- iot-wg - mailman.ripe.net

some experiences with deny-by-default for IoT devices
by Michael Richardson 29 Mar '21

29 Mar '21

The CIRALabs SHG project (https://www.cira.ca/labs/projects/cira-secure-home-gateway ) has been trying to get our systems into the hands of 50+ in-house alpha testers, but the pandemic has set us back: sorting people's network plumbing without visiting their house is a challenge. There will always be someone with something that just isn't wired up right, and non-technical people don't want to screw with their setup when they need it for minute-by-minute school work, etc. (Ironically, our home routers probably make their network better if wired right). So, our team has been onboarding devices and letting our SPIN/SHG hybrid system do analysis of the devices to form filtering policies. We have leant that this is harder than we'd like. For instance, I got a $20 Globe Suite single outlet back in December. It's in green so that it will match your Xmas-tree. https://globe-electric.com/en/product/globe-electric-wi-fi-smart-plug-no-hu… Our system is set up to accept new devices online, but to drop traffic from them by default until the administrator says, "okay". The device wants to put into onboarding mode by having a button held down for 5s, and then it flashes fast, and it is supposed to be discovereable by the phone. I'm unclear if it gets discovered by BT or via 2.4Ghz public frames. The app is repeatedly very specific: "Make sure you are on 2.4Ghz WIFI" My app just could not discover my device despite repeated attempts. No obvious errors, just "not there".... I went back to our SHG app, saw that in fact a new device was now present. (Yes, there is a bug with delays with Notifications that we haven't figured out yet). I then enabled access for this new device. NOW, I could onboard the device. Apparently, it attempts to join the WIFI, connect to Internet, and connect to the cloud, and if anything fails, then everything fails, and the device appears to not even be found! That's terrible UI. Now for the kicker: one might assume that the device is really controlled through the cloud then, right? So after plugging in a light to test it, and confirming I could turn it on and off with my phone, I turned wifi off on my phone, and tried to control it via LTE. What's the latency that way? Infinite, as I don't think it can be controlled via the Internet. Yes, you can onboard it to Siri,Alexa,Google Home, and I imagine you can control it that way. The device needs Internet to onboard, but doesn't apparently use it. Firmware updates? Maybe. The onboarding fails in less than human reaction time, so I could never actually enable access for the device via any kind of UI! -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(a)sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

1 0

To be published: Architectural Considerations for IoT Device Security in the Home
by Constanze Dietrich 01 Mar '21

01 Mar '21

Hi everyone! Since RIPE 81, the "BCOP" document was refined again and now declared DONE under the title: "Architectural Considerations for IoT Device Security in the Home" (document attached). The next step is making it an official RIPE document which requires consent from the members of the working group. (Note: If you're subscribed to the list, you're one of them!) *As in previous queries the response on the list was rather quiet, this time I'll take silence as "Sure! Go for it! Great work!".* *That said, I strongly encourage you to read it and post your comments to the list.* Have a nice weekend! Constanze

6 7

Open PhD Position in IoT
by sandoche Balakrichenan 08 Feb '21

08 Feb '21

Dear all, Thanks for diffusing the information in your circle: https://www.afnic.fr/fr/l-afnic-en-bref/recrutement/offres-d-emploi/open-ph… Sandoche.

1 0

January 2021
by Constanze Dietrich 03 Feb '21

03 Feb '21

Hi everyone! I bet I'm not the only one feeling like things aren't moving these days. However, looking back on what's crossed our way in January IoT-wise, maybe they are moving after all. ***** Don't forget to take the survey! https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdVVq38C96Mn_Lv8eDgiHGzt3TgzPfx_MM… ***** After that particularly graceful reminder, here's Sandoche's and my January collection of IoT-related online finds and recommendations: ***Articles*** A wristband that tells your boss if you are unhappy: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55637328 A thing that would likely have that wristband alert your boss: https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7apnn/your-cock-is-mine-now-hacker-locks-i… 6 core capabilities an IoT device needs for basic cybersecurity: https://www.edn.com/6-core-capabilities-an-iot-device-needs-for-basic-cyber… ***Programs*** Are they actually going to put an S in IoT? /o\ https://csrc.nist.gov/news/2020/draft-guidance-for-defining-iot-cyber-requi… as part of the "NIST Cybersecurity for IoT Program": https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/nist-cybersecurity-iot-program The TU Delft has an opening for a fully funded PhD position on Human factors in (IoT) security and security focused network measurement: https://www.tudelft.nl/over-tu-delft/werken-bij-tu-delft/vacatures/details/… Let us know if we missed anything! ;) Constanze

