This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/iot-wg@ripe.net/
[iot-wg] some suggestions on "work items" for the WG
- Next message (by thread): [iot-wg] some suggestions on "work items" for the WG
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Robert Kisteleki
robert at ripe.net
Fri Dec 1 11:03:18 CET 2017
On 2017-11-30 17:31, Alex Smirnoff wrote: > Ok, I see four basic requirements here: > 1) IoT device should receive regular security updates > 2) security status of the device should be manageable (get patchlevel, > update OTA) for every active device > 3) updates should be digitally signed (unless user is allowed to bypass > this restriction under certain conditions) > 4) the "non IoT" counterpart of the infrastructure, whatever it be, > including development and release process, should be reasonably > protected. > > Did I miss anything? I think it's useful to point to related work in the IETF circles (e.g. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moore-iot-security-bcp-01) that has a much broader set of requirements with good explanations. Cheers, Robert
- Next message (by thread): [iot-wg] some suggestions on "work items" for the WG
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ iot-wg Archives ]