...
How to design a privacy ensured IoT system?
How is authentication realized in IoT today?
...
- Ownership and identity relationships
- Object Identifier and Namespace
- Authentication and Authorization
- Governance of data and Privacy
see See details in our paper published in the proceedings of the IEEE World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT) 2014: Challenges from the Identities of Things
...
There is no special identifier for IoT. And there won't be one kind of Identifier. Many standards, de facto standards, protocols and solutions already exist in the area of IoT. There are various kinds of identifiers with different characteristics suitable for specific purposes. (for details see our Identifier Survey).
...
Mapping and discovery become important services in large IoT deployments with differnt different systems, standards and domains. Let's give an example : A street lamp might have a field bus address consisting of 2 bytes. It is connected with a gateway. Within the gateway the lamp is mapped to "lamp 123". A lamp management system can switch on and off "lamp123" intertnally. Via a REST interface the lamp management system exposes the lamp, for example as oneM2M "application entity". So other management systems can switch the lamp on and off by sending messages to a specific oneM2M URL. In this example a thing (lamp) is identified with different identifiers that are mapped to each other (field bus address, internal ID, oneM2M-URL).. Anchor
Does the lack of an IoT identitfier make IoT architectures more complicated?
It takes more effort to find and map various identifier but the mapping process gives also the possibility to When the authorities of a city want to address all lamp posts in one area they use some kind of mnagement software. Only in very rare situation this kind of software talks direct to lamp posts. There are mostly gateways inbetween the communication path pmapping IDs and mostly also protocols.
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Does the lack of an IoT identitfier make IoT architectures more complicated?
It takes more effort to find and map various identifiers but the mapping process also gives the possibility to implement access control mechanisms. Only entitled service services or user users are able to rersolve resolve or discover the identifier of a thing.This way its it's possible to control whether an identifier is visible or not or who can "see" a certain thing or not. In our example the policy check could be implemented in the lamp management system or with the REST API.
(see an example of a universal identity mapping and discovery service IMaDS of the EU project "reTHINK" published in the proceedings of EuCNC 2017 (tbd in July2017))in a paper accepted for publication at the 2017 European Conference on Networks and Communications (EuCNC)
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Is the classic Domain Name Service (DNS) obsolete in the IoT?
Absolutely not. In most cases DNS (Domain Name Service) can't be used directly. DNS was designed to map between IP-addresses and human readable domain names. DNS is not able to handle identifier formats from various IoT protocols. It is also not possible to propagate changes in a very short time. But DNS has a an outstanding governance process that ensures world-wide unique identifiers. So DNS is at least part of most mapping processes. In our example DNS might be used to find the company domain of the lamp management or the address of the REST API.
...
Privacy and Trust becomes crucial in the Internet of Things because even arbitrary data, like a temperature, might be related to a user when it’s combined with other data like location or is profiled over a period of time. So it is possible to see whether a person is at home or not. One extreme exemplary privacy issues issue is the ability to determine what kind of TV-Program a user is watching just from measuring the energy consumption with very frequent samples [ 1 ].
...
How to design a privacy ensured IoT system?
The are various design startegies strategies and architecture concepts to ensure privacy in communication and during resource access control. The Identity of Thing Discussion Group supports IEEE P2413 IoT Architecture Working Group in writing a Privacy - and and Trust Architecture View Point. This viewpoint is described in an Architecture viewpoint template of ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011. This uses describes concerns and models to frame the viewpoint. Find here the: current concerns of the Privacy and Trust Architecture Viewpoint. This first draft of the complete P2413 architecture draft is expected to be published late 2017.
User Managed Access (UMA): UMA is a profile on top of OAuth.
| Anchor | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
What are key concepts for Identity in Kantara Initiative that can be also used in the IoT (tbd)?
|
How is authentication realized in IoT today?
Different authentication methods are used in IoT today. Let's have an examplary look at authentication in oneM2M. When it comes to communication between 2 systems in the HTTP profile of oneM2M simpe authentication can be used. This means a username and a password iare written to the header of the message. An altrnative is to use authentication tokens. The can send along with a message header or as HTTP-request parameters. A great example are JSON Web Tokens. username (IETF RFC 7519).
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
What are key concepts for Identity in Kantara Initiative that can be also used in the IoT?
User Managed Access (UMA)
Services or devices miay have access policies describing who may have access and what kind of operation under what conditions are allowed. In oneM2M for example there is a concept of Access Control Policies that are attached to certain resources. A policy object or file is deployed at configuration or at some point in time. This ccncept is rather static because the policy has already regarded user or application names in it. But oneM2M proposes also another way: "dynamic authorization":
Here come UMA into play. In the dynamic authorization...tbd
Identity Relationship Management (tbd)
...
