W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-ig@w3.org > July 2017

RE: Notes on W3C WoT Security Use Cases

From: <daisuke.ajitomi@toshiba.co.jp>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 05:23:40 +0000
To: <bfrancis@mozilla.com>
CC: <Soumya-Kanti.Datta@eurecom.fr>, <elena.reshetova@intel.com>, <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, <public-wot-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <093cb2ef1ca74ec389a9bb1ea1876913@TGXML375.toshiba.local>
Hello Ben,

I'm Daisuke Ajitomi from Toshiba and just a watcher of public-wot-ig mailing list.

> Making an HTTPS connection to a device on the local network continue to work when the Internet connection goes down is quite a challenge for both home and industrial applications. We've been discussing some potential solutions <https://github.com/mozilla-iot/gateway/issues/171>  to this problem,

Great summary for the issue and solutions. It is very interesting to me.
In my opinion, it is not just an offline issue and it includes a big privacy problem of whether globally accessible domain names can be issued to personal-use devices or not.
In your solution, getting DV certs and using HTTPS to the gateways, the users have to disclose their ip addresses and domain names globally and open ports to the global internet even though there are alternative solutions (e.g. cloud-hosted web-based remote control service that is well-managed by service admins).
In particular, considering industrial use cases, I don't know the approach can be acceptable or not.

> but I'd be interested if anyone else in the group has come up against the same issue?

My colleagues and I have had a similar problem and launched a Community Group named "HTTPS in local network CG" this year.
We have still just started discussions about use cases and requirements.
I'd appreciate it if you check it out.
https://www.w3.org/community/httpslocal/

https://github.com/httpslocal/usecases (draft)
https://httpslocal.github.io/cg-charter/ (draft)

In addition, in the last TPAC, we held a breakout session for this topic.
https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2016/session-https-local-summary


The following slide includes my early-stage idea as one of the potential solutions.
https://www.w3.org/wiki/images/3/37/2016.w3c.breakout_session.dot-local-server-cert.p.pdf


Daisuke Ajitomi

From: Benjamin Francis [mailto:bfrancis@mozilla.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 12:04 AM
To: Mccool, Michael <michael.mccool@intel.com>
Cc: Soumya Kanti Datta <Soumya-Kanti.Datta@eurecom.fr>; Reshetova, Elena <elena.reshetova@intel.com>; public-wot-wg@w3.org; public-wot-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Notes on W3C WoT Security Use Cases

One particular security issue we're grappling with on Mozilla's WoT gateway implementation is the problem of secure access to a WoT API on a local network when the outside Internet connection goes down. Here's a use case...

A user is controlling the lights in their home from a smartphone using a web app which uses a WoT API hosted via HTTPS by a gateway on the home network. When the home Internet connection goes down the HTTPS URLs of the WoT API can no longer be reached because HTTPS relies on DNS which requires an active Internet connection to resolve domain names in order to verify the identity of a web server. The user is unable to turn their lights on and off until their Internet connection comes back up.

A client inside the local network could still connect to the gateway using its local IP address or a .local domain broadcast using mDNS, but this would only be available over a plain HTTP connection because HTTPS can by definition not be used on a local network without a self-signed certificate which will trigger a browser exception. If we assume that not all of the many connected devices on the home network are trusted then this creates an attack vector for a man-in-the-middle attack where a password or API token is intercepted by a malicious device.

Making an HTTPS connection to a device on the local network continue to work when the Internet connection goes down is quite a challenge for both home and industrial applications. We've been discussing some potential solutions<https://github.com/mozilla-iot/gateway/issues/171> to this problem, but I'd be interested if anyone else in the group has come up against the same issue?

Ben

On 12 July 2017 at 14:07, Mccool, Michael <michael.mccool@intel.com<mailto:michael.mccool@intel.com>> wrote:

Relevant to this is the comment made by Mozilla recently in their proposal: the distinction between "local" and "global" networking is important since there will typically be a "bridge" mapping the local to the global (eg a Bluetooth wearable will probably expose its resources through a bridge that in turn exposes a http/tcp interface or whatever).

