- iot-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Draft minutes from RIPE77
by Jim Reid 09 Nov '18

09 Nov '18

Amanda Gowland has produced an excellent set of draft minutes from the WG session at the last RIPE meeting. Many thanks to her. Please speak up on the list if there are any errors or omissions. IoT WG RIPE 77 Thursday, 18 October 2018, 16:00 - 17:30 Scribe: Mirjam Kühne Agenda: 1. Administrivia Jim Reid opened the second official meeting of this group as a RIPE Working Group. 2. RIPE NCC Update (Marco Hogewoning) The presentation is available at: https://ripe77.ripe.net/archives/video/2307 Jim Reid asked how the community could help to fill the empty spaces currently in the directive. Marco said he didn't know at that point. He recommended to work with the local regulators. Pete Koch, DENIC, mentioned that there were large concerns about open source products. He wondered if there was awareness about that or special ideas for treating open source products. Marco responded that the document seemed to be fine with open source software, but manufacturers needed to stay within their limits. However, there were exemptions for amateur radio operators. Brian Nisbet, HEAnet, said that some of those pieces that were currently missing were things that should be there right now, for instance network abuse. He wondered why they were waiting for later. Marco explained that the directive was indeed very generic. It suggestd to stick within the particular regulatory framework, but it leaves details open to the regulator. Christian Bretterhofer, Andritz, suggested having discussion about why and what devices actually needed to be connected to the Internet. Marco explained that there was indeed an ongoing discussion about possibly slowing down innovation and making more conscious decisions about connecting or not connecting devices. Florian Streibelt, Max Planck, clarified that the exemptions were only for ham radio operations. 3. The Internet of Threats: Fighting FUD with MUD (Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works) The presentation is available at: https://ripe77.ripe.net/archives/video/2309 Artem Gavrichenkov asked who was going to implement this. Michael explained that they believed it should in the interest of the ccTLDs. It was necessary to make that investment. They would also present this at the ICANN meeting to encourage ccTLDs to implement this. Artem noticed that the presentation only covered smart homes, noting that that’s only a small fraction. He wondered why, for instance, industrial devices were not included. Michael explained that the protocols they were proposing to apply in the home were variations of some of the IETF protocols that were being developed for specifically securing industrial devices. Artem said he was afraid that smart home vendors weren't going to implement this because they would lose money. Michael explained that this was one of the reason they were building a firewall around them. Jelte Jansen, SIDN, made the audience aware of the SPIN project at SIDN and that there were quite a number of similarities to the presented solution. He suggested to possibly standardise the way MUD files were spread. Michael responded that the initial thought was to add a trust anchor and that they were going to get a curated database with changes that came from the community. Jelte suggested to think about a more general solution. Robert Kisteleki, RIPE NCC, applauded Michael and others for this exciting work. He asked what role machine learning could play, adding that this was the best remote presentation he'd seen. 4. Police Perspective on IoT, Challenges and Strategy (Jaap van Oss, Manon den Dunnen, Politie Nederland) The presentation is available at: https://ripe77.ripe.net/archives/video/2311 Jim said he hoped this was a start of an ongoing dialogue. Artem asked what data source the speakers were using for making the statement that the majority of DDoS attacks come from IoT devices. Jaap van Oss responded that this was based on his general knowledge in investigating these kinds of crimes. 5. Security Problems in IoT (Thomas Stols, Computest) The presentation is available at: https://ripe77.ripe.net/archives/video/2313 Jan Zorz, ISOC, asked if an IoT device had the 'smart' at the core, was connected to the Internet and could be controlled from the cloud. He wondered whether it was a security risk. Thomas responded that this was not necessarily the case if the cloud was properly secured. But yes, it could definitely be a risk. Brian Nisbet was shocked to hear that a hackers' organisation was shorting the stock of a company just because they have no bounty programme. Tomas said he agreed, but from a legal perspective this was a grey area. Manon asked if Thomas thought that sharing biometrical identity was the way to go. Thomas said it could possibly be used as an additional security mechanism. Manon said she was concerned about this, because it’s giving away the closest thing to our identity and sharing them on the Internet. Thomas responded that it was definitely improving security compared to passwords. Peter Steinhäuser, enbeDD, clarified that the facial recognition of Apple was actually not going to the cloud, but it stayed on the device. Neofytos Kountardas, Greek Cybercrime Unit, added that the European Commission was looking at the option to add cybersecurity certificates for devices. Thomas welcomed this initiative by governmental institutions. 6. The Internet-of-Insecure-Things: Causes, Trends and Responses (Arman Noroozian, TU Delft) The presentation is available at: https://ripe77.ripe.net/archives/video/2317 Jim thanked the speaker for this fantastic work and said he would like to see more of this kind of work. Jelte said he was surprised to see that doing nothing is better than informing your customers by email. Arman clarified that people just tended to ignore these kinds of informational emails. Purely sending abuse emails didn't seem to work. 7. AOB Jim said he would like to close the discussion on the WG chair selection process on the mailing list shortly after this meeting. He hoped to have a co-chair for RIPE 78.

