W3C

– DRAFT –
In-Vehicle Best Practices

11 January 2021

Attendees

Present
Adnan, Arman, Ashish, Glenn, Isaac, Peter, Rudi, Ted
Regrets
-
Chair
-
Scribe
ted

Meeting minutes

Ted: aggregate, queries...
… @@

Glenn: I had similar thought, NHTSA is looking at accident recreation and safety features
… a particular OEM is working with them in providing that aggregate data
… it could be on a use case by use case basis where the data and insights are provided
… there is clear overlap in this NSF proposal as well as intersection with SmartCities and multi-modal transportation
… it could include other modes of transportation and external data sets

Ted: parallels with industry issues@@

Glenn: the types of aggregate data sets...

Isaac: agree it makes sense to explore

@@

Proxy reencryption

Isaac shares screen with diagram of key holder and other parties

[scribe was having technical/laptop problems]

Isaac: everything signed on the car would be encrypted with public key provded by owner

Rudi: this problem common in content protection such as DRM for restricting content
… handling different viewer's subscriptions
… I would suggest looking at best practices being used there. PKI is slow versus symetric key
… the symetric key is rotated. entitlement messages might be encrypted with PKI
… separate from the symetric content key

Isaac: that is a different approach with more complex key management. proxy reencryption also requires key managmenent but fewer just initial key pair per entity

[slide 2]

Isaac: NuCypher is trying to avoid single entity in the cloud, you can instead have multiple nodes which makes you more resilient to attacks as well
… owner will create a specific key pair, provide the car with public key. the car can use this key to sign additional keys and use them to encrypt the data
… in parallel the individual or third party on their behalf and can provide a reencryption key. next the user can share with the network the reencryption key along with policy
… the nodes enforcing the policy don't know anything about the data, unable to read

[slide 3 diagram]
… data consumer can request reencryption key and separately request data from the shared storage

Rudi: doesn't this require sharing private keys as well?

Isaac: no. proxy allows you to reencrypt data without knowing anything about it

Adnan: qualified applications each require a policy?

Isaac: one key is used to encrypt all the data, separately you sign reencryption keys and send to separate, trusted entity than the data storer

Rudi: in order to reencrypt don't you need the data in the clear?

Isaac: no, not with these types of resigned keys
… this scheme was initially used for encrypting email
… it allowed someone to take over, temporarily, use of a mail account while on vacation

Ted attempts to give a physical lock analogy

Isaac: better would be changing envelopes for mail
… everything in car encrypted with initial public key. for lock analogy, you can change lock without opening the door
… it is one mathematical operation

Rudi: to do so, you need some information about the initial private key that the public one is derived from
… that private key needs to be available somewhere
… leave the owner (Alice) possession

Isaac: Bob and Alice each provide their public key

Rudi: then the generated private key to reencrypt at risk of being cracked

Arman: shared key/secret

Ashish: so reencryption key created at start?

Isaac: no, at any time for additional data consumer

[Alice's private key and Bob's public key used to generate reencryption]

Arman: Alice gives Bob permission to decrypt. any information decrypted can be done based on his public key?

Isaac: no, needs the reencryption key
… there are other schemes that provide more protection

Arman: how do you restrict what data on the shared sever that Bob can access?

[continue this in two weeks and Isaac will send materials]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 127 (Wed Dec 30 17:39:58 2020 UTC).

Diagnostics

Succeeded: s/@@k/symetric key/