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: Soumya Kanti Datta [mailto:Soumya-Kanti.Datta@eurecom.fr<mailto:Soumya-Kanti.Datta@eurecom.fr>]
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 14:46
To: Mccool, Michael <michael.mccool@intel.com<mailto:michael.mccool@intel.com>>; Reshetova, Elena <elena.reshetova@intel.com<mailto:elena.reshetova@intel.com>>
Cc: public-wot-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-wot-wg@w3.org>; public-wot-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-wot-ig@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Notes on W3C WoT Security Use Cases

+1 for Michael's proposal.

Soumya

Research Engineer, EURECOM, France | +33658194342<tel:%2B33658194342> | @skdatta2010 | http://iot.eurecom.fr | Skype id: soumyakantidatta

On 12-07-2017 18:10, Mccool, Michael wrote:
> The other thought that came into my mind when Soumya and I were talking is that we can do a categorization by "technologies".   For instance, there is a difference in security possible between "Local" networking (Bluetooth, Zigbee, etc) and "Global" networking (TCP, HTTP, etc).   Think of this as another "axis" along which we can characterize the problem and scenarios.
>
> Michael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Soumya Kanti Datta [mailto:Soumya-Kanti.Datta@eurecom.fr<mailto:Soumya-Kanti.Datta@eurecom.fr>]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 14:37
> To: Reshetova, Elena <elena.reshetova@intel.com<mailto:elena.reshetova@intel.com>>; Mccool, Michael
> <michael.mccool@intel.com<mailto:michael.mccool@intel.com>>
> Cc: public-wot-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-wot-wg@w3.org>; public-wot-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-wot-ig@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Notes on W3C WoT Security Use Cases
>
> Hi Elena,
>
> I think privacy is the main aspect here. There can be other factors like control over the private data - one may want to share one's body temp with doctor in case of fever. For emergency or law enforcement situations, much more data need to be shared.
>
> I am not sure if the security tasks are taking care of access control or it is in the scope.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Soumya
>
> Research Engineer, EURECOM, France | +33658194342<tel:%2B33658194342> | @skdatta2010 |
> http://iot.eurecom.fr | Skype id: soumyakantidatta
>
> On 12-07-2017 17:27, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
>> Hi Soumya,
>>
>> Thank you very much for your use case!
>> I guess the main differentiating property of this use case would be privacy (since data in wearables are coming from individuals). Could you think of more differentiating factors in this use case?
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Elena.
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Soumya Kanti Datta [mailto:Soumya-Kanti.Datta@eurecom.fr<mailto:Soumya-Kanti.Datta@eurecom.fr>]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 12:22 PM
>>> To: Mccool, Michael <michael.mccool@intel.com<mailto:michael.mccool@intel.com>>; Reshetova, Elena
>>> <elena.reshetova@intel.com<mailto:elena.reshetova@intel.com>>
>>> Cc: public-wot-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-wot-wg@w3.org>; public-wot-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-wot-ig@w3.org>
>>> Subject: Re: Notes on W3C WoT Security Use Cases
>>>
>>> Hello All,
>>>
>>> One more use case from my side. I did a study with some students on
>>> wearable devices. We found that most of them do not use "https" or
>>> encrypt the data they are sending to a cloud. I think we can extend
>>> our scope to cover fitness trackers/wearables as well.
>>>
>>> I will join the Security TF in the WG from now on.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Soumya
>>>
>>> Research Engineer, EURECOM, France | +33658194342<tel:%2B33658194342> | @skdatta2010 |
>>> http://iot.eurecom.fr | Skype id: soumyakantidatta
>>>
>>> On 12-07-2017 13:45, Mccool, Michael wrote:
>>>> Notes from security use cases discussion today in the F2F.
>>>> (These are cc'd to the public WoT IG/WG lists so be careful with reply-to-all).
>>>>
>>>> Have come up with some things in our threat model.. but are missing
>>>> more
>>> specific use cases.   Want to find scenarios that are different from the security
>>> viewpoint.
>>>> First thing we tried to define was the "home" use case (see link).
>>>> https://github.com/ereshetova/wot/blob/master/security-