1 0

Consensus on WG Chair Selection process
by Jim Reid 05 Nov '18

05 Nov '18

It's time to declare victory. So that's what I am doing. :-) IMO we have consensus and enough support for the selection process. My thanks to everyone who contributed to the discussion. There is one small tweak to the original text. Peter Koch suggested a clarification which got rid of an ambiguity: replacing "longest-serving co-chair" with "co-chair whose term is up". That's reflected in the text below. I will ask the NCC to put this on the WG's home page and also turn it into a RIPE document. (1) The IoT WG will have 2 co-chairs who serve staggered 2-year terms. (2) A co-chair cannot serve more than 3 consecutive terms. (3) Each year, the co-chair whose term is up will stand down and subject to (2) may make themselves available for re-appointment. (4) The incoming co-chair will be chosen by the WG using consensus and the remaining co-chair will make the consensus determination. (5) Any circumstances not covered by the above will be resolved by the RIPE Chair whose decision will be final.

1 0

Re: [iot-wg] "The Internet of Threats: Fighting FUD with MUD"
by Töma Gavrichenkov 24 Oct '18

24 Oct '18

...and now bringing my question/suggestion to the mailing list. Previously on topic: we've agreed (haven't we?) that MUD is not currently targeting industrial IoT and connected health. So, smart homes. (By the way, it is more proper to directly specify the issue you're handling before proposing a solution. As MUD doesn't solve the security problem of IoT in general, let's then call it a solution for smart homes, but not a solution for IoT.) The issue with smart homes, wearables etc. is that a contemporary commodity IoT device is not connected to the Internet in order to really provide a service to the customer. Instead, it collects, processes and sends data and telemetry which is precious for its vendor, which said vendor would then be able to sell. - https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/24/16021610/irobot-roomba-homa-map-data-sale - https://www.warc.com/newsandopinion/news/general_motors_generates_new_radio… - et cetera. Expecting a vendor to cut their own cables themselves is a strange move, isn't it. Hence, "default policy is no access" stuff isn't just going to fly. And, setting a firewall will only slightly help because of countless reasons. a) We have agreed today (haven't we?) that an IoT device needs to be updated frequently, and probably via the Internet. Let's now phrase it in a different way: we have agreed that an IoT device has a right to connect to a server of its vendor and exchange encrypted data with that server. Good luck telling updates from telemetry streaming then. b) Given a), a vendor will have an 100% legitimate excuse for denying you a service (i.e. remotely switching off a device, or more precisely, *not switching it on*) if the device doesn't have an Internet connectivity. c) Moreover, if a data collected by roombas would be actually worth selling, we can prophesize that ToSes for devices would start to *include* that connectivity requirement. I.e. if you don't want to share data with a vendor, then you must not buy this $9 vacuum cleaner but should rather go for that $199 vacuum cleaner, because it costs $150 to produce the device and for the former, the remaining $141 are covered by selling the data you don't want to share now. I'd be thrilled to see if anyone would be really going to spend additional $190 for privacy and security. d) Also, if said data is worth selling, setting up a firewall won't help because an IoT device will then use whatever radio technology built-in to connect to the Internet without your nice firewall. The only outcome would be an increased manufacturing cost because of additional radio module (and yes, it's the customer who's gonna pay for this). Sorry guys. Nothing personal, it's just business. e) You cannot possibly set a firewall between the Internet and wearables, SmartTV, cars, etc. ... I'm curious how does MUD address those concerns. | Töma Gavrichenkov | gpg: 2deb 97b1 0a3c 151d b67f 1ee5 00e7 94bc 4d08 9191 | mailto: ximaera(a)gmail.com | fb: ximaera | telegram: xima_era | skype: xima_era | tel. no: +7 916 515 49 58

