Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] AHdemo mode

[elektra <onelektra@gmx.net>]

Hi -

have to say I fully agree with Marek.

cu elektra


>   
>> still that can be better than no security at all...
>>     
>
> I think before you start throwing crypto, keys, certificates, etc on something 
> you/we should evaluate whether there are others ways.
> Also, it is important to realize that encryption itself does not make things 
> secure (encryption != security). If we start talking about "no security at 
> all" I'd rather ask first what we are securing and against whom ...
>
>
>   
>> i basically agree, but some people might like to set up a more controlled
>> environment. even in a community network this might be useful at times, for
>> example if you want to set up a backbone network.
>>     
>
> So, we are starting to talk about these rare cases, right ?
>
>
>   
>> one way to solve this without a static key which has to be known to all
>> nodes is using a public key infrastructure (PKI) with a certificate
>> authority (CA). the clients can generate their own private and public keys
>> and send the public key to be signed by the CA. that could go hand in hand
>> with adding their nodes to a map and accepting some basic agreement (pico
>> peering). after it has been signed they could start using encryption for an
>> extra level of mesh security.
>>     
>
> I think many things would be _possible_ but I don't see that happen. But why 
> everything has to be so complicated ? Do you read that: static key, PKI, CA, 
> private and public keys, signed by the CA, ....
> Only a few people master this kind of security properly. The only end user PKI 
> that "works" out there are web certificates and their level of security is 
> more ashaming.
>
>
>   
>> that's true, but it doesn't help if the underlying mesh protocol can be
>> disturbed easily by un-authenticated nodes and your traffic never reaches
>> the other endpoint.
>>
>> there are two different layers of adding authentication and encryption. one
>> is the mesh protocol itself the other one is end-to-end user encryption.
>> both are necessary if you want to make your network secure.
>>     
>
> I can't agree here. I believe a well designed mesh protocol which is more 
> resistant out of the box is mucher better than this encryption bloat. 
> If you *really* need the encryption, please use one of the established and 
> widely tested security protocols for the lower layers. Encryption is 
> incredible hard to do right and we are definitely no experts in this area. We 
> want to develop a slick, fast routing protocol. If you want this level of 
> security I *strongly* vote against a home made "security plugin".
>
> Keep in mind that security is a concept and not something you can simply 
> enable.
>
> Greetings,
> Marek
> _______________________________________________
> B.A.T.M.A.N mailing list
> B.A.T.M.A.N@open-mesh.net
> https://list.open-mesh.net/mm/listinfo/b.a.t.m.a.n
>
>