>>> privacy/SecurityScenarios.md
>>>> Wand to add additional scenarios to this document... have moved the
>>>> scenarios
>>> out of the threat model into a separate document.
>>>> For home scenario, privacy is important, for instance; it may be
>>>> more or less
>>> important in other scenarios (eg more in medical, less in industrial, etc).
>>>> Don't really need details, just an idea of which environments are important.
>>>>
>>>> Why?  To be able to define levels of security for implementation.
>>>> Different
>>> standards apply to different use cases, and also interoperability
>>> may or may not be desirable between different ecosystems if they
>>> have different security and privacy standards they need to satisfy.
>>> Cross-domain information exchange permitted and when?
>>>> Question from google: do we consider security and privacy together,
>>>> or
>>> separately?
>>>> Response: together for this discussion, but separately later.
>>>> Also, use cases
>>> important for more than security.
>>>> Privacy: only relevant if there are people involved.  People have classes:
>>> employees, citizens, police, nurse/doctor, owner, etc.
>>>> Issue: indirect information about people possible, eg. heat systems
>>>> -> people
>>> home or not.   Also issue of tying data about people to a particular person, vs
>>> aggregate or anonymized information.
>>>> What are other good differentiating feature:
>>>> Critical infrastructure (failure -> safety  or physical security issue issue).    Level
>>> of impact.
>>>> Cost (failure -> equipment damage).
>>>> Confidentiality (failure -> leakage of sensitive information, which
>>>> could be
>>> personal, corporate, or municipal, or governmental (eg national
>>> security))
>>>> TODO: look at existing standards and frameworks, such as the IIC,
>>>> to find
>>> additional differentiating features
>>>> Might be able to manage with semantic classes using differentiating factors.
>>> For example, could restrict data to devices with an appropriate level of security.
>>>> Additional Use Cases:
>>>>
>>>> Medical: Medical devices communicating with hospital IT system and
>>> monitoring patients.  This means they carry personal patient data
>>> and will be subject to privacy legislation.  Critical, people  =>
>>> High security and privacy requirements.
>>>> Industrial Automation: Industrial use cases not directly monitoring
>>>> people, eg a
>>> fully automated factory.  Cost => security requirement.
>>>> Corporate Employee Monitoring /{Office, Manufacturing}: Corporate
>>>> use cases
>>> including monitoring of people, which might be office or industrial
>>> (eg manufacturing).
>>>> Smart Cities/Building/Campus: Municipal system monitoring,
>>>> including
>>> monitoring of both infrastructure and people (both citizens and employees).
>>> Failures may have both privacy and safety implications.  Law and order.
>>> Emergency services (Fire and EMG).
>>>> Mobile: personal devices (including voice recog access points)
>>>> communicating
>>> with IoT devices.
>>>> Scripting API, post-data-consuming vs exposed side.  How does
>>>> security look
>>> from the consumer viewpoint?  From the exposed data viewpoint?   Consumer is
>>> the data user; exposer is data provider.  But need to consider flow of both data
>>> and commands; latter can cause a safety issue, for instance.   To further consider
>>> direction of flow of data and threats, who is attacker, etc.
>>>> Could be an issue, for instance, with an exposed thing producing
>>>> false data (eg
>>> a security sensor) that influences a system consuming that data,
>>> causing a physical security risk.
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Reshetova, Elena
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 08:29
>>>> To: Mccool, Michael <michael.mccool@intel.com<mailto:michael.mccool@intel.com>>
>>>> Subject: Link to the security use cases doc
>>>>
>>>> Michael,
>>>>
>>>> Here is the link to the security scenarios/use cases doc:
>>> https://github.com/ereshetova/wot/blob/master/security-

>>> privacy/SecurityScenarios.md
>>>> It has the home scenario now moved from threat document, as well as
>>> tentative placeholders for two more use cases, but let's see how the
>>> discussion goes today.
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> Elena
>>>>

Received on Sunday, 16 July 2017 05:27:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 16 July 2017 05:27:39 UTC