10 32

serious vulnerabilities FreeRTOS
by Jim Reid 23 Oct '18

23 Oct '18

As surely as day follows night, there’s news of another example of scary/buggy/crappy IoT firmware. A large number of security vulnerabilities have been found in FreeRTOS and other variants which presumably share the same code base. These include information leaks, DoS and remote code execution. Nice. One of those variants is SafeRTOS -- oh the irony! -- that’s "certified for use in safety critical systems". Whoops! https://blog.zimperium.com/freertos-tcpip-stack-vulnerabilities-put-wide-ra… According to the above link, "FreeRTOS and SafeRTOS have been used in a wide variety of industries: IoT, Aerospace, Medical, Automotive, and more.”. The vulnerabilities are apparently in the TCP/IP stack. How is this possible? Rock-solid public domain TCP/IP code has been around since BSD4.4 20+ years ago. Or even earlier. Why would someone shun that, write their own code and do it badly? I just don’t understand the thinking(?) behind that. Does anyone have more info on the actual devices/applications which could be vulnerable?

3 2

In response to questions on ReD (RIPE 77)
by Marco Hogewoning 20 Oct '18

20 Oct '18

Dear all, If you followed the discussions during RIPE 77, I did not have an immediate answer to the process of establishing a Delegated Act. Meanwhile a helpful person has supplied me with some more details: The document here https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/adopting-eu-law/implementi… contains some more information regarding the process. There is also a website that allow you to track delegated acts being prepared: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/regdel/#/home And of course my advise remains to also consult with your national regulator on your position under this Directive and its potential extensions. Regards, Marco Hogewoning -- External Relations - RIPE NCC

2 1

GrowthEnabler's "Market Pulse Report for Internet of Things"
by Töma Gavrichenkov 18 Oct '18

18 Oct '18

Hi all, Apparently, the report I've mentioned today during the WG session is available on the Web, feel free to take a look: https://growthenabler.com/flipbook/pdf/IOT%20Report.pdf | Töma Gavrichenkov | gpg: 2deb 97b1 0a3c 151d b67f 1ee5 00e7 94bc 4d08 9191 | mailto: ximaera(a)gmail.com | fb: ximaera | telegram: xima_era | skype: xima_era | tel. no: +7 916 515 49 58

1 0

code of conduct for IoT devices
by Jim Reid 16 Oct '18

16 Oct '18

The UK's National Cyber Security Centre and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has just published a code of conduct on security for consumer IoT devices. It's full of the usual advice: no default passwords, update firmware, protect personal data, etc. The document's available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/secure-by-design/code-of-practic… In case anyone's wondering DCMS is the government department which (amongst other things) looks after Internet matters.

