[RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Info page]

Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)                    O. Garcia-Morchon
Request for Comments: 8576                                       Philips
Category: Informational                                         S. Kumar
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                  Signify
                                                                M. Sethi
                                                              April 2019

   Internet of Things (IoT) Security: State of the Art and Challenges


   The Internet of Things (IoT) concept refers to the usage of standard
   Internet protocols to allow for human-to-thing and thing-to-thing
   communication.  The security needs for IoT systems are well
   recognized, and many standardization steps to provide security have
   been taken -- for example, the specification of the Constrained
   Application Protocol (CoAP) secured with Datagram Transport Layer
   Security (DTLS).  However, security challenges still exist, not only
   because there are some use cases that lack a suitable solution, but
   also because many IoT devices and systems have been designed and
   deployed with very limited security capabilities.  In this document,
   we first discuss the various stages in the lifecycle of a thing.
   Next, we document the security threats to a thing and the challenges
   that one might face to protect against these threats.  Lastly, we
   discuss the next steps needed to facilitate the deployment of secure
   IoT systems.  This document can be used by implementers and authors
   of IoT specifications as a reference for details about security
   considerations while documenting their specific security challenges,
   threat models, and mitigations.

   This document is a product of the IRTF Thing-to-Thing Research Group

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                     [Page 1]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Research Task Force
   (IRTF).  The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related research
   and development activities.  These results might not be suitable for
   deployment.  Documents approved for publication by the IRSG are not
   candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                     [Page 2]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  The Thing Lifecycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Security Threats and Managing Risk  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  State of the Art  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.1.  IP-Based IoT Protocols and Standards  . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.2.  Existing IP-Based Security Protocols and Solutions  . . .  16
     4.3.  IoT Security Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   5.  Challenges for a Secure IoT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     5.1.  Constraints and Heterogeneous Communication . . . . . . .  21
       5.1.1.  Resource Constraints  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       5.1.2.  Denial-of-Service Resistance  . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       5.1.3.  End-to-End Security, Protocol Translation, and the
               Role of Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       5.1.4.  New Network Architectures and Paradigm  . . . . . . .  25
     5.2.  Bootstrapping of a Security Domain  . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     5.3.  Operational Challenges  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
       5.3.1.  Group Membership and Security . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       5.3.2.  Mobility and IP Network Dynamics  . . . . . . . . . .  27
     5.4.  Secure Software Update and Cryptographic Agility  . . . .  27
     5.5.  End-of-Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     5.6.  Verifying Device Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     5.7.  Testing: Bug Hunting and Vulnerabilities  . . . . . . . .  31
     5.8.  Quantum-Resistance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     5.9.  Privacy Protection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     5.10. Reverse-Engineering Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     5.11. Trustworthy IoT Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
   6.  Conclusions and Next Steps  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   9.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                     [Page 3]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

1.  Introduction

   The Internet of Things (IoT) denotes the interconnection of highly
   heterogeneous networked entities and networks that follow a number of
   different communication patterns, such as: human-to-human (H2H),
   human-to-thing (H2T), thing-to-thing (T2T), or thing-to-things
   (T2Ts).  The term "IoT" was first coined in 1999 by the Auto-ID
   center [AUTO-ID], which had envisioned a world where every physical
   object has a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag with a
   globally unique identifier.  This would not only allow tracking of
   objects in real time but also allow querying of data about them over
   the Internet.  However, since then, the meaning of the Internet of
   Things has expanded and now encompasses a wide variety of
   technologies, objects, and protocols.  It is not surprising that the
   IoT has received significant attention from the research community to
   (re)design, apply, and use standard Internet technology and protocols
   for the IoT.

   The things that are part of the Internet of Things are computing
   devices that understand and react to the environment they reside in.
   These things are also often referred to as smart objects or smart
   devices.  The introduction of IPv6 [RFC6568] and CoAP [RFC7252] as
   fundamental building blocks for IoT applications allows connecting
   IoT hosts to the Internet.  This brings several advantages,
   including: (i) a homogeneous protocol ecosystem that allows simple
   integration with other Internet hosts; (ii) simplified development
   for devices that significantly vary in their capabilities; (iii) a
   unified interface for applications, removing the need for
   application-level proxies.  These building blocks greatly simplify
   the deployment of the envisioned scenarios, which range from building
   automation to production environments and personal area networks.

   This document presents an overview of important security aspects for
   the Internet of Things.  We begin by discussing the lifecycle of a
   thing in Section 2.  In Section 3, we discuss security threats for
   the IoT and methodologies for managing these threats when designing a
   secure system.  Section 4 reviews existing IP-based (security)
   protocols for the IoT and briefly summarizes existing guidelines and
   regulations.  Section 5 identifies remaining challenges for a secure
   IoT and discusses potential solutions.  Section 6 includes final
   remarks and conclusions.  This document can be used by IoT standards
   specifications as a reference for details about security
   considerations that apply to the specified system or protocol.

   The first draft version of this document was submitted in March 2011.
   Initial draft versions of this document were presented and discussed
   during the meetings of the Constrained RESTful Environments (CORE)
   Working Group at IETF 80 and later.  Discussions on security

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                     [Page 4]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   lifecycle at IETF 92 (March 2015) evolved into more general security
   considerations.  Thus, the draft was selected to address the T2TRG
   work item on the security considerations and challenges for the
   Internet of Things.  Further updates of the draft were presented and
   discussed during the T2TRG meetings at IETF 96 (July 2016) and IETF
   97 (November 2016) and at the joint interim meeting in Amsterdam
   (March 2017).  This document has been reviewed by, commented on, and
   discussed extensively for a period of nearly six years by a vast
   majority of the T2TRG and related group members, the number of which
   certainly exceeds 100 individuals.  It is the consensus of T2TRG that
   the security considerations described in this document should be
   published in the IRTF Stream of the RFC series.  This document does
   not constitute a standard.

2.  The Thing Lifecycle

   The lifecycle of a thing refers to the operational phases of a thing
   in the context of a given application or use case.  Figure 1 shows
   the generic phases of the lifecycle of a thing.  This generic
   lifecycle is applicable to very different IoT applications and
   scenarios.  For instance, [RFC7744] provides an overview of relevant
   IoT use cases.

   In this document, we consider a Building Automation and Control (BAC)
   system to illustrate the lifecycle and the meaning of these different
   phases.  A BAC system consists of a network of interconnected nodes
   that performs various functions in the domains of Heating,
   Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC), lighting, safety, etc.  The
   nodes vary in functionality, and a large majority of them represent
   resource-constrained devices such as sensors and luminaries.  Some
   devices may be battery operated or may rely on energy harvesting.
   This requires us to also consider devices that sleep during their
   operation to save energy.  In our BAC scenario, the life of a thing
   starts when it is manufactured.  Due to the different application
   areas (i.e., HVAC, lighting, or safety), nodes/things are tailored to
   a specific task.  It is therefore unlikely that one single
   manufacturer will create all nodes in a building.  Hence,
   interoperability as well as trust bootstrapping between nodes of
   different vendors is important.

   The thing is later installed and commissioned within a network by an
   installer during the bootstrapping phase.  Specifically, the device
   identity and the secret keys used during normal operation may be
   provided to the device during this phase.  Different subcontractors
   may install different IoT devices for different purposes.
   Furthermore, the installation and bootstrapping procedures may not be
   a discrete event and may stretch over an extended period.  After
   being bootstrapped, the device and the system of things are in

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                     [Page 5]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   operational mode and execute the functions of the BAC system.  During
   this operational phase, the device is under the control of the system
   owner and used by multiple system users.  For devices with lifetimes
   spanning several years, occasional maintenance cycles may be
   required.  During each maintenance phase, the software on the device
   can be upgraded, or applications running on the device can be
   reconfigured.  The maintenance tasks can be performed either locally
   or from a backend system.  Depending on the operational changes to
   the device, it may be required to rebootstrap at the end of a
   maintenance cycle.  The device continues to loop through the
   operational phase and the eventual maintenance phases until the
   device is decommissioned at the end of its lifecycle.  However, the
   end-of-life of a device does not necessarily mean that it is
   defective; rather, it denotes a need to replace and upgrade the
   network to next-generation devices for additional functionality.
   Therefore, the device can be removed and recommissioned to be used in
   a different system under a different owner, thereby starting the
   lifecycle all over again.

   We note that the presented lifecycle represents to some extent a
   simplified model.  For instance, it is possible to argue that the
   lifecycle does not start when a tangible device is manufactured but
   rather when the oldest bit of code that ends up in the device --
   maybe from an open-source project or the operating system -- was
   written.  Similarly, the lifecycle could also include an on-the-shelf
   phase where the device is in the supply chain before an owner/user
   purchases and installs it.  Another phase could involve the device
   being rebadged by some vendor who is not the original manufacturer.
   Such phases can significantly complicate other phases such as
   maintenance and bootstrapping.  Finally, other potential end states
   can be, e.g., a vendor that no longer supports a device type because
   it is at the end of its life or a situation in which a device is
   simply forgotten but remains functional.

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                     [Page 6]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

    _Manufactured           _SW update          _Decommissioned
   /                       /                   /
   |   _Installed          |   _ Application   |   _Removed &
   |  /                    |  / reconfigured   |  /  replaced
   |  |   _Commissioned    |  |                |  |
   |  |  /                 |  |                |  |   _Reownership &
   |  |  |    _Application |  |   _Application |  |  / recommissioned
   |  |  |   /   running   |  |  / running     |  |  |
   |  |  |   |             |  |  |             |  |  |             \\
       \/  \______________/ \/  \_____________/ \___/         time //
       /           /         \          \          \
   Bootstrapping  /      Maintenance &   \     Maintenance &
                 /      rebootstrapping   \   rebootstrapping
           Operational                Operational

       Figure 1: The Lifecycle of a Thing in the Internet of Things

   Security is a key requirement in any communication system.  However,
   security is an even more critical requirement in real-world IoT
   deployments for several reasons.  First, compromised IoT systems can
   not only endanger the privacy and security of a user but can also
   cause physical harm.  This is because IoT systems often comprise
   sensors, actuators, and other connected devices in the physical
   environment of the user that could adversely affect the user if they
   are compromised.  Second, a vulnerable IoT system means that an
   attacker can alter the functionality of a device from a given
   manufacturer.  This not only affects the manufacturer's brand image
   but can also leak information that is very valuable for the
   manufacturer (such as proprietary algorithms).  Third, the impact of
   attacking an IoT system goes beyond a specific device or an isolated
   system, since compromised IoT systems can be misused at scale.  For
   example, they may be used to perform a Distributed Denial of Service
   (DDoS) attack that limits the availability of other networks and
   services.  The fact that many IoT systems rely on standard IP
   protocols allows for easier system integration, but this also makes
   attacks on standard IP protocols widely applicable in other
   environments.  This results in new requirements regarding the
   implementation of security.