Things or objects in the IoT often have a relationship to real persons. These could be owner(s), manufacturer(s), user(s), administrator(s) or many other functions. A product might be owned by a manufacturer first and subsequently by a user who bought the product. The owner, user or administrator of an object might change over time. Ownership and identity relationships in the IoT have an impact on other identity related processes like e.g. authentication, authorization. The owner of a thing might be challenged for authentication or be asked for authorization policies.
User Consent Receipts
Identity Assurance Framework
| Anchor | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Is the huge address pool of IPv6 a
...
solution for Identities in IoT (tbd)?
Public classic IP-addresses (IPv4 addresses) are a rare resource. So the IT industry developed various approches approaches to deal with this situation. Mechanisms like "Network Address Translation (NAT)" or "Sub-netting" were developed to use address ranges in an optimal way. Access provider providers use IP-address pools and "re-use" IP-addresses by dynamic assigmentassignment. IP-address problem is not new. It is has been an issue for many years. Recently the problem seems to get worth worse because bilions billions of new devices appear with the Internet of Things. Not all, but many of them, also need also an IP-Address.
The huge address space of IPv6 seems to solve this problem. And moreover sometimes IPv6 is seen as a universal address for the IoT. So why not give every IoT device a IPv6 address?
Apart from the fact that many many IoT devices do not even have an IP stack the idea is not feasable feasible A thing like a sensor or actuator can break, and the device may have a new IP-address. So a software system that wants to communicate with a thing would fail if it uses the IP-address directly. So it needs a mapping and discovery mechanism that translates the hardware address (IPv6 or even something else) to an identifier that is handled by the software system.
...
But if that webcam is part of a smartphone, does it remain a single device? As a component of a smartphone, it is accompanied by a variety of other sensors (e.g., camera, microphone, touch screen) as well as a processor (the phone's CPU), and several actuators (e.g., speaker, video monitor, radio transmitter). These various components may be accessed separately or in various groupings to provide disparate services. Similarly, I may be willing to give the babysitter access to turn the speaker off when my baby goes to sleep, but not to the camerat camera which I want to keep always on. This raises the question, "Does the phone constitute a single device?"
...
Protection mechanisms are not new to the internet. Why there is a challenge in IoT?
In the 'classic' identity management certain protection methods have been established over the years to protect an identity from fraud and misuse. We have authentication methods to proof identities, secure channels to transmit identity attributes and passwords and other data are stored encrypted.
Security concepts like integrity, availability, authenticity, non-repudiation are built in classic identity protocols like SAML and OpenID. In the Internet of Things the situation is different. Here, many communication protocols are not based on internet protocol. Many sensors or actuators have just restricted resources in terms of energy, bandwidth, connectivity. Protocols like enOcean[www.enocean.com] or KNX[www.knx.org] use only few bytes to send commands or receive values. There is no room for encryption, challenge response procedure or other security mechanisms.
...
old content follows - to be revised
Authentication
The classic authentication mechanisms (ex.: login /password) may not directly work in the IoT. Objects have to provide some sort of lightweight token or certificate for an authentication where no user (providing a password) is involved. For stronger authentication means of individuals we usually combine two or multiple factors. These factors are based on following proofs:
...
ISO 19770 Syllabus |
|
| |
SWID Schema | XML schema for ISO/IEC 19770 Software ID Tags |
| |
NIST IR 7693 | Specification for Asset Identification | http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistir/ir7693/NISTIR-7693.pdf |
|
NIST IR 7695 | Common Platform Enumeration: Naming Specification Version 2.3 | http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistir/ir7695/NISTIR-7695-CPE-Naming.pdf |
|
NIST IR 7696 | Common Platform Enumeration : Name Matching Specification Version 2.3 | http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistir/ir7696/NISTIR-7696-CPE-Matching.pdf |
|
NIST IR 7697 | Common Platform Enumeration: Dictionary Specification Version 2.3 | http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistir/ir7697/NISTIR-7697-CPE-Dictionary.pdf |
|
NIST IR 7698 | Common Platform Enumeration: Applicability Language Specification Version 2.3 | http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistir/ir7698/NISTIR-7698-CPE-Language.pdf |
|
| NIST Cyber-Physical Systems | Cyber-Physical Systems or “smart” systems are co-engineered interacting networks of physical and computational components | http://www.nist.gov/cps/ | |
IETF RFC 2578 | Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2) |
| |
ITU-T X.672 | Object identifier resolution system |
| |
ITU-T X.660 | Procedures for the operation of object identifier registration authorities: General procedures and top arcs of the international object identifier tree |
| |
ITU-T OID Flyer | “Object Identifiers and their Registration Authorities: Your Solution to Identification” | http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/0B/04/T0B040000482C01PDFE.pdf |
|
ISO 26324:2012 | Digital object identifier system |
|