2 1

[Information] [MOOC Inria] Internet of Things with Microcontrollers: a hands-on course - Start: Feb. 1, 202
by sandoche Balakrichenan 29 Jan '21

29 Jan '21

If anyone is interested: -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [iot-lab-users] [MOOC Inria] Internet of Things with Microcontrollers: a hands-on course - Start: Feb. 1, 202 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 10:26:38 +0100 From: Nathalie Mitton <nathalie.mitton(a)inria.fr> Reply-To: Nathalie Mitton <nathalie.mitton(a)inria.fr> To: rsd-forum(a)groupes.renater.fr, users(a)iot-lab.info, iot(a)services.cnrs.fr, echange(a)min2rien.fr Internet of Things with Microcontrollers: a hands-on course Discover, program and experience the IoT through theory & activities using RIOT and the FIT IoT-LAB testbed. in english🇬🇧and french🇫🇷 [February 1 - March 31, 2021] This online courseprovides an introduction to the IoT and hands-on experience in programming connected objects. It offers theoretical inputs and practical activities using the RIOT OS and the FIT IoT-LAB testbed. Participating in this course does not require any specific hardware or software installation. The course is accessible to any *developer, engineer, student or maker* who has programming bases (C and/or Python or Bash) and prior knowledge of the Linux system (command lines). It is organized in 6 parts (modules) which allow to acquire knowledge on the hardware, software and communication protocols commonly used in IoT. You willprogressively put your theoretical learnings into practice by remotely programming the microcontrollers of the FIT IoT-LAB testbed. The course also includes a module dedicated to *securing connected objects*. Te MOOC consists of *6 modules* that combine videos, course texts, *19 quizzes and 20 hands-on programming activities *using Jupyter notebooks. Each participant will be able to : * remotely access the FIT IoT-LAB testbed from his or her computer, free of charge and without prior software installation, * discover IoT standards and test the RIOT operating system with the help of their designers and contributors, * develop, test and reuse IoT applications on other experimental platforms. *At the end of the course, each participant will be able to develop an IoT application from the object to the cloud.* Teachers The educational content was developed by engineers, researchers and teachers from CNRS, Hauts-de-FrancePolytechnic University, IMT Atlantique and Inria. Practical information * Course dates : February 1st - March 315, 2021 * Registration deadline : March 24, 2020 * Information & registration : https://www.fun-mooc.fr/courses/course-v1:inria+41020+session02/about <ttps://www.fun-mooc.fr/courses/course-v1:inria+41020+session02/about> The MOOC is produced by Inria Learning Lab <https://learninglab.inria.fr/> and runs on the FUN-mooc platform. Follow course news on Twitter: @InriaLearnLab #MoocIoT -- -- Sandoche BALAKRICHENAN Head of R&D Partnerships @ Afnic LoRaWAN Academia WG Chair & RIPE IoT WG Co-Chair

1 0

IoT WG Survey
by Constanze Dietrich 11 Jan '21

11 Jan '21

Hi everyone! First of all, I wish all of you and your loved ones a happy and healthy 2021! To kick off the new year in the IoT WG, Sandoche and I come at you with a little survey. As announced during the last RIPE Meeting, we'd like to get to know you, learn what you think of and expect from the Working Group, what you'd like to see us do as co-chairs, what RIPE- and IoT-related topics you're interested in,... feedback that may help us, for instance, get a feeling for what we should push for and what you've possibly seen enough of by now. While we use this survey as a tool to collect feedback beyond the bounds of the list, we intend to publish and discuss the results on the IoT WG mailing list. So as to not repeat myself any further, you'll find a little more information after clicking the link to the survey. :) https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdVVq38C96Mn_Lv8eDgiHGzt3TgzPfx_MM… Cheers and kind regards Constanze & Sandoche

1 0

A Haystack Full of Needles: Scalable Detection of IoT Devices in the Wild
by Mandalari, Anna Maria 13 Dec '20

13 Dec '20

Hi all, We have published an interesting work on consumer IoT devices detection at an ISP and IXP. You can find all the details at https://moniotrlab.ccis.neu.edu/imc20/ The paper will be presented at IMC 2020. I thought it can be interesting for you :) Cheers, -- Anna Maria Mandalari Research Associate Dyson School of Design Engineering Imperial College London https://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/anna-maria.mandalari

