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

[wot-security] minutes - 4 August 2017

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 22:36:47 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9VaeaMdDj9RqiuqYkwXUJLa7y1HT7cyWw-xo0gZTSmAgQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:

also as text below.





      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

                           WoT IG - Security

04 Aug 2017


      [2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/IG_Security_WebConf#Agenda

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2017/08/04-wot-sec-irc


          Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Dave_Raggett,
          Elena_Reshetova, Michael_Koster, Soumya_Kanti_Datta,
          Tomoaki_Mizushima, Katsuyoshi_Naka




     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Security Conferences/Workshops
         2. [6]Architecture document review
     * [7]Summary of Action Items
     * [8]Summary of Resolutions

Security Conferences/Workshops

   discussion on research workshops

   papers would be useful for outreach/marketing purposes as well

   mccool: we're behind from the original schedule
   ... need to publish the fpwd by the end of august
   ... people expect us for security reviews
   ... TD and Architecture
   ... let's see what is missing
   ... the main goal is the Architecture document
   ... and the TD document for the next week
   ... pullrequests for security portions
   ... first draft deadline at the end of August
   ... pending work items with deadlines
   ... would see existing descriptions on security

   elena: how to review the docs?

   mccool: briefly looked at the docs
   ... need to talk with the TD guys
   ... technically not ready for review yet...
   ... for now review it incrementally
   ... would agree the security sections are still very vague

   kaz: we should define the minimum security review for the FPWD
   ... based on the requirements for the FPWD

   mccool: correct
   ... would open the door sooner than later
   ... we can republish the drafts?

   kaz: yes, e.g., every a few months

   mccool: e.g., the second review for TPAC
   ... there is no deadline defined yet
   ... we should work on TD next week
   ... regarding the "Pending Agenda Items"
   ... we should generate a prioritized list of IoT
   ... also prioritized list of security mechanisms
   ... and would like to talk about the results from the
   Dusseldorf f2f
   ... any feedback from the questionnaire?

   elena: need to wrap up

   mccool: ok
   ... anyway you've got some data
   ... let's talk about that next Friday

   elena: ok

   mccool: any other outcome from the f2f meeting to discuss?

   elena: characteristics things?
   ... not developed yet

   mccool: the other thing I thought of...
   ... recently read a book named "zero-trust systems"...
   ... zone security for devices
   ... would talk about that in the future
   ... also use case discussions
   ... (add those items to the "Future Agenda Items" section of
   the wiki)
   ... and security conferences
   ... can write up an RFC, etc.
   ... (visits IEEE workshop page)

   [9]IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy

      [9] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/IG_Security_WebConf#Agendath

   scribe: collocated workshops

   elena: there is another academic workshop on security

   mccool: that's also doable
   ... May might be a bit late

   soumya: Singapore one?

   mccool: 2 places
   ... IoT conference and Security conference

   soumya: we can have a panel session

   mccool: the question is the deadline was June

   soumya: I am the Chair of the workshop
   ... you can submit a proposal

   mccool: could do both

   kaz: ask Soumya for resources

   soumya: can put that

   <Soumya> [10]http://wfiot2018.iot.ieee.org/program/

     [10] http://wfiot2018.iot.ieee.org/program/

   soumya: one dedicated session on security and privacy

   elena: one session for one hour?
   ... what is the format?

   soumya: 2-hour session with Q&A
   ... for the workshop, much more presentations + Q&A

   <Soumya> Soumya's session in WF-IoT 2018 -

     [11] http://wfiot2018.iot.ieee.org/sps1-edge-computing-iot/

   soumya: could be a nice way
   ... "Edge Computing and IoT"

   mccool: deadline?

   soumya: Sep. 30
   ... we can focus on the IoT part

   mccool: adding the resource to the wiki
   ... we should target on workshop proposals
   ... as a possible option
   ... IEEE Security and Privacy Symposium is still good choice
   ... searched for candidates and have a list on the wiki

