W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-wg@w3.org > June 2017

[wot-security] minutes - 2 June 2017

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2017 01:03:08 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9WfuLH3qOidibSfduLWb-u2ERtvOTtjuiN+qfiRAWP8Ew@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

02 Jun 2017


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

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2017/06/02-wot-sec-irc


          Kaz_Ashimura, Barry_Leiba, Elena_Reshetova,
          Oliver_Pfaff, Zoltan_Kis, Michael_McCool




     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Continue with threat model (Elena)
     * [6]Summary of Action Items
     * [7]Summary of Resolutions

   <McCool> Review PRs Continue with Threat model (Elena) Smart
   Home scenario definition Discussion of container types and

Continue with threat model (Elena)

   elena: goes through her GH page
   ... Objectives.md

   [8]WoT Threat Model & Security Objectives

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

   mccool: runtime should take care of it

   elena: will change the name

   barry: somebody makes something to attack on things

   mccool: attack from another thing

   elena: have to prevision malicious things

   barry: somebody design some WoT things which possibly infect
   others' things

   elena: how to distribute/transfer scripts?
   ... related to malicious scripts

   zoltan: if it's not distributed, it's still malicious

   elena: related to how malicious scripts would be distributed
   ... where the malicious scripts are installed

   barry: we need to split threats

   mccool: scripting protection is the main issue

   elena: what if manufactures manage to substitute scripts?

   barry: somebody gets a temperature sensor
   ... what kind of attacks are possible?

   elena: let's go through the threat table

   (goes through it)

   mccool: WoT API or Web API
   ... external non-WoT external devices are out of scope
   ... we go through the protocols
   ... protocol binding would reduce the category

   kaz: which category?

   mccool: for WoT User Interface
   ... we have to have certain access permission to access scripts

   zoltan: agree most of this would be covered by scripting

   mccool: there is a case that an app is a back door
   ... would prefer servients talking with external world only via
   the protocol binding

   elena: having less protocols would be better

   mccool: having only the front door (=protocol binding)

   elena: (WoT Protocol Bindings)

   mccool: if dynamically loadable, could be malicious
   ... recommend don't do that

   elena: (WoT API)
   ... getting compromising Thing instance and getting
   ... (WoT API - Unauthorized API access)
   ... unautorized access to an asset provided via WoT API

   zoltan: WoT API is REST API
   ... possible mitigation for attacks

   elena: discovering ports, etc.?

   zoltan: yes
   ... e.g., ssh ports

   mccool: if I was skimming the port, maybe would be scanning
   generic CoAP ports, etc.
   ... identify type of devices, etc.
   ... maybe related to privacy threats
   ... who accesses what using which protocol

   elena: depending how the device/software is implemented
   ... we can make recommendations, though
   ... but not sure if we can cover everything
   ... (WoT Protocol - TD Integrity)
   ... Integrity and confidentiality in transfer
   ... do we have notion for re-play?

   oliver: integrity is one aspect of authenticity

   elena: can rename it

   mccool: I distribute some TD
   ... and distribute an updated new TD
   ... certain kind of attacks

   oliver: regarding user data...
   ... would that be considered as what?
   ... user data?

   mccool: sensor data is user data?

   oliver: there is no actual "user"

   elena: what's the purpose

   mccool: definition of users?
   ... TD here
   ... about metadata
   ... next is solution
   ... over the protocols themselves

   elena: physical user or non physical

   oliver: solution data would help
   ... like normal data

   elena: will change the term

   mccool: previous point on re-play
   ... something would happen again
   ... network may have "repeat things"
   ... sequence, freshness and uniqueness

   kaz: would suggest we think about some concrete use case and
   risk scenario when we discuss these stakeholders/components of
   the threat model

   elena: there is a section later

   kaz: yeah, we should look at the use case as well when we
   discus each component

   elena: (Scenario 1 - Home environment)

   In this scenario we assume a standard home environment with a
   WoT network running behind a firewall that separates it from
   the rest of the Internet. However the WoT network is shared
   with the standard user home network that contains other non-WoT
   devices that have high chances of being compromised. This
   results on viewing these non-WoT devices as network attackers
   with access to WoT network and its APIs/Protocol Bindings. WoT
   scripts and protocol bindings are considered trusted, single
   solution provider exists on physical WoT devices, no dynamic
   installation of WoT scripts are possible.


   elena: WoT scripts and protocol bindings are considered as
   ... implies the following WoT Security objectives

   - WoT Protocol Bindings
   - WoT API
   - WoT API - Unauthorized API access
   - WoT Protocol - TD Integrity
   - WoT Protocol - TD Confidentiality
   - WoT Protocol - Solution User Data Integrity
   - WoT Protocol - Solution User Data Confidentiality
   - WoT DoS ????

   mccool: each threat needs example use case
   ... clarify the impacts

   elena: can give examples

   mccool: gives some example use case

   elena: ok
   ... will give examples

   mccool: how to deal with mitigation?
   ... depending on protocols?
   ... which capability is available with which protocols?
   ... some of the mitigations are depending on underlying
   ... others have to be described

   elena: we have to discuss "mitigation"
   ... sometimes underlying protocol doesn't guarantee it
   ... and we ourselves need to handle that

   mccool: should list which protocols support what
   ... security properties
   ... our recommendation and non-recommendation

   elena: there are already protocols that WoT is expected to
   ... we have to provide end-to-end security

   mccool: there is a list under the TD section and the binding
   ... CoAP, bluetooth, etc.
   ... let's add concrete examples for threats

   elena: can do that
   ... anyone can send your ideas as well

   kaz: whan/how to move this document on Elena's repo to the W3C

   elena: there is a pullrequest

   kaz: let's approve the pullrequest and make this the starting

   [ adjourned ]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [9]scribe.perl version
    1.152 ([10]CVS log)
    $Date: 2017/06/02 15:58:40 $

      [9] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [10] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for WoT, TV and Geo
Tel: +81 3 3516 2504
Received on Friday, 2 June 2017 16:04:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:47 UTC