12:01:36 RRSAgent has joined #wot-sec 12:01:36 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/05/05-wot-sec-irc 12:03:30 zkis has joined #wot-sec 12:05:03 present+ Michael_McCool 12:05:10 present+ Zoltan_Kis 12:05:52 present+ Elena_Reshetova 12:06:42 present+ Daniel_Ibaseta, Kaz_Ashimura 12:06:51 present+ Michael_Koster 12:07:01 rrsagent, make log public 12:07:05 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:07:05 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/05-wot-sec-minutes.html kaz 12:07:50 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/IG_Security_WebConf#Agenda 12:09:18 daniel_ibaseta has joined #wot-sec 12:09:26 Here? 12:10:05 we invite Daniel as a guest today 12:10:08 OK 12:10:20 i dont ahve a microphone right now 12:10:23 mjkoster_ has joined #wot-sec 12:11:12 -> @@@ Elena's resource tbd 12:11:43 topic: WOT Threat model & security objectives 12:11:49 https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/318 12:13:12 elena: explains her proposed thread model description 12:13:15 ... which is to be merged 12:13:43 mm: security model provided by the underlining mechanism? 12:13:53 ... or something specific for wot itself? 12:13:59 q+ 12:14:23 s/mechanism/protocols/ 12:15:25 elena: threat model of protocols vs application layer 12:15:45 ... some messages might be reordered or delayed 12:16:02 mm: layering our threat model 12:16:13 ... on the top of underlying protocols 12:16:45 elena: first table is regarding the stakeholders 12:17:27 ... thing manufacturer (oem), solution provider and solution user 12:17:39 s/table/column/ 12:17:49 mm: provider creating new things? 12:18:03 ... user using things which are created by providers? 12:18:32 ... possibly both at once 12:19:28 q+ 12:20:47 q+ to ask about if "solution provider" means "thing exposer" and "solution user" means "thing consumer" 12:21:12 elena: you can have flexible definition 12:21:17 q- 12:21:35 ... there might be a number of solution providers 12:22:02 mm: there are similar tables by other SDOs 12:22:24 ... you might outsource or contract of our systems to 2nd/3rd parties 12:23:02 ... factory owners may ask the others to maintain the factories based on some contract 12:23:12 q? 12:23:25 ... issue you need to delegate responsibilities to people 12:23:48 elena: ok. but it's important to think about these roles 12:24:21 ... 3 basic stakeholders 12:24:33 mm: can imagine some nested situations 12:24:47 ... a user can add some additional services 12:25:00 ... multiple security owners are possible 12:25:56 s/Daniel/Daniel from CTIC/ 12:26:47 elena: do we have any tree structure or hierarchy? 12:27:15 mm: e.g., ISP provides some box for network connection 12:27:31 ... let's make a list of issues and see which are in/out of scope 12:27:45 elena: bootstrapping 12:28:17 mm: let's assume a tree and see if it works 12:28:41 elena: there could be a higher tree 12:28:57 zk: there may be contracts between manufacturers 12:29:13 ... different deployment mechanism 12:29:25 mm: how general setting do we allow here? 12:29:31 q? 12:29:43 elena: would explain the detail during the f2f 12:30:32 q? 12:31:30 zk: where do we want to file the issues for the security work? 12:31:44 mm: I raised an issue about that within the Chairs group 12:32:12 ... we would raise issues within the IG 12:32:47 ... let's revisit the detail on how to handle them after the f2f 12:33:25 q? 12:34:01 ack k 12:34:01 kaz, you wanted to ask about if "solution provider" means "thing exposer" and "solution user" means "thing consumer" 12:35:49 mm: kind of similar 12:36:30 elena: it's similar idea but maybe different 12:36:34 q+ 12:37:07 ... it's not only denoting physical things 12:38:03 zk: this is related to WoT assets 12:38:13 ... not stakeholders 12:38:34 kaz: let's talk about the relationship during the f2f 12:38:39 elena: ok 12:38:39 mm: let's discuss relationship of thing roles and stakeholder types in F2F or in a future meeting... need to create issue 12:39:48 elena: explains the description 12:40:20 ... does not contain any confidential or privacy sensitive information. however, its integrity is crucial for the system correct operation. 12:40:40 s/description/description on Thing Description (TD)/ 12:40:53 ... let's go for asset first 12:41:14 ... who should have access (trust model) 12:41:22 ... TDs owner: full access 12:41:28 ... Others: read only 12:41:34 ... Attack poiints: 12:41:40 s/poiints/points/ 12:41:57 ... storage on thing itself, cloud storage, in-transfer (network) including TD updates 12:42:15 ... next 12:42:22 ... solution user data: 12:42:46 ... different solution users might have different level of access to this data based on the use case. 12:43:00 ... mechanism should be flexible to configure and include also RBAC 12:43:19 ... Others: should have no access unless specifically allowed 12:43:37 ... storage on thing itself, solution provider storage (remote cloud or other), in-transfer (network) 12:43:52 mm: physical asset effected by things 12:44:13 ... it's question of affecting physical affect 12:44:21 ... question of environment 12:44:36 elena: good idea to add asset 12:44:47 ... will modify this table 12:44:56 ... next 12:45:07 ... solution provider scripts and their configuration data: 12:45:13 mm: things can have actuators, can affect physical world; these are also assets 12:45:13 ... solution provider: full access 12:45:20 ... others: no access 12:45:59 ... storage on the thing itself, remote storage (if scripts are backed up to a remote storage), in-transfer only for initial provisioning and scripts updates 12:46:24 mm: we should have discussion on how to manage issues 12:47:42 kaz: why don't we have a separate repo, wot-security, so that both the IG guys and the WG guys can make contribution 12:48:12 mm: there are 3 possibilities 12:48:23 ... under WG, under IG or a separate repo 12:48:31 ... need to talk with the other co-Chairs 12:48:57 elena: would like inputs from the other WoT participants 12:49:07 ... the more we can get inputs, the better 12:49:32 kaz: let's send a proposal to the Chairs list 12:51:12 ... at the moment, we can record issues here within the minutes 12:53:28 mm: let's go through this document (AssetsThreatModelSecurityObjectives.md) 12:53:53 ... maybe we should categorize the issues into 2 categories 12:54:13 ... basic model and new things 12:54:26 elena: what about updating? 