   [12]list of security conferences

     [12] https://infosec-conferences.com/2018/

   elena: academic one vs industry one

   mccool: we could propose a panel as well
   ... we need to review the architecture doc

Architecture document review

   [13]WoT Architecture (WG version)

     [13] https://w3c.github.io/wot-architecture/

   mccool: there is a GitHub repo
   ... and HTML rendered version above
   ... did a folk for edit
   ... we can create pull requests for the security sections
   ... there 2 sections
   ... "3.3 Safety and Security" and "4.4 Security and Privacy"
   ... not very good...
   ... 3.3 should be "Security and Privacy"
   ... (opens [14]AssetsThreatModelSecurityObjectives.md)
   ... security means the system should be...

     [14] https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/security-privacy/AssetsThreatModelSecurityObjectives.md

   elena: pretty hard to define security here...

   mccool: security means the system should preserve its integrity
   even when subject to attack.
   ... privacy means that the system should maintain the
   confidentiality of personally identifiable information.
   ... in general, security and privacy cannot be guaranteed but
   the WoT architecture should support best practices.
   ... security and privacy are especially important in the IoT
   domain since IoT devices need to operate autonomously and in
   mny cases have access to both personal data and/or can be in
   control of safety-critical systems
   ... Compared to personal systems, IoT devices are subject to
   different and in some cases higher risiks. It is also important
   to protect IoT systems so that they can not be used to launch
   attacks on other computer systems.

   mccool: Definition and Motivation for "Security and Privacy"
   ... should we have a mechanism section?
   ... regarding definition, one sentence for security and another
   for privacy

   elena: what should be protected?
   ... need high-level requirements

   mccool: (adds "Mechanism" section below the "Motivation"
   ... generally, the WoT security architecture reflects the goals
   and mechanisms of the IoT protocols and systems it represents.
   These system vary in their security requirements and risk
   tolerance, so security mechanisms will also vary based on these

   elena: support the underlying mechanisms correctly

   mccool: correct

   elena: what security architecture should support do not harm...
   ... you have to support what the underlying mechanisms support
   ... and also should support best practices if possible

   mccool: (edits the "Requirements" section)
   ... adds:
   ... However, the WoT architecture needs to do no harm; it
   should support security and privacy at least as well as the
   systems it connects to
   ... bridging?
   ... scenarios?
   ... anyway, this is a good point

   elena: combination of the best practices

   mccool: how about this:
   ... The functional WoT architecture should provide for best
   practices in security and privacy.
   ... (re-render the updates)
   ... and there is another section
   ... 4.4 Security and Privacy


     [15] https://w3c.github.io/wot-architecture/#security-and-privacy-0

   mccool: updates the text
   ... security is a cross-cutting issue that needs to be taken
   into account in all other aspects of the WoT Architecture.
   ... including the Thing Description,
   ... the Scripting API, and the Protocol Bindings.
   ... The Thing Description and the Scripting API should support
   both transport and object security using best practices.
   ... This should apply to both data produced by the Things'
   interfaces and to the meta stored in the Thing Description and
   accessible via the Scripting API.
   ... Binding Templates will support the use of appropriate
   security mechanisms for the protocols they map to in order to
   satisfy the "do no harm" principle.
   ... would create a pull request
   ... but have some problem with that pull request

   <McCool> [16]https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/6

     [16] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/6

   kaz: probably you need to get registered with the repository
   manager as well
   ... and some more questions from me

   <Zakim> kaz, you wanted to ask about "best practice of what",
   maybe best practice of secure IoT systems? and to ask about the
   relationship between "WoT Architecture" and "WoT Security"

   mccool: we're out of time
   ... you can give the comments on the pull request
   ... agree saying "best practice" is vague
   ... need to define that
   ... have some references to refer to

   [ adjourned ]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [17]scribe.perl version
    1.152 ([18]CVS log)
    $Date: 2017/08/04 13:34:35 $

     [17] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [18] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Friday, 4 August 2017 13:37:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:14 UTC