doc.: IEEE b Submission November 2004 Robert Cragie, Jennic Ltd.Slide 1 NOTE: Update all red fields replacing with your information; they are required. This is a manual update in appropriate fields. All Blue fields are informational and are to be deleted. Black stays. After updating delete this box/paragraph. Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [TG4b Security subgroup status] Date Submitted: [16 November, 2004] Source: [Robert Cragie] Company [Jennic Ltd.] Address [Furnival Street, Sheffield, S1 4QT, UK] Voice:[ ], FAX: [ ], Re: [Response to the call for proposal of IEEE b, MAC Enhancement] [If this is a response to a Call for Contributions, cite the name and date of the Call for Contributions to which this document responds, as well as the relevant item number in the Call for Contributions.] [Note: Contributions that are not responsive to this section of the template, and contributions which do not address the topic under which they are submitted, may be refused or consigned to the “General Contributions” area.] Abstract:[Discussion for several potential enhancements for current IEEE MAC] Purpose:[For the discussion at IEEE b Study Group] Notice:This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release:The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P

doc.: IEEE b Submission November 2004 Robert Cragie, Jennic Ltd.Slide 2 TG4b security subgroup status Robert Cragie Jennic Limited

doc.: IEEE b Submission November 2004 Robert Cragie, Jennic Ltd.Slide 3 Forward This document summarises the discussion of the security subgroup in its teleconferences The subgroup comprises: –Rene Struik (Certicom) (chair) –Jonathan Avey (Ember) –Jon Beniston (CompXs) –Robert Cragie (Jennic) The original text was submitted by Robert Cragie via on 12 th November 2004 Comments were received only from Rene Struik

doc.: IEEE b Submission November 2004 Robert Cragie, Jennic Ltd.Slide 4 Introduction Document has been submitted Contains many wide-ranging changes to the security specification in Replaces section 7.6 and the PIB attributes. It also mandates the use of CCM* as specified in

doc.: IEEE b Submission November 2004 Robert Cragie, Jennic Ltd.Slide 5 Backwards compatibility The proposal is not backwards- compatible with the existing specification, e.g.: –The frame formats are different (changes to the MHR) –The use of counters is different –CCM* is only backwards-compatible with CCM The PAR does allow for security updates

doc.: IEEE b Submission November 2004 Robert Cragie, Jennic Ltd.Slide 6 Ways forward 1.Swallow the pill and overhaul security and develop to be the replacement text 2.Swallow part of the pill and make carefully judged changes to security 3.Address the security issues in the comments database only The security subgroup is currently digesting to see how big the pill is and what is in the pill.

doc.: IEEE b Submission November 2004 Robert Cragie, Jennic Ltd.Slide 7 Outstanding contentious issues 1.Endianness of the frame counter field in the PDU 2.Whether counter fields were included in the authentication data

doc.: IEEE b Submission November 2004 Robert Cragie, Jennic Ltd.Slide 8 Endianness There has been no accepted solution yet but we have all agreed that we are generally agnostic to whatever is proposed.

doc.: IEEE b Submission November 2004 Robert Cragie, Jennic Ltd.Slide 9 Authentication of counter field This is still unclear in On the teleconference on 14 th October 2004, it was agreed that the counter fields should be authenticated.

doc.: IEEE b Submission November 2004 Robert Cragie, Jennic Ltd.Slide 10 Specific discussion items The chair of the subgroup, Rene Struik suggested three specific discussion items: 1.Compressed frame counter 2.Broadcast security 3.Multicast These originate from document 02/474r2

doc.: IEEE b Submission November 2004 Robert Cragie, Jennic Ltd.Slide 11 Compressed frame counter A compression technique for reducing the size of the PDU. Additional cryptographic benefits as it is harder to do a denial-of-service attack via a counter rollover There was an original proposal that this would be done on- the-fly and resynchronising uncompressed counters would be done automatically on failing to receive an acknowledgement but this was considered to pose too many complications on possible hardware implementations. Therefore it was agreed that it would be handled manually and not based on the acknowledgements Rene proposes that this is discussed further in San Antonio

doc.: IEEE b Submission November 2004 Robert Cragie, Jennic Ltd.Slide 12 Broadcast security No discussion has taken place yet Rene proposes that this is discussed further in San Antonio

doc.: IEEE b Submission November 2004 Robert Cragie, Jennic Ltd.Slide 13 Multicast No discussion has taken place yet Rene proposes that this is discussed further in San Antonio