   The term "security" subsumes a wide range of primitives, protocols,
   and procedures.  For instance, it includes services such as
   confidentiality, authentication, integrity, authorization, source
   authentication, and availability.  It often also includes augmented
   services such as duplicate detection and detection of stale packets
   (timeliness).  These security services can be implemented through a
   combination of cryptographic mechanisms such as block ciphers, hash
   functions, and signature algorithms, as well as noncryptographic

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                     [Page 7]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   mechanisms that implement authorization and other aspects of
   security-policy enforcement.  For ensuring security in IoT networks,
   one should not only focus on the required security services but also
   pay special attention to how the services are realized in the overall

3.  Security Threats and Managing Risk

   Security threats in related IP protocols have been analyzed in
   multiple documents, including Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) over
   Transport Layer Security (TLS) (HTTPS) [RFC2818], Constrained
   Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252], IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless
   Personal Area Networks (6LoWPAN) [RFC4919], Access Node Control
   Protocol (ANCP) [RFC5713], Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC3833], IPv6
   Neighbor Discovery (ND) [RFC3756], and Protocol for Carrying
   Authentication and Network Access (PANA) [RFC4016].  In this section,
   we specifically discuss the threats that could compromise an
   individual thing or the network as a whole.  Some of these threats
   might go beyond the scope of Internet protocols, but we gather them
   here for the sake of completeness.  The threats in the following list
   are not in any particular order, and some threats might be more
   critical than others, depending on the deployment scenario under

   1.   Vulnerable software/code: Things in the Internet of Things rely
        on software that might contain severe bugs and/or bad design
        choices.  This makes the things vulnerable to many different
        types of attacks, depending on the criticality of the bugs,
        e.g., buffer overflows or lack of authentication.  This can be
        considered one of the most important security threats.  The
        large-scale Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack,
        popularly known as the Mirai botnet [Mirai], was caused by
        things that had well-known or easy-to-guess passwords for

   2.   Privacy threat: The tracking of a thing's location and usage may
        pose a privacy risk to people around it.  For instance, an
        attacker can infer privacy-sensitive information from the data
        gathered and communicated by individual things.  Such
        information may subsequently be sold to interested parties for
        marketing purposes and targeted advertising.  In extreme cases,
        such information might be used to track dissidents in oppressive
        regimes.  Unlawful surveillance and interception of traffic to/
        from a thing by intelligence agencies is also a privacy threat.

   3.   Cloning of things: During the manufacturing process of a thing,
        an untrusted factory can easily clone the physical
        characteristics, firmware/software, or security configuration of

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                     [Page 8]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

        the thing.  Deployed things might also be compromised and their
        software reverse engineered, allowing for cloning or software
        modifications.  Such a cloned thing may be sold at a cheaper
        price in the market and yet can function normally as a genuine
        thing.  For example, two cloned devices can still be associated
        and work with each other.  In the worst-case scenario, a cloned
        device can be used to control a genuine device or perform an
        attack.  One should note here that an untrusted factory may also
        change functionality of the cloned thing, resulting in degraded
        functionality with respect to the genuine thing (thereby
        inflicting potential damage to the reputation of the original
        thing manufacturer).  Moreover, additional functionality can be
        introduced in the cloned thing.  An example of such
        functionality is a backdoor.

   4.   Malicious substitution of things: During the installation of a
        thing, a genuine thing may be replaced by a similar variant (of
        lower quality) without being detected.  The main motivation may
        be cost savings, where the installation of lower-quality things
        (for example, noncertified products) may significantly reduce
        the installation and operational costs.  The installers can
        subsequently resell the genuine things to gain further financial
        benefits.  Another motivation may be to inflict damage to the
        reputation of a competitor's offerings.

   5.   Eavesdropping attack: During the commissioning of a thing into a
        network, it may be susceptible to eavesdropping, especially if
        operational keying materials, security parameters, or
        configuration settings are exchanged in the clear using a
        wireless medium or if used cryptographic algorithms are not
        suitable for the envisioned lifetime of the device and the
        system.  After obtaining the keying material, the attacker might
        be able to recover the secret keys established between the
        communicating entities, thereby compromising the authenticity
        and confidentiality of the communication channel, as well as the
        authenticity of commands and other traffic exchanged over this
        communication channel.  When the network is in operation, T2T
        communication can be eavesdropped if the communication channel
        is not sufficiently protected or if a session key is compromised
        due to protocol weaknesses.  An adversary may also be able to
        eavesdrop if keys are not renewed or updated appropriately.
        Lastly, messages can also be recorded and decrypted offline at a
        later point of time.  The VENONA project [venona-project] is one
        such example where messages were recorded for offline

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                     [Page 9]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   6.   Man-in-the-middle attack: Both the commissioning and operational
        phases may be vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks.  For
        example, when keying material between communicating entities is
        exchanged in the clear, the security of the key establishment
        protocol depends on the tacit assumption that no third party can
        eavesdrop during the execution of this protocol.  Additionally,
        device authentication or device authorization may be nontrivial
        or need the support of a human decision process, since things
        usually do not have a priori knowledge about each other and
        cannot always differentiate friends and foes via completely
        automated mechanisms.

   7.   Firmware attacks: When a thing is in operation or maintenance
        phase, its firmware or software may be updated to allow for new
        functionality or new features.  An attacker may be able to
        exploit such a firmware upgrade by maliciously replacing the
        thing's firmware, thereby influencing its operational behavior.
        For example, an attacker could add a piece of malicious code to
        the firmware that will cause it to periodically report the
        energy usage of the thing to a data repository for analysis.
        The attacker can then use this information to determine when a
        home or enterprise (where the thing is installed) is unoccupied
        and break in.  Similarly, devices whose software has not been
        properly maintained and updated might contain vulnerabilities
        that might be exploited by attackers to replace the firmware on
        the device.

   8.   Extraction of private information: IoT devices (such as sensors,
        actuators, etc.) are often physically unprotected in their
        ambient environment, and they could easily be captured by an
        attacker.  An attacker with physical access may then attempt to
        extract private information such as keys (for example, a group
        key or the device's private key), data from sensors (for
        example, healthcare status of a user), configuration parameters
        (for example, the Wi-Fi key), or proprietary algorithms (for
        example, the algorithm performing some data analytics task).
        Even when the data originating from a thing is encrypted,
        attackers can perform traffic analysis to deduce meaningful
        information, which might compromise the privacy of the thing's
        owner and/or user.

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 10]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   9.   Routing attack: As highlighted in [Daniel], routing information
        in IoT networks can be spoofed, altered, or replayed, in order
        to create routing loops, attract/repel network traffic, extend/
        shorten source routes, etc.  A nonexhaustive list of routing
        attacks includes:

        a.  Sinkhole attack (or blackhole attack), where an attacker
            declares himself to have a high-quality route/path to the
            base station, thus allowing him to do manipulate all packets
            passing through it.

        b.  Selective forwarding, where an attacker may selectively
            forward packets or simply drop a packet.

        c.  Wormhole attack, where an attacker may record packets at one
            location in the network and tunnel them to another location,
            thereby influencing perceived network behavior and
            potentially distorting statistics, thus greatly impacting
            the functionality of routing.

        d.  Sybil attack, whereby an attacker presents multiple
            identities to other things in the network.  We refer to
            [Daniel] for further router attacks and a more detailed

   10.  Elevation of privilege: An attacker with low privileges can
        misuse additional flaws in the implemented authentication and
        authorization mechanisms of a thing to gain more privileged
        access to the thing and its data.

   11.  Denial of Service (DoS) attack: Often things have very limited
        memory and computation capabilities.  Therefore, they are
        vulnerable to resource-exhaustion attack.  Attackers can
        continuously send requests to specific things so as to deplete
        their resources.  This is especially dangerous in the Internet
        of Things since an attacker might be located in the backend and
        target resource-constrained devices that are part of a
        constrained-node network [RFC7228].  A DoS attack can also be
        launched by physically jamming the communication channel.
        Network availability can also be disrupted by flooding the
        network with a large number of packets.  On the other hand,
        things compromised by attackers can be used to disrupt the
        operation of other networks or systems by means of a Distributed
        DoS (DDoS) attack.

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 11]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   To deal with the above threats, it is required to find and apply
   suitable security mitigations.  However, new threats and exploits
   appear on a daily basis, and products are deployed in different
   environments prone to different types of threats.  Thus, ensuring a
   proper level of security in an IoT system at any point of time is
   challenging.  To address this challenge, some of the following
   methodologies can be used:

   1.  A Business Impact Analysis (BIA) assesses the consequences of the
       loss of basic security attributes: confidentiality, integrity,
       and availability in an IoT system.  These consequences might
       include the impact from lost data, reduced sales, increased
       expenses, regulatory fines, customer dissatisfaction, etc.
       Performing a business impact analysis allows a business to
       determine the relevance of having a proper security design.

   2.  A Risk Assessment (RA) analyzes security threats to an IoT system
       while considering their likelihood and impact.  It also includes
       categorizing each of them with a risk level.  Risks classified as
       moderate or high must be mitigated, i.e., the security
       architecture should be able to deal with those threats.

   3.  A Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) aims at assessing the
       Personally Identifiable Information (PII) that is collected,
       processed, or used in an IoT system.  By doing so, the goal is to
       fulfill applicable legal requirements and determine the risks and
       effects of manipulation and loss of PII.

   4.  Procedures for incident reporting and mitigation refer to the
       methodologies that allow becoming aware of any security issues
       that affect an IoT system.  Furthermore, this includes steps
       towards the actual deployment of patches that mitigate the
       identified vulnerabilities.

   BIA, RA, and PIA should generally be realized during the creation of
   a new IoT system or when deploying significant system/feature
   upgrades.  In general, it is recommended to reassess them on a
   regular basis, taking into account new use cases and/or threats.  The
   way a BIA, RA, or PIA is performed depends on the environment and the
   industry.  More information can be found in NIST documents such as
   [NISTSP800-34r1], [NISTSP800-30r1], and [NISTSP800-122].

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 12]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

4.  State of the Art

   This section is organized as follows.  Section 4.1 summarizes the
   state of the art on IP-based IoT systems, within both the IETF and
   other standardization bodies.  Section 4.2 summarizes the state of
   the art on IP-based security protocols and their usage.  Section 4.3
   discusses guidelines and regulations for securing IoT as proposed by
   other bodies.  Note that the references included in this section are
   a representative of the state of the art at the point of writing, and
   they are by no means exhaustive.  The references are also at varying
   levels of maturity; thus, it is advisable to review their specific

4.1.  IP-Based IoT Protocols and Standards

   Nowadays, there exists a multitude of control protocols for IoT.  For
   BAC systems, the ZigBee standard [ZB], BACNet [BACNET], and DALI
   [DALI] play key roles.  Recent trends, however, focus on an all-IP
   approach for system control.

   In this setting, a number of IETF working groups are designing new
   protocols for resource-constrained networks of smart things.  The
   6LoWPAN Working Group [WG-6LoWPAN], for example, has defined methods
   and protocols for the efficient transmission and adaptation of IPv6
   packets over IEEE 802.15.4 networks [RFC4944].

   The CoRE Working Group [WG-CoRE] has specified the Constrained
   Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252].  CoAP is a RESTful protocol
   for constrained devices that is modeled after HTTP and typically runs
   over UDP to enable efficient application-level communication for
   things.  ("RESTful" refers to the Representational State Transfer
   (REST) architecture.)

