[aprssig] Re: Authentication over APRS was: Ab)Use of APRS for telemetry? Anyone doing it?
Scott Miller scott at opentrac.orgMon Dec 6 16:40:19 UTC 2004
- Previous message: [aprssig] Authentication over APRS was: Ab)Use of APRS for telemetry? Anyone doing it?
- Next message: [aprssig] Authentication over APRS was: Ab)Use of APRS for telemetry? Anyone doing it?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> This brings up a question I've had for some time. As I recall, the FCC rules prevent amateurs from using "encryption" or anything that obscurs the meaning of a message. I don't recall the exact words. This comes up every time anyone mentions passwords or authentication. I think the relevant section of Part 97 is 97.113(a)(4): Prohibited Transmissions. "...messages in codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning thereof, except as otherwise provided herein..." Satellite command links are specifically exempted. Authentication, as apposed to encryption, doesn't seem to be prohibited at all, nor does there seem to be any good reason for it to be. Encryption prevents the FCC from ensuring the service is used as intended - authentication makes sure only authorized users can command a remote station, which should be a good thing. You can keep your command data in the clear and use a message authentication code to ensure integrity. > Including a simple password in the message does nothing to prevent "replay attacks" (not good if you want to do something like open your garage door, or unlock something) Very true. This gets overlooked a lot. Man-in-the-middle attacks are also possible - you could always jam a target station with a directional signal and prevent it from hearing a valid command while you intercept it and retransmit it in a modified form. You need to address both of these possibilities. > One could certainly use a OTP (one time pad), but that clearly violates the FCC rule mentioned above. Someone responded to this already, but I think there's some confusion between a one time pad and one time password. One time passwords are useful for authentication over an unencrypted link - S/Key is a good example. Before I went to only using SSH, I'd carry around a card of S/Key passwords in my wallet in case I needed to log in to a machine over Telnet. One time pads are another matter - they're used for encryption. In fact, they're probably the simplest form of provably secure encryption, provided you've got a good random number source. Definitely not what you want to use if you're trying to keep the FCC off your back! > So, I was thinking the best method would be to send the command in plain text, thereby making the FCC happy. Including a date stamp to avoid replay attacks. And finally, attaching a hash of the message body encrypted with a PK (public key) tool. This way nothing is encrypted excecpt the "signature". > > I've not given this much thought as to the "size" of the key, and the complexity of PKE code for microcontrollers... BIG. I was looking at ECDSA, which has a smaller key size, but it's still big. You shouldn't really need public key cryptography though. A simple symmetric algorithm like TEA can be used in a CBC-MAC (cypher block chaining message authentication code) mode. Assuming your target device knows the same secret key, you can 'sign' a message using that key and the target device can verify that you know the key and that the message hasn't been altered. You still need to provide some protection from replay attacks - probably in the form of a challenge/response or sequence number. The disadvantage, compared to a public key scheme, is that no one else can validate the message without the secret key. This is more a problem if you're trying to do something like implement protected objects - like maybe you're the NWS and you don't want people moving your hurricane. The best solution I've found is to do the same as above, but in future messages you disclose the key you used last time. That way, the receiving stations can be sure that the updated object was sent by someone who knew the secret key used in the first one. It doesn't provide proof of identity, but at least you know the object wasn't hijacked after creation. Anyway, my point is that using a symmetric key MAC, you should be able to implement strong authentication without violating the letter or spirit of Part 97. Scott N1VG
- Previous message: [aprssig] Authentication over APRS was: Ab)Use of APRS for telemetry? Anyone doing it?
- Next message: [aprssig] Authentication over APRS was: Ab)Use of APRS for telemetry? Anyone doing it?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the aprssig mailing list
