact about this implementation is that it is dependend on the Management Interface[1]. It needs this interface for communicating userspace about new keys and so userspace loads the stored keys when the userspace daemon is run.
Quoted 8 lines
To begin with, I am planning on making the key storage part of the existing system used by BR/EDR. I am primarily concerned with Dual Mode devices, and we believe that from a "big system" point of view, that most of the differences between remote dual-mode and remote LE-only can be largely abstracted and out of sight by high level apps. The main differences between LE keys and BR/EDR keys of course is that there are multiple keys per "pairs of devices", and except for LTKs, they are used very differently.
For now I have a separate storage for LTKs. For the other kinds of keys I am still not sure how to store/use them. Right now, your idea holds, it is completely hidden from the apps how the pairing happened.
Quoted 7 lines
Also, I understand that some people think that Write-Cmd signing (CSRK) and verification should be a function of GATT/ATT in User space, and others think it should be handled down in the SM kernel on the way out (and in). I know that the crypto library is being brought into the kernel for STK resolution, and this would seem to point towards kernel based signing and verification.
How/where to do signing is a very good question. I just have a small preference about doing it in userspace (most of the ATT stuff is there). But it is just a gut feeling.
This is something that any form of input will be awesome.
Quoted 11 lines
Privacy is the biggest problem however. Identity *resolution* can of course be done at the kernel level but if addresses change, we will need to come up with a plan as to how to deal with everything up to and including dbus object-paths that currently include an ascii representation of the BD Addr as part of the path. At the highest (DBus) level I am thinking that a signal on the original object path might work when we connect/detect a new address for an existing device, and an object path which is then an extension of the originally paired device:
Quoted 6 lines
If Original was:
/org/bluez/3456/hci0/dev_XX_XX_XX_XX_XX_XXThe Private could be:
/org/bluez/3456/hci0/dev_XX_XX_XX_XX_XX_XX/priv_YY_YY_YY_YY_YY_YY
Yeah, this is the most serious problem. One thought that happened some time ago, was that the DBus path doesn't have to have the address, it is just a path, we could change the way we name the objects, as long as the naming is consistent i.e. the same device will have always the same path.
But even without this restriction I guess there are few problems that need be solved before we can support Privacy the Right Way. In short, any help with this will be great :-)
Quoted 17 lines
Anyway, we are starting work on this soon, so if there is competing/complimentary work being done, I would really like to hear from you. There is a lot to be done here, and I'd like to have the architectural conversations sooner rather than later.
I would also like to hear from you if you simply have a good idea of how you think these LE pieces should be architected, and haven't started writing code.
Signature · 4 lines
Brian Gix [email protected] Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum
Cheers,
Signature · 3 lines
Vinicius [1] http://www.bluez.org/the-management-interface/
Hi,
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Vinicius Costa Gomes
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 5:37 PM
To: Brian Gix
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: RFC: LE Security Manager and next steps
Hi Brian,
Quoted 8 lines · Brian Gix
Hi Vinicius & All,
I am starting to move forward on the LE Security Manager for bluez. I am currently using the patches submitted by Vinicius for bluetooth-next, and hope that they are accepted by Gustavo soon, but at some point, I will be forced to move forward with or without that acceptance.
I hope so too. There are still some still some details to be sorted out, but I think that the meat of those patches will stay as they are right now.
Quoted 11 lines
My more immediate attention is therefore placed on key storage (LTK, IRK, CSRK), and high level APIs, in particular Passkey agents for MITM support.
If anyone is working these problem already, I would like to discuss details, so that we are not coming up with competing solutions. The main reason I would like Vinicius' patches accepted sooner rather than later is so that I (and others) can start contributing these next pieces without creating a divergence headache.
I have a very simple implementation of the key distribution part, for now it is focused on only the LTK. As I did a lot of experiments while writing it, the code still a mess. I hope to have a cleaner version soon and will send a RFC, so more people can take a look and test it, which was extremely useful the last time :-)
I think that the most important fact about this implementation is that it is dependend on the Management Interface[1]. It needs this interface for communicating userspace about new keys and so userspace loads the stored keys when the userspace daemon is run.
Quoted 8 lines
To begin with, I am planning on making the key storage part of the existing system used by BR/EDR. I am primarily concerned with Dual Mode devices, and we believe that from a "big system" point of view, that most of the differences between remote dual-mode and remote LE-only can be largely abstracted and out of sight by high level apps. The main differences between LE keys and BR/EDR keys of course is that there are multiple keys per "pairs of devices", and except for LTKs, they are used very differently.
For now I have a separate storage for LTKs. For the other kinds of keys I am still not sure how to store/use them. Right now, your idea holds, it is completely hidden from the apps how the pairing happened.
[MT]The Keys can be stored based on the public or static address. CSRK is used For data signing, LTK is used for encryption and IDK is used for resolving private Address. Could it be possible to store/retrieve these keys all from inside the SM context? That would save many additional work to create management interface?
Quoted 7 lines
Also, I understand that some people think that Write-Cmd signing (CSRK) and verification should be a function of GATT/ATT in User space, and others think it should be handled down in the SM kernel on the way out (and in). I know that the crypto library is being brought into the kernel for STK resolution, and this would seem to point towards kernel based signing and verification.
How/where to do signing is a very good question. I just have a small preference about doing it in userspace (most of the ATT stuff is there). But it is just a gut feeling.
This is something that any form of input will be awesome.
[MT]ATT is in user space and only it can recognize the need to either sign The command or verify the data signing. The CMAC algorithm can be implement On user space, however, its input parameters have to come from SM. A Possible solution would be allowing ATT to call SM API to sign/verify the Data signing.
Quoted 11 lines
Privacy is the biggest problem however. Identity *resolution* can of course be done at the kernel level but if addresses change, we will need to come up with a plan as to how to deal with everything up to and including dbus object-paths that currently include an ascii representation of the BD Addr as part of the path. At the highest (DBus) level I am thinking that a signal on the original object path might work when we connect/detect a new address for an existing device, and an object path which is then an extension of the originally paired device:
Quoted 6 lines
If Original was:
/org/bluez/3456/hci0/dev_XX_XX_XX_XX_XX_XXThe Private could be:
/org/bluez/3456/hci0/dev_XX_XX_XX_XX_XX_XX/priv_YY_YY_YY_YY_YY_YY
Yeah, this is the most serious problem. One thought that happened some time ago, was that the DBus path doesn't have to have the address, it is just a path, we could change the way we name the objects, as long as the naming is consistent i.e. the same device will have always the same path.
But even without this restriction I guess there are few problems that need be solved before we can support Privacy the Right Way. In short, any help with this will be great :-)
[MTsai]One solution is not to store private address, but only the public address at user space level. Private Address in a temporary thing (update every 15 minutes) and it can always be converted back to Public address, Or else discarded if can't. The Appl will only base on public address for all the operations.
Quoted 17 lines
Anyway, we are starting work on this soon, so if there is competing/complimentary work being done, I would really like to hear from you. There is a lot to be done here, and I'd like to have the architectural conversations sooner rather than later.
I would also like to hear from you if you simply have a good idea of how you think these LE pieces should be architected, and haven't started writing code.
Signature · 4 lines
Brian Gix [email protected] Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum
Cheers,
Signature · 12 lines
Vinicius Regards, Mike [1] http://www.bluez.org/the-management-interface/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html