   In many smart-object networks, the smart objects are dispersed and
   have intermittent reachability either because of network outages or
   because they sleep during their operational phase to save energy.  In
   such scenarios, direct discovery of resources hosted on the
   constrained server might not be possible.  To overcome this barrier,
   the CoRE Working Group is specifying the concept of a Resource
   Directory (RD) [RD].  The Resource Directory hosts descriptions of
   resources that are located on other nodes.  These resource
   descriptions are specified as CoRE link format [RFC6690].

   While CoAP defines a standard communication protocol, a format for
   representing sensor measurements and parameters over CoAP is
   required.  "Sensor Measurement Lists (SenML)" [RFC8428] is a
   specification that defines media types for simple sensor measurements
   and parameters.  It has a minimalistic design so that constrained

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 13]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   devices with limited computational capabilities can easily encode
   their measurements and, at the same time, servers can efficiently
   collect a large number of measurements.

   In many IoT deployments, the resource-constrained smart objects are
   connected to the Internet via a gateway that is directly reachable.
   For example, an IEEE 802.11 Access Point (AP) typically connects the
   client devices to the Internet over just one wireless hop.  However,
   some deployments of smart-object networks require routing between the
   smart objects themselves.  The IETF has therefore defined the IPv6
   Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) [RFC6550].
   RPL provides support for multipoint-to-point traffic from resource-
   constrained smart objects towards a more resourceful central control
   point, as well as point-to-multipoint traffic in the reverse
   direction.  It also supports point-to-point traffic between the
   resource-constrained devices.  A set of routing metrics and
   constraints for path calculation in RPL are also specified [RFC6551].

   The IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo) Working
   Group of the IETF [WG-6lo] has specified how IPv6 packets can be
   transmitted over various link-layer protocols that are commonly
   employed for resource-constrained smart-object networks.  There is
   also ongoing work to specify IPv6 connectivity for a Non-Broadcast
   Multi-Access (NBMA) mesh network that is formed by IEEE 802.15.4
   Time-Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) links [ARCH-6TiSCH].  Other link-
   layer protocols for which the IETF has specified or is currently
   specifying IPv6 support include Bluetooth [RFC7668], Digital Enhanced
   Cordless Telecommunications (DECT) Ultra Low Energy (ULE) air
   interface [RFC8105], and Near Field Communication (NFC)

   Baker and Meyer [RFC6272] identify which IP protocols can be used in
   smart-grid environments.  They give advice to smart-grid network
   designers on how they can decide on a profile of the Internet
   protocol suite for smart-grid networks.

   The Low Power Wide-Area Network (LPWAN) Working Group [WG-LPWAN] is
   analyzing features, requirements, and solutions to adapt IP-based
   protocols to networks such as LoRa [LoRa], Sigfox [sigfox], NB-IoT
   [NB-IoT], etc.  These networking technologies enable a smart thing to
   run for years on a single coin-cell by relying on a star network
   topology and using optimized radio modulation with frame sizes in the
   order of tens of bytes.  Such networks bring new security challenges,
   since most existing security mechanism do not work well with such
   resource constraints.

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 14]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a lightweight text-
   representation format for structured data [RFC8259].  It is often
   used for transmitting serialized structured data over the network.
   The IETF has defined specifications for encoding cryptographic keys,
   encrypted content, signed content, and claims to be transferred
   between two parties as JSON objects.  They are referred to as JSON
   Web Keys (JWKs) [RFC7517], JSON Web Encryption (JWE) [RFC7516], JSON
   Web Signatures (JWSs) [RFC7515], and JSON Web Token (JWT) [RFC7519].

   An alternative to JSON, Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)
   [RFC7049], is a concise binary data format that is used for
   serialization of structured data.  It is designed for resource-
   constrained nodes, and therefore it aims to provide a fairly small
   message size with minimal implementation code and extensibility
   without the need for version negotiation.  CBOR Object Signing and
   Encryption (COSE) [RFC8152] specifies how to encode cryptographic
   keys, message authentication codes, encrypted content, and signatures
   with CBOR.

   The Light-Weight Implementation Guidance (LWIG) Working Group
   [WG-LWIG] is collecting experiences from implementers of IP stacks in
   constrained devices.  The working group has already produced
   documents such as [RFC7815], which defines how a minimal Internet Key
   Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2) initiator can be implemented.

   The Thing-2-Thing Research Group (T2TRG) [RG-T2TRG] is investigating
   the remaining research issues that need to be addressed to quickly
   turn the vision of IoT into a reality where resource-constrained
   nodes can communicate with each other and with other more capable
   nodes on the Internet.

   Additionally, industry alliances and other standardization bodies are
   creating constrained IP protocol stacks based on the IETF work.  Some
   important examples of this include:

   1.  Thread [Thread]: Specifies the Thread protocol that is intended
       for a variety of IoT devices.  It is an IPv6-based network
       protocol that runs over IEEE 802.15.4.

   2.  Industrial Internet Consortium [IIoT]: The consortium defines
       reference architectures and security frameworks for development,
       adoption, and widespread use of Industrial Internet technologies
       based on existing IETF standards.

   3.  IPSO Alliance (which subsequently merged with OMA SpecWorks
       [OMASpecWorks]): The alliance specifies a common object model
       that enables application software on any device to interoperate
       with other conforming devices.

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 15]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   4.  OneM2M [OneM2M]: The standards body defines technical and API
       specifications for IoT devices.  It aims to create a service
       layer that can run on any IoT device hardware and software.

   5.  Open Connectivity Foundation (OCF) [OCF]: The foundation develops
       standards and certifications primarily for IoT devices that use
       Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) as the application-layer

   6.  Fairhair Alliance [Fairhair]: Specifies an IoT middleware to
       enable a common IP network infrastructure between different
       application standards used in building automation and lighting
       systems such as BACnet, KNX, and ZigBee.

   7.  OMA LwM2M [LWM2M]: OMA Lightweight M2M is a standard from the OMA
       SpecWorks for M2M and IoT device management.  LwM2M relies on
       CoAP as the application-layer protocol and uses a RESTful
       architecture for remote management of IoT devices.

4.2.  Existing IP-Based Security Protocols and Solutions

   There are three main security objectives for IoT networks:

   1.  protecting the IoT network from attackers

   2.  protecting IoT applications and thus the things and users

   3.  protecting the rest of the Internet and other things from attacks
       that use compromised things as an attack platform

   In the context of the IP-based IoT deployments, consideration of
   existing Internet security protocols is important.  There are a wide
   range of specialized as well as general-purpose security solutions
   for the Internet domain, such as IKEv2/IPsec [RFC7296], Transport
   Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8446], Datagram Transport Layer Security
   (DTLS) [RFC6347], Host Identity Protocol (HIP) [RFC7401], PANA
   [RFC5191], Kerberos [RFC4120], Simple Authentication and Security
   Layer (SASL) [RFC4422], and Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)

   TLS provides security for TCP and requires a reliable transport.
   DTLS secures and uses datagram-oriented protocols such as UDP.  Both
   protocols are intentionally kept similar and share the same ideology
   and cipher suites.  The CoAP base specification [RFC7252] provides a
   description of how DTLS can be used for securing CoAP.  It proposes
   three different modes for using DTLS: the PreSharedKey mode, where
   nodes have pre-provisioned keys for initiating a DTLS session with
   another node, RawPublicKey mode, where nodes have asymmetric-key

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 16]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   pairs but no certificates to verify the ownership, and Certificate
   mode, where public keys are certified by a certification authority.
   An IoT implementation profile is defined for TLS version 1.2 and DTLS
   version 1.2 that offers communication security for resource-
   constrained nodes [RFC7925].

   There is ongoing work to define an authorization and access-control
   framework for resource-constrained nodes.  The Authentication and
   Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) Working Group
   [WG-ACE] is defining a solution to allow only authorized access to
   resources that are hosted on a smart-object server and identified by
   a URI.  The current proposal [ACE-OAuth] is based on the OAuth 2.0
   framework [RFC6749], and it comes with profiles intended for
   different communication scenarios, e.g., "Datagram Transport Layer
   Security (DTLS) Profile for Authentication and Authorization for
   Constrained Environments (ACE)" [ACE-DTLS].

   Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (OSCORE)
   [OSCORE] is a proposal that protects CoAP messages by wrapping them
   in the COSE format [RFC8152].  Thus, OSCORE falls in the category of
   object security, and it can be applied wherever CoAP can be used.
   The advantage of OSCORE over DTLS is that it provides some more
   flexibility when dealing with end-to-end security.  Section 5.1.3
   discusses this further.

   The Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) Working Group
   [WG-ACME] is specifying conventions for automated X.509 certificate
   management.  This includes automatic validation of certificate
   issuance, certificate renewal, and certificate revocation.  While the
   initial focus of the working group is on domain-name certificates (as
   used by web servers), other uses in some IoT deployments are

   The Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2)/IPsec -- as well as the less used
   Host Identity protocol (HIP) -- reside at or above the network layer
   in the OSI model.  Both protocols are able to perform an
   authenticated key exchange and set up the IPsec for secure payload
   delivery.  Currently, there are also ongoing efforts to create a HIP
   variant coined Diet HIP [HIP-DEX] that takes constrained networks and
   nodes into account at the authentication and key-exchange level.

   Migault et al. [Diet-ESP] are working on a compressed version of
   IPsec so that it can easily be used by resource-constrained IoT
   devices.  They rely on the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
   (IKEv2) for negotiating the compression format.

   The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) [RFC3748] is an
   authentication framework supporting multiple authentication methods.

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 17]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   EAP runs directly over the data link layer and thus does not require
   the deployment of IP.  It supports duplicate detection and
   retransmission but does not allow for packet fragmentation.  PANA is
   a network-layer transport for EAP that enables network access
   authentication between clients and the network infrastructure.  In
   EAP terms, PANA is a UDP-based EAP lower layer that runs between the
   EAP peer and the EAP authenticator.

4.3.  IoT Security Guidelines

   Attacks on and from IoT devices have become common in recent years --
   for instance, large-scale DoS attacks on the Internet Infrastructure
   from compromised IoT devices.  This fact has prompted many different
   standards bodies and consortia to provide guidelines for developers
   and the Internet community at large to build secure IoT devices and
   services.  The following is a subset of the different guidelines and
   ongoing projects:

   1.   Global System for Mobile Communications Association (GSMA) IoT
        security guidelines [GSMAsecurity]: GSMA has published a set of
        security guidelines for the benefit of new IoT product and
        service providers.  The guidelines are aimed at device
        manufacturers, service providers, developers, and network
        operators.  An enterprise can complete an IoT Security Self-
        Assessment to demonstrate that its products and services are
        aligned with the security guidelines of the GSMA.

   2.   Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group (BITAG) IoT Security
        and Privacy Recommendations [BITAG]: BITAG has published
        recommendations for ensuring the security and privacy of IoT
        device users.  BITAG observes that many IoT devices are shipped
        from the factory with software that is already outdated and
        vulnerable.  The report also states that many devices with
        vulnerabilities will not be fixed, either because the
        manufacturer does not provide updates or because the user does
        not apply them.  The recommendations include that IoT devices
        should function without cloud and Internet connectivity and that
        all IoT devices should have methods for automatic secure
        software updates.