2 1

IoT device lifecycle work
by Eliot Lear 21 Nov '20

21 Nov '20

We authors continue to work on the IOT white paper we presented at the last meeting (see attached) and would like to address any comments you might have. One question we have is whether people would prefer access to the Google Doc to add comments or whether a Github issue tracker would be better. We hope to complete this document by the end of the year, so comments now would be very welcome. See attached. Eliot

1 0

Results of the survey made during the second today's presentation
by sandoche Balakrichenan 30 Oct '20

30 Oct '20

Dear all, Please find as attached the results of the survey conducted today during the presentation of "*Architectural Considerations for IoT Device Security in the Home. A guide for ISPs specifying CPE devices*" at RIPE 81 IoT WG slot today.

3 5

Re: [iot-wg] IoT BCOP TF Document - Call for comments
by e.vanuden＠avm.de 27 Oct '20

27 Oct '20

Hi Eliot, I´m refering to the Stacked Router concept, so one CPE instead of two (stacked) In this case, the CPE Best regards, Eric van Uden AVM ICT GmbH Country Manager Netherlands Mr. van Coothlaan 10 6602 GT Wijchen Nederland Phone +31 24 6485381 Mobile +31 622 948356 e.vanuden(a)avm.de Bezoek onze website op http://nl.avm.de/ , vind ons leuk op Facebook of bekijk onze Google +-pagina en Youtube-kanaal. AVM GmbH for International Communication Technology, Alt-Moabit 95, 10559 Berlin, Germany HRB 48220 AG Charlottenburg, CEO (Geschäftsführer): Johannes Nill Von: "Eliot Lear" <lear(a)ofcourseimright.com> An: e.vanuden(a)avm.de, "sandoche Balakrichenan" <sandoche.balakrichenan(a)afnic.fr> Kopie: iot-wg(a)ripe.net Datum: 26-10-2020 14:21 Betreff: Re: [iot-wg] IoT BCOP TF Document - Call for comments Hi Eric, On 26.10.20 14:18, Eric van Uden via iot-wg wrote: For me this means that IoT security should be implemented in as little as possible devices connection the consumer to the internet - one device if at all possible thus avoiding stacked router scenarios that add unnecessary complexity and possibly even more IoT security issues. Precisely which device would you expect that to be: The CPE or the IOT device? Eliot

3 3

IoT BCOP TF Document - Call for comments
by sandoche Balakrichenan 26 Oct '20

26 Oct '20

Dear all, The IoT BCOP TF (/Jim Reid, Eliott Lear, Michael Richardson, Phil Stanhope, Peter Steinhäuser, Jelte Jansen, Jan Zorz, Sandoche Balakrichenan/) has been meeting almost every friday since RIPE 80 to produce the document titled : /"Architectural Considerations for IoT Device Security in the Home - //A guide for ISPs specifying CPE devices"/. The intention is to publish the final version of this document as RIPE Best Current Operational Practice (BCOP) document in the IoT scope. A Pdf format of the document is attached. Thanks for sending your comments on this document to the mailing list. Constanze & Sandoche (IoT WG Chairs)

4 3

Reminder: IoT WG (and friends) virtual Meetup tonight!
by Constanze Dietrich 26 Oct '20

26 Oct '20

*** Cancel all your dates! *** Tonight from 19:00 to 21:00 CET (UTC+1) we'll have our virtual Meetup "at the hotel bar"! Location: https://ripe.zoom.us/j/96850826494?pwd=ZGFlbFNRZTZZTnBZU1JiWWNNRms0dz09#suc… Meeting ID: 968 5082 6494 Passcode: 391117 Hope to see you all there! Constanze & Sandoche

1 0

Re: [iot-wg] IoT BCOP TF Document - Call for comments
by Michael Richardson 23 Oct '20

23 Oct '20

<#secure method=pgpmime mode=sign> sb> The IoT BCOP TF (/Jim Reid, Eliott Lear, Michael Richardson, Phil sb> Stanhope, Peter Steinhäuser, Jelte Jansen, Jan Zorz, Sandoche sb> Balakrichenan/) has been meeting almost every friday since RIPE 80 to sb> produce the document titled : /"Architectural Considerations for IoT sb> Device Security in the Home - //A guide for ISPs specifying CPE sb> devices"/. The intention is to publish the final version of this sb> document as RIPE Best Current Operational Practice (BCOP) document in sb> the IoT scope. Some feedback that we have received is that the document isn't able to provide clear guidance that would make it a BCOP. It is perhaps more of a technical report. An initial goal had been to be able to say what ISPs are currently doing with IoT devices, and thereby enable those who are writing RFPs to know what kind of things they might expect to be able to ask for. But, it's still too soon for that. So a question is: what category should we put on this document? -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(a)sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