12:54:34 zk: image-based and script-based 12:55:12 mm: good idea to talk about the basic model first 12:55:28 elena: will update this table accordingly 12:57:08 ... btw, do we want to support access model for co-existing providers? 12:57:29 ... some providers might have relationship with other providers 12:57:58 mm: if we assume only one provider, it's simpler as the starting point 12:58:35 ... it is considered by OpenFog 12:58:47 ... thinking about layered model next would make sense 12:59:33 ... possibly there could be multiple things within a device 12:59:44 ... that's one issue 13:00:07 ... and the other issue is having more than one provider for one device 13:00:20 ... yet another category 13:01:25 ... we list assets within a physical device 13:02:16 elena: think it would be better to start with a simpler model 13:02:21 s/think/agree/ 13:02:33 mm: let's start with normal tendency 13:03:59 elena: move forward with the table 13:04:24 ... Thing's resources, WoT Infrastructure resources... 13:04:35 ... the last two rows 13:04:46 ... any behavior information we want to protect? 13:04:55 ... todo: list all the keys/credentials... 13:05:12 ... you have to do something extensive to hide information 13:05:27 mm: extra APIs for that purpose? 13:06:12 ... if things exposed information protected? 13:06:22 elena: non-directly exposed information 13:06:44 mm: information itself shouldn't be confidential 13:07:03 ... only the basic information may be exposed 13:07:53 ... it's a broader responsibility for the protocol level 13:08:47 ... get the rest of the group to clarify what to be added 13:09:00 ... protocol binding may hide information 13:09:47 zk: if we have multiple authentication capabilities, we can choose one of them 13:09:58 ... we can postpone this point 13:10:18 mm: we need to get concrete proposals for protocol binding 13:10:52 elena: you might have to communicate with something 13:11:12 mm: which form of authentication is used? 13:11:20 ... should I protect that? 13:11:26 ... there are 2 levels 13:12:58 ... we should stop discussion about this for today 13:13:24 ... will add references 13:13:29 topic: f2f planning 13:13:45 -> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_May_2017,_Osaka,_Japan Osaka f2f 13:14:14 mm: make sure the agenda makes sense 13:14:38 ... I proposed this: 13:14:39 [McCool] Security [afternoon, remote participants from Europe] 13:14:39 [Elena] Threat and Asset models 13:14:39 Review of related models, i.e. from IETF 13:15:14 mm: and will cover OCF security model and IIC one separately 13:15:45 ... 1 hour for Elena's Threat and Asset model 13:16:37 ... having a 2-hour session would be difficult for people to digest 13:16:51 ... so maybe we should have 2 separate 1h sessions? 13:18:07 ... 1. stakeholders, assets, threats (1h) 13:18:14 ... 2. discussion (1h) 13:18:49 s/threats/threats, attack surfaces/ 13:19:13 ... or discussion separately on the topics 13:19:22 zk: we need input from participants 13:19:55 (discussion on the plan) 13:20:42 kaz: maybe it would make sense to have a breakout discussion as well 13:21:32 ... and wrap-up as a plenary session as well 13:21:45 mm: overview plenary 13:22:49 s/mm: overview plenary// 13:23:12 zk: security is important for everybody, so all the talks should be plenary 13:23:20 kaz: right 13:23:32 ... plenary talks, breakout discussion and then l 13:23:43 s/then l/then plenary wrap-up/ 13:24:25 (some more discussion) 13:27:05 1. stakeholders, assets (45m, plenary) 13:27:24 2. threats, attack surfaces (45m, plenary) 13:27:42 3. classification and prioritization (45m, breakout) 13:27:50 4. summary and next steps (30m, plenary) 13:28:24 i/stakeholders/0. security process (15m)/ 13:28:50 zk: the security process talk could be given as part of the keynote session 13:29:28 elena: wondering about the timing 13:30:17 kaz: I think we'll start the afternoon session at 2pm in Japan, and it's 7am in Europe 13:30:21 elena: perfect 13:30:50 s/15m)/15m, keynote day)/ 13:31:34 mm: updates the "Future Agenda Items" on the Security TF wiki: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/IG_Security_WebConf#Agenda 13:31:58 ... presentation materials for f2f 13:32:08 ... review of IETF-ACE and IIC-SF and CoAP and others 13:32:11 [ adjourned ] 13:32:32 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:32:32 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/05-wot-sec-minutes.html kaz 13:34:06 Meeting: WoT IG - Security 13:34:17 Chair: McCool 13:34:21 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:34:21 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/05/05-wot-sec-minutes.html kaz 14:57:15 Zakim has left #wot-sec 16:57:25 zkis has joined #wot-sec 21:48:06 zkis has joined #wot-sec