   3.   United Kingdom Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
        (DCMS) [DCMS]: UK DCMS has released a report that includes a
        list of 13 steps for improving IoT security.  These steps, for
        example, highlight the need for implementing a vulnerability
        disclosure policy and keeping software updated.  The report is
        aimed at device manufacturers, IoT service providers, mobile
        application developers, and retailers.

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 18]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   4.   Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) New Security Guidance for Early
        Adopters of the IoT [CSA]: CSA recommendations for early
        adopters of IoT encourage enterprises to implement security at
        different layers of the protocol stack.  It also recommends
        implementation of an authentication/authorization framework for
        IoT deployments.  A complete list of recommendations is
        available in the report [CSA].

   5.   United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) [DHS]: DHS
        has put forth six strategic principles that would enable IoT
        developers, manufacturers, service providers, and consumers to
        maintain security as they develop, manufacture, implement, or
        use network-connected IoT devices.

   6.   National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
        [NIST-Guide]: The NIST special publication urges enterprise and
        US federal agencies to address security throughout the systems
        engineering process.  The publication builds upon the
        International Organization for Standardization
        (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 15288
        standard and augments each process in the system lifecycle with
        security enhancements.

   7.   National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
        [NIST-LW-PROJECT] [NIST-LW-2016]: NIST is running a project on
        lightweight cryptography with the purpose of: (i) identifying
        application areas for which standard cryptographic algorithms
        are too heavy, classifying them according to some application
        profiles to be determined; (ii) determining limitations in those
        existing cryptographic standards; and (iii) standardizing
        lightweight algorithms that can be used in specific application

   8.   Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP) [OWASP]: OWASP
        provides security guidance for IoT manufacturers, developers,
        and consumers.  OWASP also includes guidelines for those who
        intend to test and analyze IoT devices and applications.

   9.   IoT Security Foundation [IoTSecFoundation]: The IoT Security
        Foundation has published a document that enlists various
        considerations that need to be taken into account when
        developing IoT applications.  For example, the document states
        that IoT devices could use a hardware root of trust to ensure
        that only authorized software runs on the devices.

   10.  National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) [NHTSA]:
        The US NHTSA provides guidance to the automotive industry for
        improving the cyber security of vehicles.  While some of the

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 19]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

        guidelines are general, the document provides specific
        recommendations for the automotive industry, such as how various
        automotive manufacturers can share cybersecurity vulnerabilities

   11.  "Best Current Practices for Securing Internet of Things (IoT)
        Devices" [Moore]: This document provides a list of minimum
        requirements that vendors of IoT devices should to take into
        account while developing applications, services, and firmware
        updates in order to reduce the frequency and severity of
        security incidents that arise from compromised IoT devices.

   12.  European Union Agency for Network and Information Security
        (ENISA) [ENISA-ICS]: ENISA published a document on
        communication-network dependencies for Industrial Control
        Systems (ICS)/Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA)
        systems in which security vulnerabilities, guidelines, and
        general recommendations are summarized.

   13.  Internet Society Online Trust Alliance [ISOC-OTA]: The Internet
        Society's IoT Trust Framework identifies the core requirements
        that manufacturers, service providers, distributors, purchasers,
        and policymakers need to understand, assess, and embrace for
        effective security and privacy as part of the Internet of

   Other guideline and recommendation documents may exist or may later
   be published.  This list should be considered nonexhaustive.  Despite
   the acknowledgment that security in the Internet is needed and the
   existence of multiple guidelines, the fact is that many IoT devices
   and systems have very limited security.  There are multiple reasons
   for this.  For instance, some manufacturers focus on delivering a
   product without paying enough attention to security.  This may be
   because of lack of expertise or limited budget.  However, the
   deployment of such insecure devices poses a severe threat to the
   privacy and safety of users.  The vast number of devices and their
   inherently mobile nature also imply that an initially secure system
   can become insecure if a compromised device gains access to the
   system at some point in time.  Even if all other devices in a given
   environment are secure, this does not prevent external attacks caused
   by insecure devices.  Recently, the US Federal Communications
   Commission (FCC) has stated the need for additional regulation of IoT
   systems [FCC].  It is possible that we may see other such regional
   regulations in the future.

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 20]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

5.  Challenges for a Secure IoT

   In this section, we take a closer look at the various security
   challenges in the operational and technical features of IoT and then
   discuss how existing Internet security protocols cope with these
   technical and conceptual challenges through the lifecycle of a thing.
   This discussion should not be understood as a comprehensive
   evaluation of all protocols, nor can it cover all possible aspects of
   IoT security.  Yet, it aims at showing concrete limitations and
   challenges in some IoT design areas rather than giving an abstract
   discussion.  In this regard, the discussion handles issues that are
   most important from the authors' perspectives.

5.1.  Constraints and Heterogeneous Communication

   Coupling resource-constrained networks and the powerful Internet is a
   challenge, because the resulting heterogeneity of both networks
   complicates protocol design and system operation.  In the following
   subsections, we briefly discuss the resource constraints of IoT
   devices and the consequences for the use of Internet protocols in the
   IoT domain.

5.1.1.  Resource Constraints

   IoT deployments are often characterized by lossy and low-bandwidth
   communication channels.  IoT devices are also often constrained in
   terms of the CPU, memory, and energy budget available [RFC7228].
   These characteristics directly impact the design of protocols for the
   IoT domain.  For instance, small packet-size limits at the physical
   layer (127 Bytes in IEEE 802.15.4) can lead to (i) hop-by-hop
   fragmentation and reassembly or (ii) small IP-layer maximum
   transmission unit (MTU).  In the first case, excessive fragmentation
   of large packets that are often required by security protocols may
   open new attack vectors for state-exhaustion attacks.  The second
   case might lead to more fragmentation at the IP layer, which commonly
   downgrades the overall system performance due to packet loss and the
   need for retransmission.

   The size and number of messages should be minimized to reduce memory
   requirements and optimize bandwidth usage.  In this context, layered
   approaches involving a number of protocols might lead to worse
   performance in resource-constrained devices since they combine the
   headers of the different protocols.  In some settings, protocol
   negotiation can increase the number of exchanged messages.  To
   improve performance during basic procedures such as, for example,
   bootstrapping, it might be a good strategy to perform those
   procedures at a lower layer.

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 21]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   Small CPUs and scarce memory limit the usage of resource-expensive
   cryptographic primitives such as public key cryptography as used in
   most Internet security standards.  This is especially true if the
   basic cryptographic blocks need to be frequently used or the
   underlying application demands low delay.

   There are ongoing efforts to reduce the resource consumption of
   security protocols by using more efficient underlying cryptographic
   primitives such as Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) [RFC8446].  The
   specification of elliptic curve X25519 [ecc25519], stream ciphers
   such as ChaCha [ChaCha], Diet HIP [HIP-DEX], and ECC groups for IKEv2
   [RFC5903] are all examples of efforts to make security protocols more
   resource efficient.  Additionally, most modern security protocols
   have been revised in the last few years to enable cryptographic
   agility, making cryptographic primitives interchangeable.  However,
   these improvements are only a first step in reducing the computation
   and communication overhead of Internet protocols.  The question
   remains if other approaches can be applied to leverage key agreement
   in these heavily resource-constrained environments.

   A further fundamental need refers to the limited energy budget
   available to IoT nodes.  Careful protocol (re)design and usage are
   required to reduce not only the energy consumption during normal
   operation but also under DoS attacks.  Since the energy consumption
   of IoT devices differs from other device classes, judgments on the
   energy consumption of a particular protocol cannot be made without
   tailor-made IoT implementations.

5.1.2.  Denial-of-Service Resistance

   The tight memory and processing constraints of things naturally
   alleviate resource-exhaustion attacks.  Especially in unattended T2T
   communication, such attacks are difficult to notice before the
   service becomes unavailable (for example, because of battery or
   memory exhaustion).  As a DoS countermeasure, DTLS, IKEv2, HIP, and
   Diet HIP implement return routability checks based on a cookie
   mechanism to delay the establishment of state at the responding host
   until the address of the initiating host is verified.  The
   effectiveness of these defenses strongly depends on the routing
   topology of the network.  Return routability checks are particularly
   effective if hosts cannot receive packets addressed to other hosts
   and if IP addresses present meaningful information as is the case in
   today's Internet.  However, they are less effective in broadcast
   media or when attackers can influence the routing and addressing of
   hosts (for example, if hosts contribute to the routing infrastructure
   in ad hoc networks and meshes).

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 22]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   In addition, HIP implements a puzzle mechanism that can force the
   initiator of a connection (and potential attacker) to solve
   cryptographic puzzles with variable difficulties.  Puzzle-based
   defense mechanisms are less dependent on the network topology but
   perform poorly if CPU resources in the network are heterogeneous (for
   example, if a powerful Internet host attacks a thing).  Increasing
   the puzzle difficulty under attack conditions can easily lead to
   situations where a powerful attacker can still solve the puzzle while
   weak IoT clients cannot and are excluded from communicating with the
   victim.  Still, puzzle-based approaches are a viable option for
   sheltering IoT devices against unintended overload caused by
   misconfiguration or malfunctioning things.

5.1.3.  End-to-End Security, Protocol Translation, and the Role of

   The term "end-to-end security" often has multiple interpretations.
   Here, we consider end-to-end security in the context of end-to-end IP
   connectivity from a sender to a receiver.  Services such as
   confidentiality and integrity protection on packet data, message
   authentication codes, or encryption are typically used to provide
   end-to-end security.  These protection methods render the protected
   parts of the packets immutable as rewriting is either not possible
   because (i) the relevant information is encrypted and inaccessible to
   the gateway or (ii) rewriting integrity-protected parts of the packet
   would invalidate the end-to-end integrity protection.

   Protocols for constrained IoT networks are not exactly identical to
   their larger Internet counterparts, for efficiency and performance
   reasons.  Hence, more or less subtle differences between protocols
   for constrained IoT networks and Internet protocols will remain.
   While these differences can be bridged with protocol translators at
   middleboxes, they may become major obstacles if end-to-end security
   measures between IoT devices and Internet hosts are needed.

   If access to data or messages by the middleboxes is required or
   acceptable, then a diverse set of approaches for handling such a
   scenario is available.  Note that some of these approaches affect the
   meaning of end-to-end security in terms of integrity and
   confidentiality, since the middleboxes will be able to either decrypt
   or partially modify the exchanged messages:

   1.  Sharing credentials with middleboxes enables them to transform
       (for example, decompress, convert, etc.) packets and reapply the
       security measures after transformation.  This method abandons
       end-to-end security and is only applicable to simple scenarios
       with a rudimentary security model.

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 23]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   2.  Reusing the Internet wire format for IoT makes conversion between
       IoT and Internet protocols unnecessary.  However, it can lead to
       poor performance in some use cases because IoT-specific
       optimizations (for example, stateful or stateless compression)
       are not possible.

