<kaz> scribenick: elena
<kaz> prev minutes
McCool: reviewing previous meeting minutes first
reading through the minutes...
McCool: should try to review labels
on issues today if we have time
... any objections to accepting the minutes?
minutes accepted
McCool: next NDSS presentation slides review
<McCool> https://github.com/mmccool/ndss-wot-sec
<McCool> https://github.com/mmccool/ndss-wot-sec/tree/master/talk
McCool: 20 min talk, 10 min
questions
... goals of the presentation to get a feedback instead of
presenting new methods/approaches
... main focus is on metadata and TD, slides follow the NDSS
paper and we are hoping for a good discussion after that
... are the goals clear enough?
Barry: yes, I think so
McCool: some links on slide 5 might
need updates
... slide 7 focus on TD, semantic metadata should be changed to
TD on slide 7 also
... slide 8 needs an example update
... do we have an updated examples?
KostElena: not sure we have syntax fixed, so need to wait for it to stabilize
McCool: slide 8 needs to have bubbles
for security metadata
... slides 11-15 talk about open issues with WoT and
distributed security
<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to ask if you/we want to mention plugfest (and plugfest guideline) as well and to ask if you want to mention existing examples, e.g., digital TVs
Michael adds a new slide: follow-up actions
with plugfest info
Kaz: also should mentioned
S&P consideration document
... should really refer to a concrete example in the
slides?
McCool: talk is short, audience should understand it
Elena: I think that examples might be important since there are many standards around IoT, so audience might benefit from it
McCool: I will try to put some example for explaining issues and if it doesn't work, it can be removed
Michael explaining following slides
McCool: smth is not discussed as separate issue: protection of metadata
<kaz> Michael's Slides
McCool: maybe we need a new slide for
this
... problem 5 is pretty vague in the paper, so I gave some
examples in slides
... shows kind of things we can enable with metadata
... please send email to me to provide further comments
changes will be uploaded to github
<zkis> http://rawgit.com/zolkis/wot-scripting-api/master/index.html
<kaz> scribe: McCool
Elena: showing rawgit version of
most recent Scripting API draft
... looked at version available Friday
... general feeling: much more concrete
... concrete APIs
... clearer to see what is missing
... currently: doesn't have *anything* about security
... none of the examples discuss it
... start from use cases...
... looking at which of these actions would need security
... and then we can discuss how to plug it in
... for instance, discovery
... an attacker could be visiting a site
... if discovery done using broadcast
... can find out all the things
... could be a privacy threat
... even just knowing what devices are there
... same in an industrial environment
... not clear what the limits are on discovery
Zoltan: mapping of existing
functionality onto scripting
... but supported in scripting only if implementation supports
it
... might be blocked by implementation
Elena: brings me to another
point...
... how are errors reported?
Zoltan: that's right
... coming.
... descriptions of algorithms still coming
... we have to be careful when reporting errors
... to not give away information to an attacker
Elena: should be ok to say it is a security error, just not what kind of security error (eg type of credentials required, etc)
zoltan: ok, sounds good
Elena: there are so many security things that fingerprinting is still hard
zoltan: we used to have a
security section
... but it was deleted, didn't contain much anyway
zoltan: but we can at least add security error to error list
Elena: discovery was one security
issue
... right now gives the impression that there are not errors,
API methods just work...
Zoltan: there should be an algorithm section for each that also described when and how they can fail; not there yet
Elena: what about security metadata... how to be associated with an exposed thing, for instance?
McCool: for instance, how to associated metadata with an exposed thing
Zoltan: you don't... in manifest
Elena: but for example, an Action may be need a token
Zoltan: that should come from the
identity
... certain entities will have certain access rights
Elena: but if use token-based access, for instance, how to specify which actions need which tokens?
Zoltan: right now we have no
means to associated security metadata with particular actions,
just with entire thing
... we need a separate API for provisioning
... in a different security realm
... consider it out of scope from scripting API
... but, you do have a point that it contributes to the
TD
... we do have to figure out what security metadata the TD
contains
... right now we can generate functional part of TD, but can't
do provisioning
... we need a different API spec for provisioning
Elena: how to support different credentials for different actions?
Zoltan: we decided in OCF that in
that case it was better to separate actions in different
APIs
... in the WoT, that would put interfaces with
different security requirements in different Things
Daniel: I think you are right,
Zoltan is completely not in the document
... but what I think now should happen
... if certain functions needs certain tokens
... then property struct needs that information
... needs to contain that information
Zoltan: why can't we just pass
this data as regular data
... does the runtime need to know?
daniel: in the initialization phase?
zoltan: well, in the case of tokens, I would like to ask Elena if tokens can just be managed as regular objects
Elena: need to get information
that action needs token into TD
... has to be some way for API to embed that information
Zoltan: I define an exposed thing, I define an action, I define some parameters
<inserted> scribenick: kaz
McCool: would suggest we don't cancel the call next call...
Zoltan: or I can leave here today for some more time
Elena: need to leave now...
Zoltan: good to have larger
people
... better to expose the discussion
... would add some more text
... if you see any more issues, please create additional
issues
Elena: can't join the call next week
McCool: we can continue the
discussion in 2 weeks
... btw, Zoltan, do you want to review the TD draft from
security viewpoint?
... can ask Barry as well
Zoltan: by when?
McCool: once the TD draft is ready
Zoltan: can read the draft anyway
[adjourned]