1 0

RIPE81 agenda and virtual meetup on 26 October
by Constanze Dietrich 19 Oct '20

19 Oct '20

Hi everyone! We've got two announcements regarding the upcoming RIPE meeting! ***** THE AGENDA for the IoT session of RIPE 81 (27 to 30 October) is set! ***** You can find the full Meeting Plan here: https://ripe81.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/ This time, we have 45 minutes on Thursday, 29 October, between 14:00 and 14:45 CET (UTC+1): -- Introduction (5 minutes) -- RIPE NCC IoT Update - MarcoHogewoning (10 minutes) -- Architectural Considerations for IoT Device Security in the Home: A guide for ISPs specifying CPE devices - IoT BCOP Task Force (30 minutes) [Quick reminder to review their work and help them with constructive feedback: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/iot-wg/attachments/20201013/5ab7a0d… ] ***** VIRTUAL MEETUP of the IoT WG (and friends) on Monday, 26 October, 19:00 to 21:00 CET (UTC+1) ***** As having 15 minutes more on hand than last time is certainly no substitute for coffee and lunch breaks, beerings or other social gatherings, we've arranged for a virtual get-together on Monday evening before RIPE 81 as a Zoom meeting. There's no agenda! We'd like to say hi, get to see and know each other, and have a few drinks of our choice together at the virtual "hotel bar". You'll find the link to the Zoom meeting here: https://ripe81.ripe.net/programme/parallel-events/#iot Hope to see you there! Constanze & Sandoche (IoT WG Chairs)

1 0

Fwd: interesting article
by sandoche Balakrichenan 04 Oct '20

04 Oct '20

Dear all, Vesna (RIPE) send us the following article ("Security Considerations for Internet of Things: A Survey"), which I am sure will be an interesting read. === https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs42979-020-00201-3 Survey Article Published: 06 June 2020 Security Considerations for Internet of Things: A Survey Anca Jurcut, Tiberiu Niculcea, Pasika Ranaweera & Nhien-An Le-Khac === Sandoche.

1 0

Fwd: [n2women] 1st Annual Nelms (Online) Workshop on Women in IoT, October 12, 1pm-5pm (EDT)
by Vesna Manojlovic 29 Sep '20

29 Sep '20

FYI! -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [n2women] 1st Annual Nelms (Online) Workshop on Women in IoT, October 12, 1pm-5pm (EDT) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 14:30:30 -0400 From: Damla Turgut <turgut(a)EECS.UCF.EDU> Reply-To: N2Women <n2women(a)ACM.ORG>, Damla Turgut <turgut(a)EECS.UCF.EDU> To: n2women(a)ACM.ORG ************************** **CALL FOR PARTICIPATION** ************************** 1st Annual Nelms Workshop on Women in IoT Virtual Conference October 12, 1pm-5pm EDT (New York Time Zone) Register now at: http://iot.institute.ufl.edu/events/women-in-iot-2020/ Registration is free, but required to receive the zoom information. ************************** **WORKSHOP DESCRIPTION** ************************** The web of smart and connected devices that form the Internet of Things (IoT) is poised to impact every sphere of our lives as well as every market sector and drive the fourth industrial revolution. While IoT, in convergence with artificial intelligence (AI) and big data analytics, is rapidly changing our lives and society at large, we also face an increasing gender gap in the field of IoT technology and applications encompassing all aspects of research, development and practice. The goal of this workshop is to bring together women leaders from all sectors of IoT and students interested in the field of IoT to promote and enable increasing participation of women and addressing the gender gap issue in the field of IoT. The workshop organized by the members of the Warren B. Nelms Institute for the Connected World at University of Florida , in collaboration with several other universities in the state of Florida, will be held virtually; is free to join and open to all with registration. We cordially welcome participants from all sectors to join the workshop and contribute to its mission. ************************ **PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS** ************************ The purpose of the workshop is to celebrate the achievements of women in areas related to the advancement of Internet of Things, discuss future changes in both technology and female advancement, and to encourage students and junior female faculty in this area. The list of speakers/panelists includes female engineering deans, department chairs, NSF program director and industry directors. The event webpage is here and includes the speaker bios: http://iot.institute.ufl.edu/events/women-in-iot-2020/ We are looking forward to seeing you soon in the online conference of Nelms WiT 2020! 2020 Co-Chairs: --------------------- Janise McNair, ECE, University of Florida My T Thai, CISE, University of Florida Organizing Committee: ------------------------------ Janise McNair, ECE, University of Florida My Thai, CISE, University of Florida Damla Turgut, CS, University of Central Florida Tempestt Neal, CIS, University of South Florida Liting Hu, CS, Florida International University ******** Website: http://iot.institute.ufl.edu/events/women-in-iot-2020/