   3.  Selectively protecting vital and immutable packet parts with a
       message authentication code or encryption requires a careful
       balance between performance and security.  Otherwise, this
       approach might either result in poor performance or poor
       security, depending on which parts are selected for protection,
       where they are located in the original packet, and how they are
       processed.  [OSCORE] proposes a solution in this direction by
       encrypting and integrity protecting most of the message fields
       except those parts that a middlebox needs to read or change.

   4.  Homomorphic encryption techniques can be used in the middlebox to
       perform certain operations.  However, this is limited to data
       processing involving arithmetic operations.  Furthermore, the
       performance of existing libraries -- for example, Microsoft SEAL
       [SEAL] -- is still too limited, and homomorphic encryption
       techniques are not widely applicable yet.

   5.  Message authentication codes that sustain transformation can be
       realized by considering the order of transformation and
       protection (for example, by creating a signature before
       compression so that the gateway can decompress the packet without
       recalculating the signature).  Such an approach enables IoT-
       specific optimizations but is more complex and may require
       application-specific transformations before security is applied.
       Moreover, the usage of encrypted or integrity-protected data
       prevents middleboxes from transforming packets.

   6.  Mechanisms based on object security can bridge the protocol
       worlds but still require that the two worlds use the same object-
       security formats.  Currently, the object-security format based on
       COSE [RFC8152] is different from JSON Object Signing and
       Encryption (JOSE) [RFC7520] or Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
       [RFC5652].  Legacy devices relying on traditional Internet
       protocols will need to update to the newer protocols for
       constrained environments to enable real end-to-end security.
       Furthermore, middleboxes do not have any access to the data, and
       this approach does not prevent an attacker who is capable of
       modifying relevant message header fields that are not protected.

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 24]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   To the best of our knowledge, none of the mentioned security
   approaches that focus on the confidentiality and integrity of the
   communication exchange between two IP endpoints provide the perfect
   solution in this problem space.

5.1.4.  New Network Architectures and Paradigm

   There is a multitude of new link-layer protocols that aim to address
   the resource-constrained nature of IoT devices.  For example, IEEE
   802.11ah [IEEE802ah] has been specified for extended range and lower
   energy consumption to support IoT devices.  Similarly, LPWAN
   protocols such as LoRa [LoRa], Sigfox [sigfox], and NarrowBand IoT
   (NB-IoT) [NB-IoT] are all designed for resource-constrained devices
   that require long range and low bit rates.  [RFC8376] provides an
   informational overview of the set of LPWAN technologies being
   considered by the IETF.  It also identifies the potential gaps that
   exist between the needs of those technologies and the goal of running
   IP in such networks.  While these protocols allow IoT devices to
   conserve energy and operate efficiently, they also add additional
   security challenges.  For example, the relatively small MTU can make
   security handshakes with large X509 certificates a significant
   overhead.  At the same time, new communication paradigms also allow
   IoT devices to communicate directly amongst themselves with or
   without support from the network.  This communication paradigm is
   also referred to as Device-to-Device (D2D), Machine-to-Machine (M2M),
   or Thing-to-Thing (T2T) communication, and it is motivated by a
   number of features such as improved network performance, lower
   latency, and lower energy requirements.

5.2.  Bootstrapping of a Security Domain

   Creating a security domain from a set of previously unassociated IoT
   devices is a key operation in the lifecycle of a thing in an IoT
   network.  This aspect is further elaborated and discussed in the
   T2TRG draft on bootstrapping [BOOTSTRAP].

5.3.  Operational Challenges

   After the bootstrapping phase, the system enters the operational
   phase.  During the operational phase, things can use the state
   information created during the bootstrapping phase in order to
   exchange information securely.  In this section, we discuss the
   security challenges during the operational phase.  Note that many of
   the challenges discussed in Section 5.1 apply during the operational

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 25]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

5.3.1.  Group Membership and Security

   Group-key negotiation is an important security service for IoT
   communication patterns in which a thing sends some data to multiple
   things or data flows from multiple things towards a thing.  All
   discussed protocols only cover unicast communication and therefore do
   not focus on group-key establishment.  This applies in particular to
   (D)TLS and IKEv2.  Thus, a solution is required in this area.  A
   potential solution might be to use the Diffie-Hellman keys -- which
   are used in IKEv2 and HIP to set up a secure unicast link -- for
   group Diffie-Hellman key negotiations.  However, Diffie-Hellman is a
   relatively heavy solution, especially if the group is large.

   Symmetric and asymmetric keys can be used in group communication.
   Asymmetric keys have the advantage that they can provide source
   authentication.  However, doing broadcast encryption with a single
   public/private key pair is also not feasible.  Although a single
   symmetric key can be used to encrypt the communication or compute a
   message authentication code, it has inherent risks since the capture
   of a single node can compromise the key shared throughout the
   network.  The usage of symmetric keys also does not provide source
   authentication.  Another factor to consider is that asymmetric
   cryptography is more resource-intensive than symmetric key solutions.
   Thus, the security risks and performance trade-offs of applying
   either symmetric or asymmetric keys to a given IoT use case need to
   be well analyzed according to risk and usability assessments
   [RFC8387].  [MULTICAST] is looking at a combination of
   confidentiality using a group key and source authentication using
   public keys in the same packet.

   Conceptually, solutions that provide secure group communication at
   the network layer (IPsec/IKEv2, HIP/Diet HIP) may have an advantage
   in terms of the cryptographic overhead when compared to application-
   focused security solutions (TLS/DTLS).  This is due to the fact that
   application-focused solutions require cryptographic operations per
   group application, whereas network-layer approaches may allow sharing
   secure group associations between multiple applications (for example,
   for neighbor discovery and routing or service discovery).  Hence,
   implementing shared features lower in the communication stack can
   avoid redundant security measures.  However, it is important to note
   that sharing security contexts among different applications involves
   potential security threats, e.g., if one of the applications is
   malicious and monitors exchanged messages or injects fake messages.
   In the case of OSCORE, it provides security for CoAP group
   communication as defined in RFC 7390, i.e., based on multicast IP.
   If the same security association is reused for each application, then
   this solution does not seem to have more cryptographic overhead
   compared to IPsec.

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 26]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   Several group-key solutions have been developed by the MSEC Working
   Group of the IETF [WG-MSEC].  The MIKEY architecture [RFC4738] is one
   example.  While these solutions are specifically tailored for
   multicast and group-broadcast applications in the Internet, they
   should also be considered as candidate solutions for group-key
   agreement in IoT.  The MIKEY architecture, for example, describes a
   coordinator entity that disseminates symmetric keys over pair-wise
   end-to-end secured channels.  However, such a centralized approach
   may not be applicable in a distributed IoT environment, where the
   choice of one or several coordinators and the management of the group
   key is not trivial.

5.3.2.  Mobility and IP Network Dynamics

   It is expected that many things (for example, user devices and
   wearable sensors) will be mobile in the sense that they are attached
   to different networks during the lifetime of a security association.
   Built-in mobility signaling can greatly reduce the overhead of the
   cryptographic protocols because unnecessary and costly re-
   establishments of the session (possibly including handshake and key
   agreement) can be avoided.  IKEv2 supports host mobility with the
   MOBIKE extension [RFC4555] [RFC4621].  MOBIKE refrains from applying
   heavyweight cryptographic extensions for mobility.  However, MOBIKE
   mandates the use of IPsec tunnel mode, which requires the
   transmission of an additional IP header in each packet.

   HIP offers simple yet effective mobility management by allowing hosts
   to signal changes to their associations [RFC8046].  However, slight
   adjustments might be necessary to reduce the cryptographic costs --
   for example, by making the public key signatures in the mobility
   messages optional.  Diet HIP does not define mobility yet, but it is
   sufficiently similar to HIP and can use the same mechanisms.  DTLS
   provides some mobility support by relying on a connection ID (CID).
   The use of connection IDs can provide all the mobility functionality
   described in [Williams] except sending the updated location.  The
   specific need for IP-layer mobility mainly depends on the scenario in
   which the nodes operate.  In many cases, mobility supported by means
   of a mobile gateway may suffice to enable mobile IoT networks, such
   as body-sensor networks.  Using message-based application-layer
   security solutions such as OSCORE [OSCORE] can also alleviate the
   problem of re-establishing lower-layer sessions for mobile nodes.

5.4.  Secure Software Update and Cryptographic Agility

   IoT devices are often expected to stay functional for several years
   or decades, even though they might operate unattended with direct
   Internet connectivity.  Software updates for IoT devices are
   therefore required not only for new functionality but also to

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 27]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   eliminate security vulnerabilities due to software bugs, design
   flaws, or deprecated algorithms.  Software bugs might remain even
   after careful code review.  Implementations of security protocols
   might contain (design) flaws.  Cryptographic algorithms can also
   become insecure due to advances in cryptanalysis.  Therefore, it is
   necessary that devices that are incapable of verifying a
   cryptographic signature are not exposed to the Internet, even

   In his essay, Schneier highlights several challenges that hinder
   mechanisms for secure software update of IoT devices
   [SchneierSecurity].  First, there is a lack of incentives for
   manufacturers, vendors, and others on the supply chain to issue
   updates for their devices.  Second, parts of the software running on
   IoT devices is simply a binary blob without any source code
   available.  Since the complete source code is not available, no
   patches can be written for that piece of code.  Lastly, Schneier
   points out that even when updates are available, users generally have
   to manually download and install them.  However, users are never
   alerted about security updates, and many times do not have the
   necessary expertise to manually administer the required updates.

   The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) staff report on "Internet of
   Things - Privacy & Security in a Connected World" [FTCreport] and the
   Article 29 Working Party's "Opinion 8/2014 on the Recent Developments
   on the Internet of Things" [Article29] also document the challenges
   for secure remote software update of IoT devices.  They note that
   even providing such a software-update capability may add new
   vulnerabilities for constrained devices.  For example, a buffer
   overflow vulnerability in the implementation of a software update
   protocol (TR69) [TR69] and an expired certificate in a hub device
   [wink] demonstrate how the software-update process itself can
   introduce vulnerabilities.

   Powerful IoT devices that run general-purpose operating systems can
   make use of sophisticated software-update mechanisms known from the
   desktop world.  However, resource-constrained devices typically do
   not have any operating system and are often not equipped with a
   memory management unit or similar tools.  Therefore, they might
   require more specialized solutions.

   An important requirement for secure software and firmware updates is
   source authentication.  Source authentication requires the resource-
   constrained things to implement public key signature verification
   algorithms.  As stated in Section 5.1.1, resource-constrained things
   have limited computational capabilities and energy supply available,
   which can hinder the amount and frequency of cryptographic processing
   that they can perform.  In addition to source authentication,

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 28]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   software updates might require confidential delivery over a secure
   (encrypted) channel.  The complexity of broadcast encryption can
   force the usage of point-to-point secure links; however, this
   increases the duration of a software update in a large system.
   Alternatively, it may force the usage of solutions in which the
   software update is delivered to a gateway and then distributed to the
   rest of the system with a network key.  Sending large amounts of data
   that later needs to be assembled and verified over a secure channel
   can consume a lot of energy and computational resources.  Correct
   scheduling of the software updates is also a crucial design
   challenge.  For example, a user of connected light bulbs would not
   want them to update and restart at night.  More importantly, the user
   would not want all the lights to update at the same time.