3 2

another heave on the co-chair selection procedure
by Jim Reid 15 Oct '18

15 Oct '18

Colleagues, the selection process needs another nudge. Although there have been a few expressions of support and no objections, I’m reluctant to declare consensus because only a handful of people have spoken. I’d *really* like to declare victory so we can get on with the job of finding a co-chair. It’s uncomfortable to do this when the WG has argely been silent about how the leadership is selected. So could you please indicate your support or opposition to the following? Thanks. I would also ask the WG to avoid the temptation to rat-hole or over-think the selection procedure, for instance by proposing elaborate steps to apply in corner cases that in all probability will never arise. We're only appointing a WG co-chair, not the Internet's Supreme-Leader-for-Life. The WG can always change the suggested process later if practical experience proves it is broken or needs improvement. Note too that there is no mention of elections or votes. This is deliberate. (1) The IoT WG will have 2 co-chairs who serve staggered 2-year terms. (2) A co-chair cannot serve more than 3 consecutive terms. (3) Each year, the longest serving co-chair will stand down and subject to (2) may make themselves available for re-appointment. (4) The incoming co-chair will be chosen by the WG using consensus and the remaining co-chair will make the consensus determination. (5) Any circumstances not covered by the above will be resolved by the RIPE Chair whose decision will be final. Vote early, vote often. Well OK, we don’t vote but I hope you get the point. :-)

15 21

New on RIPE Labs: RIOT in Amsterdam
by Mirjam Kuehne 15 Oct '18

15 Oct '18

Dear colleagues, Please find on RIPE Labs a summary of the RIOT Summit that took place in Amsterdam last month. The RIOT Summit is the yearly get-together of the community around the RIOT operating system for the Internet of Things (IoT). https://labs.ripe.net/Members/martine_sophie_lenders/riot-in-amsterdam Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [iot-wg] RIPE document on IoT security solutions
by Apostolos Malatras 11 Oct '18

11 Oct '18

Hi all, Just my two cents that might help/contribute in this effort. In November 2017, ENISA published -with the help of an amazing group of experts- the Baseline IoT Security Recommendations, which among else provides numerous links to related ongoing initiatives: https://www.enisa.europa.eu/publications/baseline-security-recommendations-… These have also been mapped in the online tool available here: https://www.enisa.europa.eu/iot-tool We will be soon publishing more info on the topic so please do feel free to reach out to us. Best, -Apostolos ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr Apostolos Malatras Network and Information Security Expert European Union Agency for Network & Information Security Address: 1 Vass Sofias Str, Marousi 151 24, Attica, Greece E- mail: Apostolos.Malatras(a)enisa.europa.eu Office: +30 2814 409 630 Mobile: +30 6985 051 401 -----Original Message----- From: iot-wg <iot-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> On Behalf Of iot-wg-request(a)ripe.net Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 1:00 PM To: iot-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: iot-wg Digest, Vol 20, Issue 6 Send iot-wg mailing list submissions to iot-wg(a)ripe.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to iot-wg-request(a)ripe.net You can reach the person managing the list at iot-wg-owner(a)ripe.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of iot-wg digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: RIPE document on IoT security solutions (Peter Steinh?user) 2. Re: RIPE document on IoT security solutions (Nigel Titley) 3. Re: RIPE document on IoT security solutions (Peter Steinh?user) 4. Re: another heave on the co-chair selection procedure (Farzad Ebrahimi) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:40:36 +0200 From: Peter Steinh?user <ps(a)embedd.com> To: Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com> Cc: RIPE IoT WG List <iot-wg(a)ripe.net> Subject: Re: [iot-wg] RIPE document on IoT security solutions Message-ID: <6A2D21F6-53DC-48D6-9C15-76AA861DC7CE(a)embedd.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > There?s not much to learn Peter. RIPE doesn?t develop standards. In the sense that IEEE or IETF develops standards. RIPE sometimes develops policies, usually on the allocation of numbering resources. These policies are produced though the process defined in RIPE document 710: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710. > > Anything can become a RIPE document, not just policies. The process is simple. Someone just says to the NCC ?please publish this as a RIPE document?. And it is done. > > For this case, I think we want something that reflects a consensus view of the WG. If you can produce an initial draft or outline and post it to the list, we can discuss that, make changes and go through a few iterations of the document. Hopefully we then end up with something that has broad acceptance from the WG. At that point, someone takes the finished article to the NCC and asks for it to become a RIPE document. > > Over to you... Got it - will prepare an initial draft. - Peter Peter Steinh?user, CEO embeDD GmbH ? Alter Postplatz 2 ? 6370 Stans ? Switzerland Phone: +41 (41) 784 95 85 ? Fax: +41 (41) 784 95 64

1 0