   Software updates in IoT systems are also needed to update old and
   insecure cryptographic primitives.  However, many IoT systems, some
   of which are already deployed, are not designed with provisions for
   cryptographic agility.  For example, many devices come with a
   wireless radio that has an AES128 hardware coprocessor.  These
   devices solely rely on the coprocessor for encrypting and
   authenticating messages.  A software update adding support for new
   cryptographic algorithms implemented solely in software might not fit
   on these devices due to limited memory, or might drastically hinder
   its operational performance.  This can lead to the use of old and
   insecure software.  Therefore, it is important to account for the
   fact that cryptographic algorithms would need to be updated and
   consider the following when planning for cryptographic agility:

   1.  Would it be secure to use the existing cryptographic algorithms
       available on the device for updating with new cryptographic
       algorithms that are more secure?

   2.  Will the new software-based implementation fit on the device
       given the limited resources?

   3.  Would the normal operation of existing IoT applications on the
       device be severely hindered by the update?

   Finally, we would like to highlight the previous and ongoing work in
   the area of secure software and firmware updates at the IETF.
   [RFC4108] describes how Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) [RFC5652]
   can be used to protect firmware packages.  The IAB has also organized
   a workshop to understand the challenges for secure software update of
   IoT devices.  A summary of the recommendations to the standards
   community derived from the discussions during that workshop have been
   documented [RFC8240].  A working group called Software Updates for
   Internet of Things (SUIT) [WG-SUIT] is currently working on a new
   specification to reflect the best current practices for firmware

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 29]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   update based on experience from IoT deployments.  It is specifically
   working on describing an IoT firmware update architecture and
   specifying a manifest format that contains metadata about the
   firmware update package.  Finally, the Trusted Execution Environment
   Provisioning Working Group [WG-TEEP] aims at developing a protocol
   for lifecycle management of trusted applications running on the
   secure area of a processor (Trusted Execution Environment (TEE)).

5.5.  End-of-Life

   Like all commercial devices, IoT devices have a given useful
   lifetime.  The term "end-of-life" (EOL) is used by vendors or network
   operators to indicate the point of time at which they limit or end
   support for the IoT device.  This may be planned or unplanned (for
   example, when the manufacturer goes bankrupt, the vendor just decides
   to abandon a product, or a network operator moves to a different type
   of networking technology).  A user should still be able to use and
   perhaps even update the device.  This requires for some form of
   authorization handover.

   Although this may seem far-fetched given the commercial interests and
   market dynamics, we have examples from the mobile world where the
   devices have been functional and up to date long after the original
   vendor stopped supporting the device.  CyanogenMod for Android
   devices and OpenWrt for home routers are two such instances where
   users have been able to use and update their devices even after the
   official EOL.  Admittedly, it is not easy for an average user to
   install and configure their devices on their own.  With the
   deployment of millions of IoT devices, simpler mechanisms are needed
   to allow users to add new trust anchors [RFC6024] and install
   software and firmware from other sources once the device is EOL.

5.6.  Verifying Device Behavior

   Users using new IoT appliances such as Internet-connected smart
   televisions, speakers, and cameras are often unaware that these
   devices can undermine their privacy.  Recent revelations have shown
   that many IoT device vendors have been collecting sensitive private
   data through these connected appliances with or without appropriate
   user warnings [cctv].

   An IoT device's user/owner would like to monitor and verify its
   operational behavior.  For instance, the user might want to know if
   the device is connecting to the server of the manufacturer for any
   reason.  This feature -- connecting to the manufacturer's server --
   may be necessary in some scenarios, such as during the initial
   configuration of the device.  However, the user should be kept aware

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 30]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   of the data that the device is sending back to the vendor.  For
   example, the user might want to know if his/her TV is sending data
   when he/she inserts a new USB stick.

   Providing such information to the users in an understandable fashion
   is challenging.  This is because IoT devices are not only resource
   constrained in terms of their computational capability but also in
   terms of the user interface available.  Also, the network
   infrastructure where these devices are deployed will vary
   significantly from one user environment to another.  Therefore, where
   and how this monitoring feature is implemented still remains an open

   Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) files [RFC8520] are perhaps a
   first step towards implementation of such a monitoring service.  The
   idea behind MUD files is relatively simple: IoT devices would
   disclose the location of their MUD file to the network during
   installation.  The network can then retrieve those files and learn
   about the intended behavior of the devices stated by the device
   manufacturer.  A network-monitoring service could then warn the user/
   owner of devices if they don't behave as expected.

   Many devices and software services that automatically learn and
   monitor the behavior of different IoT devices in a given network are
   commercially available.  Such monitoring devices/services can be
   configured by the user to limit network traffic and trigger alarms
   when unexpected operation of IoT devices is detected.

5.7.  Testing: Bug Hunting and Vulnerabilities

   Given that IoT devices often have inadvertent vulnerabilities, both
   users and developers would want to perform extensive testing on their
   IoT devices, networks, and systems.  Nonetheless, since the devices
   are resource constrained and manufactured by multiple vendors, some
   of them very small, devices might be shipped with very limited
   testing, so that bugs can remain and can be exploited at a later
   stage.  This leads to two main types of challenges:

   1.  It remains to be seen how the software-testing and quality-
       assurance mechanisms used from the desktop and mobile world will
       be applied to IoT devices to give end users the confidence that
       the purchased devices are robust.  Bodies such as the European
       Cyber Security Organization (ECSO) [ECSO] are working on
       processes for security certification of IoT devices.

   2.  It is also an open question how the combination of devices from
       multiple vendors might actually lead to dangerous network
       configurations -- for example, if the combination of specific

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 31]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

       devices can trigger unexpected behavior.  It is needless to say
       that the security of the whole system is limited by its weakest

5.8.  Quantum-Resistance

   Many IoT systems that are being deployed today will remain
   operational for many years.  With the advancements made in the field
   of quantum computers, it is possible that large-scale quantum
   computers will be available in the future for performing
   cryptanalysis on existing cryptographic algorithms and cipher suites.
   If this happens, it will have two consequences.  First,
   functionalities enabled by means of primitives such as RSA or ECC --
   namely, key exchange, public key encryption, and signature -- would
   not be secure anymore due to Shor's algorithm.  Second, the security
   level of symmetric algorithms will decrease, for example, the
   security of a block cipher with a key size of b bits will only offer
   b/2 bits of security due to Grover's algorithm.

   The above scenario becomes more urgent when we consider the so-called
   "harvest and decrypt" attack in which an attacker can start to
   harvest (store) encrypted data today, before a quantum computer is
   available, and decrypt it years later, once a quantum computer is
   available.  Such "harvest and decrypt" attacks are not new and were
   used in the VENONA project [venona-project].  Many IoT devices that
   are being deployed today will remain operational for a decade or even
   longer.  During this time, digital signatures used to sign software
   updates might become obsolete, making the secure update of IoT
   devices challenging.

   This situation would require us to move to quantum-resistant
   alternatives -- in particular, for those functionalities involving
   key exchange, public key encryption, and signatures.  [C2PQ]
   describes when quantum computers may become widely available and what
   steps are necessary for transitioning to cryptographic algorithms
   that provide security even in the presence of quantum computers.
   While future planning is hard, it may be a necessity in certain
   critical IoT deployments that are expected to last decades or more.
   Although increasing the key size of the different algorithms is
   definitely an option, it would also incur additional computational
   overhead and network traffic.  This would be undesirable in most
   scenarios.  There have been recent advancements in quantum-resistant
   cryptography.  We refer to [ETSI-GR-QSC-001] for an extensive
   overview of existing quantum-resistant cryptography, and [RFC7696]
   provides guidelines for cryptographic algorithm agility.

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 32]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

5.9.  Privacy Protection

   People will eventually be surrounded by hundreds of connected IoT
   devices.  Even if the communication links are encrypted and
   protected, information about people might still be collected or
   processed for different purposes.  The fact that IoT devices in the
   vicinity of people might enable more pervasive monitoring can
   negatively impact their privacy.  For instance, imagine the scenario
   where a static presence sensor emits a packet due to the presence or
   absence of people in its vicinity.  In such a scenario, anyone who
   can observe the packet can gather critical privacy-sensitive

   Such information about people is referred to as personal data in the
   European Union (EU) or Personally identifiable information (PII) in
   the US.  In particular, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
   [GDPR] defines personal data as: "any information relating to an
   identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an
   identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or
   indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a
   name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier
   or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological,
   genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that
   natural person".

   Ziegeldorf [Ziegeldorf] defines privacy in IoT as a threefold

   1.  Awareness of the privacy risks imposed by IoT devices and
       services.  This awareness is achieved by means of transparent
       practices by the data controller, i.e., the entity that is
       providing IoT devices and/or services.

   2.  Individual control over the collection and processing of personal
       information by IoT devices and services.

   3.  Awareness and control of the subsequent use and dissemination of
       personal information by data controllers to any entity outside
       the subject's personal control sphere.  This point implies that
       the data controller must be accountable for its actions on the
       personal information.

   Based on this definition, several threats to the privacy of users
   have been documented [Ziegeldorf] [RFC6973], in particular
   considering the IoT environment and its lifecycle:

   1.  Identification - refers to the identification of the users, their
       IoT devices, and generated data.

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 33]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   2.  Localization - relates to the capability of locating a user and
       even tracking them, e.g., by tracking MAC addresses in Wi-Fi or

   3.  Profiling - is about creating a profile of the user and their

   4.  Interaction - occurs when a user has been profiled and a given
       interaction is preferred, presenting (for example, visually) some
       information that discloses private information.

   5.  Lifecycle transitions - take place when devices are, for example,
       sold without properly removing private data.

   6.  Inventory attacks - happen if specific information about IoT
       devices in possession of a user is disclosed.

   7.  Linkage - is about when information of two of more IoT systems
       (or other data sets) is combined so that a broader view of the
       personal data captured can be created.

   When IoT systems are deployed, the above issues should be considered
   to ensure that private data remains private.  These issues are
   particularly challenging in environments in which multiple users with
   different privacy preferences interact with the same IoT devices.
   For example, an IoT device controlled by user A (low privacy
   settings) might leak private information about another user B (high
   privacy settings).  How to deal with these threats in practice is an
   area of ongoing research.

5.10.  Reverse-Engineering Considerations

   Many IoT devices are resource constrained and often deployed in
   unattended environments.  Some of these devices can also be purchased
   off the shelf or online without any credential-provisioning process.
   Therefore, an attacker can have direct access to the device and apply
   advanced techniques to retrieve information that a traditional black-
   box model does not consider.  Examples of those techniques are side-
   channel attacks or code disassembly.  By doing this, the attacker can
   try to retrieve data such as:

   1.  Long-term keys.  These long-term keys can be extracted by means
       of a side-channel attack or reverse engineering.  If these keys
       are exposed, then they might be used to perform attacks on
       devices deployed in other locations.

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 34]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   2.  Source code.  Extraction of source code might allow the attacker
       to determine bugs or find exploits to perform other types of
       attacks.  The attacker might also just sell the source code.

   3.  Proprietary algorithms.  The attacker can analyze these
       algorithms gaining valuable know-how.  The attacker can also
       create copies of the product (based on those proprietary
       algorithms) or modify the algorithms to perform more advanced

   4.  Configuration or personal data.  The attacker might be able to
       read personal data, e.g., healthcare data, that has been stored
       on a device.

   One existing solution to prevent such data leaks is the use of a
   secure element, a tamper-resistant device that is capable of securely
   hosting applications and their confidential data.  Another potential
   solution is the usage of a Physical Unclonable Function (PUF) that
   serves as unique digital fingerprint of a hardware device.  PUFs can
   also enable other functionalities such as secure key storage.
   Protection against such data leakage patterns is not trivial since
   devices are inherently resource-constrained.  An open question is
   whether there are any viable techniques to protect IoT devices and
   the data in the devices in such an adversarial model.

5.11.  Trustworthy IoT Operation

   Flaws in the design and implementation of IoT devices and networks
   can lead to security vulnerabilities.  A common flaw is the use of
   well-known or easy-to-guess passwords for configuration of IoT
   devices.  Many such compromised IoT devices can be found on the
   Internet by means of tools such as Shodan [shodan].  Once discovered,
   these compromised devices can be exploited at scale -- for example,
   to launch DDoS attacks.  Dyn, a major DNS service provider, was
   attacked by means of a DDoS attack originating from a large IoT
   botnet composed of thousands of compromised IP cameras [Dyn-Attack].
   There are several open research questions in this area:

   1.  How to avoid vulnerabilities in IoT devices that can lead to
       large-scale attacks?

   2.  How to detect sophisticated attacks against IoT devices?

   3.  How to prevent attackers from exploiting known vulnerabilities at
       a large scale?

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 35]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   Some ideas are being explored to address this issue.  One of the
   approaches relies on the use of Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD)
   files [RFC8520].  As explained earlier, this proposal requires IoT
   devices to disclose the location of their MUD file to the network
   during installation.  The network can then (i) retrieve those files,
   (ii) learn from the manufacturers the intended usage of the devices
   (for example, which services they need to access), and then (iii)
   create suitable filters and firewall rules.

6.  Conclusions and Next Steps

   This document provides IoT security researchers, system designers,
   and implementers with an overview of security requirements in the IP-
   based Internet of Things.  We discuss the security threats, state of
   the art, and challenges.

   Although plenty of steps have been realized during the last few years
   (summarized in Section 4.1) and many organizations are publishing
   general recommendations describing how IoT should be secured
   (Section 4.3), there are many challenges ahead that require further
   attention.  Challenges of particular importance are bootstrapping of
   security, group security, secure software updates, long-term security
   and quantum-resistance, privacy protection, data leakage prevention
   -- where data could be cryptographic keys, personal data, or even
   algorithms -- and ensuring trustworthy IoT operation.

   Authors of new IoT specifications and implementers need to consider
   how all the security challenges discussed in this document (and those
   that emerge later) affect their work.  The authors of IoT
   specifications need to put in a real effort towards not only
   addressing the security challenges but also clearly documenting how
   the security challenges are addressed.  This would reduce the chances
   of security vulnerabilities in the code written by implementers of
   those specifications.

7.  Security Considerations

   This entire memo deals with security issues.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 36]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

9.  Informative References

   [ACE-DTLS] Gerdes, S., Bergmann, O., Bormann, C., Selander, G., and
              L. Seitz, "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)
              Profile for Authentication and Authorization for
              Constrained Environments (ACE)", Work in Progress,
              draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize-08, April 2019.

              Seitz, L., Selander, G., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and
              H. Tschofenig, "Authentication and Authorization for
              Constrained Environments (ACE) using the OAuth 2.0
              Framework (ACE-OAuth)", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ace-
              oauth-authz-24, March 2019.

              Thubert, P., "An Architecture for IPv6 over the TSCH mode
              of IEEE 802.15.4", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-6tisch-
              architecture-20, March 2019.

              Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, "Opinion 8/2014
              on the Recent Developments on the Internet of Things",
              WP 223, September 2014, <https://ec.europa.eu/justice/

   [AUTO-ID]  "Auto-ID Labs", September 2010,

   [BACNET]   American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
              Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), "BACnet", February 2011,

   [BITAG]    Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group, "Internet of
              Things (IoT) Security and Privacy Recommendations",
              November 2016, <https://www.bitag.org/report-internet-of-

              Sarikaya, B., Sethi, M., and D. Garcia-Carillo, "Secure
              IoT Bootstrapping: A Survey", Work in Progress,
              draft-sarikaya-t2trg-sbootstrapping-06, January 2019.

   [C2PQ]     Hoffman, P., "The Transition from Classical to Post-
              Quantum Cryptography", Work in Progress, draft-hoffman-
              c2pq-04, August 2018.

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 37]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   [cctv]     "Backdoor In MVPower DVR Firmware Sends CCTV Stills To an
              Email Address In China", February 2016,

   [ChaCha]   Bernstein, D., "ChaCha, a variant of Salsa20", January
              2008, <http://cr.yp.to/chacha/chacha-20080128.pdf>.

   [CSA]      Cloud Security Alliance Mobile Working Group, "Security
              Guidance for Early Adopters of the Internet of Things
              (IoT)", April 2015,

   [DALI]     DALIbyDesign, "DALI Explained", February 2011,

   [Daniel]   Park, S., Kim, K., Haddad, W., Chakrabarti, S., and J.
              Laganier, "IPv6 over Low Power WPAN Security Analysis",
              Work in Progress, draft-daniel-6lowpan-security-analysis-
              05, March 2011.

   [DCMS]     UK Department for Digital Culture, Media & Sport, "Secure
              by Design: Improving the cyber security of consumer
              Internet of Things Report", March 2018,

   [DHS]      U.S. Department of Homeland Security, "Strategic
              Principles For Securing the Internet of Things (IoT)",
              November 2016,

   [Diet-ESP] Migault, D., Guggemos, T., Bormann, C., and D. Schinazi,
              "ESP Header Compression and Diet-ESP", Work in Progress,
              draft-mglt-ipsecme-diet-esp-07, March 2019.

              Oracle Dyn, "Dyn Analysis Summary Of Friday October 21
              Attack", October 2016, <https://dyn.com/blog/

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 38]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   [ecc25519] Bernstein, D., "Curve25519: new Diffie-Hellman speed
              records", February 2006,

   [ECSO]     "European Cyber Security Organisation",

              European Union Agency for Network and Information
              Security, "Communication network dependencies for ICS/
              SCADA Systems", February 2017,

              European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI),
              "Quantum-Safe Cryptography (QSC); Quantum-safe algorithmic
              framework", ETSI GR QSC 001, July 2016,

   [Fairhair] "The Fairhair Alliance",

   [FCC]      US Federal Communications Commission, Chairman Tom Wheeler
              to Senator Mark Warner, December 2016,

              US Federal Trade Commission, "FTC Report on Internet of
              Things Urges Companies to Adopt Best Practices to Address
              Consumer Privacy and Security Risks", January 2015,

   [GDPR]     "The EU General Data Protection Regulation",

              "GSMA IoT Security Guidelines and Assessment",

   [HIP-DEX]  Moskowitz, R. and R. Hummen, "HIP Diet EXchange (DEX)",
              Work in Progress, draft-ietf-hip-dex-06, December 2017.

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 39]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

              IEEE, "Status of Project IEEE 802.11ah", IEEE P802.11 -
              Task Group AH - Meeting Update,

   [IIoT]     "Industrial Internet Consortium",

              Internet of Things Security Foundation, "Establishing
              Principles for Internet of Things Security",

              Choi, Y., Hong, Y., Youn, J., Kim, D., and J. Choi,
              "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Near Field
              Communication", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-6lo-nfc-13,
              February 2019.

   [ISOC-OTA] Internet Society, "Online Trust Alliance (OTA)",

   [LoRa]     "LoRa Alliance", <https://www.lora-alliance.org/>.

   [LWM2M]    OMA SpecWorks, "Lightweight M2M (LWM2M)",

   [Mirai]    Kolias, C., Kambourakis, G., Stavrou, A., and J. Voas,,
              "DDoS in the IoT: Mirai and Other Botnets", Computer,
              Vol. 50, Issue 7, DOI 10.1109/MC.2017.201, July 2017,

   [Moore]    Moore, K., Barnes, R., and H. Tschofenig, "Best Current
              Practices for Securing Internet of Things (IoT) Devices",
              Work in Progress, draft-moore-iot-security-bcp-01, July

              Tiloca, M., Selander, G., Palombini, F., and J. Park,
              "Group OSCORE - Secure Group Communication for CoAP", Work
              in Progress, draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-04, March

   [NB-IoT]   Qualcomm Incorporated, "New Work Item: NarrowBand IOT (NB-
              IOT)", September 2015,

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 40]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   [NHTSA]    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
              "Cybersecurity Best Practices for Modern Vehicles", Report
              No. DOT HS 812 333, October 2016,

              Ross, R., McEvilley, M., and J. Oren, "Systems Security
              Engineering: Considerations for a Multidisciplinary
              Approach in the Engineering of Trustworthy Secure
              Systems", NIST Special Publication 800-160,
              DOI 10.6028/NIST.SP.800-160, November 2016,
              NIST.SP.800\ -160.pdf>.

              Sonmez Turan, M., "NIST's Lightweight Crypto Project",
              October 2016, <https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/

              NIST, "Lightweight Cryptography", <https://www.nist.gov/

              McCallister, E., Grance, T., and K. Scarfone, "Guide to
              Protecting the Confidentiality of Personally Identifiable
              Information (PII)", NIST Special Publication 800-122,
              April 2010, <https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/legacy/sp/

              National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Guide for
              Conducting Risk Assessments", NIST Special
              Publication 800-30 Revision 1, September 2012,

              Swanson, M., Bowen, P., Phillips, A., Gallup, D., and D.
              Lynes, "Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information
              Systems", NIST Special Publication 800-34 Revision 1, May
              2010, <https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/

   [OCF]      "Open Connectivity Foundation",

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 41]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

              "OMA SpecWorks",

   [OneM2M]   "OneM2M", <http://www.onem2m.org>.

   [OSCORE]   Selander, G., Mattsson, J., Palombini, F., and L. Seitz,
              "Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments
              (OSCORE)", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-core-object-
              security-16, March 2019.

   [OWASP]    The OWASP Foundation, "IoT Security Guidance", February

   [RD]       Shelby, Z., Koster, M., Bormann, C., Stok, P., and C.
              Amsuess, Ed., "CoRE Resource Directory", Work in
              Progress, draft-ietf-core-resource-directory-20, March

   [RFC2818]  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000,

   [RFC3748]  Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H.
              Levkowetz, Ed., "Extensible Authentication Protocol
              (EAP)", RFC 3748, DOI 10.17487/RFC3748, June 2004,

   [RFC3756]  Nikander, P., Ed., Kempf, J., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6
              Neighbor Discovery (ND) Trust Models and Threats",
              RFC 3756, DOI 10.17487/RFC3756, May 2004,

   [RFC3833]  Atkins, D. and R. Austein, "Threat Analysis of the Domain
              Name System (DNS)", RFC 3833, DOI 10.17487/RFC3833, August
              2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3833>.

   [RFC4016]  Parthasarathy, M., "Protocol for Carrying Authentication
              and Network Access (PANA) Threat Analysis and Security
              Requirements", RFC 4016, DOI 10.17487/RFC4016, March 2005,

   [RFC4108]  Housley, R., "Using Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) to
              Protect Firmware Packages", RFC 4108,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4108, August 2005,

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 42]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   [RFC4120]  Neuman, C., Yu, T., Hartman, S., and K. Raeburn, "The
              Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)", RFC 4120,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4120, July 2005,

   [RFC4422]  Melnikov, A., Ed. and K. Zeilenga, Ed., "Simple
              Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)", RFC 4422,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4422, June 2006,

   [RFC4555]  Eronen, P., "IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming Protocol
              (MOBIKE)", RFC 4555, DOI 10.17487/RFC4555, June 2006,

   [RFC4621]  Kivinen, T. and H. Tschofenig, "Design of the IKEv2
              Mobility and Multihoming (MOBIKE) Protocol", RFC 4621,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4621, August 2006,

   [RFC4738]  Ignjatic, D., Dondeti, L., Audet, F., and P. Lin, "MIKEY-
              RSA-R: An Additional Mode of Key Distribution in
              Multimedia Internet KEYing (MIKEY)", RFC 4738,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4738, November 2006,

   [RFC4919]  Kushalnagar, N., Montenegro, G., and C. Schumacher, "IPv6
              over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):
              Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals",
              RFC 4919, DOI 10.17487/RFC4919, August 2007,

   [RFC4944]  Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
              "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
              Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007,

   [RFC5191]  Forsberg, D., Ohba, Y., Ed., Patil, B., Tschofenig, H.,
              and A. Yegin, "Protocol for Carrying Authentication for
              Network Access (PANA)", RFC 5191, DOI 10.17487/RFC5191,
              May 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5191>.

   [RFC5652]  Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD 70,
              RFC 5652, DOI 10.17487/RFC5652, September 2009,

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 43]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   [RFC5713]  Moustafa, H., Tschofenig, H., and S. De Cnodder, "Security
              Threats and Security Requirements for the Access Node
              Control Protocol (ANCP)", RFC 5713, DOI 10.17487/RFC5713,
              January 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5713>.

   [RFC5903]  Fu, D. and J. Solinas, "Elliptic Curve Groups modulo a
              Prime (ECP Groups) for IKE and IKEv2", RFC 5903,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5903, June 2010,

   [RFC6024]  Reddy, R. and C. Wallace, "Trust Anchor Management
              Requirements", RFC 6024, DOI 10.17487/RFC6024, October
              2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6024>.

   [RFC6272]  Baker, F. and D. Meyer, "Internet Protocols for the Smart
              Grid", RFC 6272, DOI 10.17487/RFC6272, June 2011,

   [RFC6347]  Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
              Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
              January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.

   [RFC6550]  Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J.,
              Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur,
              JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for
              Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012,

   [RFC6551]  Vasseur, JP., Ed., Kim, M., Ed., Pister, K., Dejean, N.,
              and D. Barthel, "Routing Metrics Used for Path Calculation
              in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6551,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6551, March 2012,

   [RFC6568]  Kim, E., Kaspar, D., and JP. Vasseur, "Design and
              Application Spaces for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless
              Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 6568,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6568, April 2012,

   [RFC6690]  Shelby, Z., "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Link
              Format", RFC 6690, DOI 10.17487/RFC6690, August 2012,

   [RFC6749]  Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
              RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 44]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   [RFC6973]  Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
              Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
              Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013,

   [RFC7049]  Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
              Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
              October 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.

   [RFC7228]  Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
              Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014,

   [RFC7252]  Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,

   [RFC7296]  Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T.
              Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
              (IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October
              2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>.

   [RFC7401]  Moskowitz, R., Ed., Heer, T., Jokela, P., and T.
              Henderson, "Host Identity Protocol Version 2 (HIPv2)",
              RFC 7401, DOI 10.17487/RFC7401, April 2015,

   [RFC7515]  Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web
              Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, May
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7515>.

   [RFC7516]  Jones, M. and J. Hildebrand, "JSON Web Encryption (JWE)",
              RFC 7516, DOI 10.17487/RFC7516, May 2015,

   [RFC7517]  Jones, M., "JSON Web Key (JWK)", RFC 7517,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7517, May 2015,

   [RFC7519]  Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
              (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015,

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 45]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   [RFC7520]  Miller, M., "Examples of Protecting Content Using JSON
              Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE)", RFC 7520,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7520, May 2015,

   [RFC7668]  Nieminen, J., Savolainen, T., Isomaki, M., Patil, B.,
              Shelby, Z., and C. Gomez, "IPv6 over BLUETOOTH(R) Low
              Energy", RFC 7668, DOI 10.17487/RFC7668, October 2015,

   [RFC7696]  Housley, R., "Guidelines for Cryptographic Algorithm
              Agility and Selecting Mandatory-to-Implement Algorithms",
              BCP 201, RFC 7696, DOI 10.17487/RFC7696, November 2015,

   [RFC7744]  Seitz, L., Ed., Gerdes, S., Ed., Selander, G., Mani, M.,
              and S. Kumar, "Use Cases for Authentication and
              Authorization in Constrained Environments", RFC 7744,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7744, January 2016,

   [RFC7815]  Kivinen, T., "Minimal Internet Key Exchange Version 2
              (IKEv2) Initiator Implementation", RFC 7815,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7815, March 2016,

   [RFC7925]  Tschofenig, H., Ed. and T. Fossati, "Transport Layer
              Security (TLS) / Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)
              Profiles for the Internet of Things", RFC 7925,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7925, July 2016,

   [RFC8046]  Henderson, T., Ed., Vogt, C., and J. Arkko, "Host Mobility
              with the Host Identity Protocol", RFC 8046,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8046, February 2017,

   [RFC8105]  Mariager, P., Petersen, J., Ed., Shelby, Z., Van de Logt,
              M., and D. Barthel, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over
              Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT) Ultra
              Low Energy (ULE)", RFC 8105, DOI 10.17487/RFC8105, May
              2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8105>.

   [RFC8152]  Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)",
              RFC 8152, DOI 10.17487/RFC8152, July 2017,

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 46]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   [RFC8240]  Tschofenig, H. and S. Farrell, "Report from the Internet
              of Things Software Update (IoTSU) Workshop 2016",
              RFC 8240, DOI 10.17487/RFC8240, September 2017,

   [RFC8259]  Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
              Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,

   [RFC8376]  Farrell, S., Ed., "Low-Power Wide Area Network (LPWAN)
              Overview", RFC 8376, DOI 10.17487/RFC8376, May 2018,

   [RFC8387]  Sethi, M., Arkko, J., Keranen, A., and H. Back, "Practical
              Considerations and Implementation Experiences in Securing
              Smart Object Networks", RFC 8387, DOI 10.17487/RFC8387,
              May 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8387>.

   [RFC8428]  Jennings, C., Shelby, Z., Arkko, J., Keranen, A., and C.
              Bormann, "Sensor Measurement Lists (SenML)", RFC 8428,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8428, August 2018,

   [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,

   [RFC8520]  Lear, E., Droms, R., and D. Romascanu, "Manufacturer Usage
              Description Specification", RFC 8520,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8520, March 2019,

   [RG-T2TRG] IRTF, "Thing-to-Thing Research Group (T2TRG)",

              Schneier, B., "The Internet of Things Is Wildly Insecure
              -- And Often Unpatchable", January 2014,

   [SEAL]     Microsoft, "Microsoft SEAL: Fast and Easy-to-Use
              Homomorphic Encryption Library",

   [shodan]   "Shodan", <https://www.shodan.io>.

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 47]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   [sigfox]   "Sigfox - The Global Communications Service Provider for
              the Internet of Things (IoT)", <https://www.sigfox.com>.

   [Thread]   "Thread", <http://threadgroup.org>.

   [TR69]     Oppenheim, L. and S. Tal, "Too Many Cooks - Exploiting the
              Internet-of-TR-069-Things", December 2014,

              National Security Agency | Central Security Service,
              "VENONA", <https://www.nsa.gov/news-features/declassified-

   [WG-6lo]   IETF, "IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes
              (6lo)", <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/6lo/charter/>.

              IETF, "IPv6 over Low power WPAN (6lowpan)",

   [WG-ACE]   IETF, "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained
              Environments (ace)",

   [WG-ACME]  IETF, "Automated Certificate Management Environment
              (acme)", <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/acme/charter/>.

   [WG-CoRE]  IETF, "Constrained RESTful Environment (core)",

   [WG-LPWAN] IETF, "IPv6 over Low Power Wide-Area Networks (lpwan)",

   [WG-LWIG]  IETF, "Light-Weight Implementation Guidance (lwig)",

   [WG-MSEC]  IETF, "Multicast Security (msec)",

   [WG-SUIT]  IETF, "Software Updates for Internet of Things (suit)",

   [WG-TEEP]  IETF, "Trusted Execution Environment Provisioning (teep)",

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 48]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019

   [Williams] Williams, M. and J. Barrett, "Mobile DTLS", Work in
              Progress, draft-barrett-mobile-dtls-00, March 2009.

   [wink]     Barrett, B., "Wink's Outage Shows Us How Frustrating Smart
              Homes Could Be", Wired, Gear, April 2015,

   [ZB]       "Zigbee Alliance", <http://www.zigbee.org/>.

              Ziegeldorf, J., Garcia Morchon, O., and K. Wehrle,
              "Privacy in the Internet of Things: Threats and
              Challenges", Security and Communication Networks, Vol. 7,
              Issue 12, pp. 2728-2742, DOI 10.1002/sec.795, 2014.

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 49]

RFC 8576                      IoT Security                    April 2019


   We gratefully acknowledge feedback and fruitful discussion with
   Tobias Heer, Robert Moskowitz, Thorsten Dahm, Hannes Tschofenig,
   Carsten Bormann, Barry Raveendran, Ari Keranen, Goran Selander, Fred
   Baker, Vicent Roca, Thomas Fossati, and Eliot Lear.  We acknowledge
   the additional authors of a draft version of this document: Sye Loong
   Keoh, Rene Hummen, and Rene Struik.

Authors' Addresses

   Oscar Garcia-Morchon
   High Tech Campus 5
   Eindhoven, 5656 AE
   The Netherlands

   Email: oscar.garcia-morchon@philips.com

   Sandeep S. Kumar
   High Tech Campus 7
   Eindhoven, 5656 AE
   The Netherlands

   Email: sandeep.kumar@signify.com

   Mohit Sethi
   Jorvas  02420

   Email: mohit@piuha.net

Garcia-Morchon, et al.        Informational                    [Page 50]