2 1

Zigbee Alliance's Connected Home over IP
by Peter Steinhäuser 10 Sep '20

10 Sep '20

Dear collegues, after announcing the Project Connected Home over IP end of last year getting Amazon, Apple and Google on board for a joined effort to establish an IP based standard for IoT devices the project seems to be mostly on track for an initial early 2021 release: https://zigbeealliance.org/news_and_articles/project-development-to-reality/ <https://zigbeealliance.org/news_and_articles/project-development-to-reality/> I think this project might be of interest for this working group and for the RIPE community. I will further monitor the progress of the project and would like to invite everyone interested for a discussion one’s first standard specs are released. Thanks, Peter

2 1

Fwd: interesting article?
by sandoche Balakrichenan 19 Aug '20

19 Aug '20

Dear all, Vesna (RIPE) send us this document (https://www.cigionline.org/publications/standards-cybersecure-iot-devices-w…) to check if it could be interesting for the group. After skimming through it, I felt that the document could be useful, even though the contents are not entirely new AFAIK. Sandoche.

2 2

[Defcon 2020] Paul Marrapeses' speech about IoT P2P protocol design flaws
by Peter Steinhäuser 10 Aug '20

10 Aug '20

Dear Collegues, Paul Marrapese did some excellent work on researching about protocol vulnarabilities in popular IoT devices. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_gKEF76oMM Unfortunately I did not find a transcript, yet. Nevertheless the conclusion is to keep IoT devices disabled to communicate with the internet if possible and it also shows - again - the lack of interest from the device makers to adress the security flaws. Wishing you all a productive week and stay healthy. - Peter

2 1

"Nutrition labels for IoT"
by Vesna Manojlovic 11 Jul '20

11 Jul '20

from: https://pluralistic.net/2020/06/09/war-crimes/#iot Nutrition labels for IoT A group of CMU researchers just presented "What Should Be on an IoT Privacy and Security Label?" at the IEEE Symposium on Security & Privacy. They present a model for "privacy labels" to clarify the privacy implications of IoT gadgets. https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings-article/sp/2020/349700a771/1j2LfT… I confess that I was skeptical of this, but the labels themselves are *really* good, clear and legible. https://www.wired.com/story/iot-security-privacy-labels/ But...The more I think about this, the more my skepticism returns. We've seen tools like Privacy Badger and Ghostery that tell you how your data is being used by the websites you visit, but these haven't shown much efficacy in changing sites' behaviors. Historically, the best counter to these "antifeatures" in technology has come from a) self-help measures and b) regulation. We didn't kill pop-up ads by notifying users of which sites had pop-up ads so they could choose to go elsewhere. We gave them pop-up blockers. Today, the best way to deal with your alarm about Privacy Badger warnings is to beef up your script-, tracker- and ad-blocking. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/07/adblocking-how-about-nah And there's a role for regulation here, too, which can take many forms. We can simply prohibit certain conduct, like collecting, retaining or selling data outside of a highly constrained set of circumstances. Or we could establish a federal privacy law with a private right of action, so users could sue companies that leaked their data and collect statutory damages - a measure that would cause every insurer to instantaneously withdraw coverage for every surveillance tech company. Don't get me wrong. I love these labels. But there is a huge danger in documenting bad conduct without providing a means to counter it - the danger that you train people to accept the bad conduct as inevitable.

2 1

Paper Invitation: [Sensors] IF 3.031—Special Issue "Monitoring of Security Properties in IoT and Emerging Technologies"
by Callie Liu 17 Jun '20

17 Jun '20

Dear Colleagues, The journal Sensors (ISSN 1424-8220, IF 3.031) is currently running a Special Issue entitled "Monitoring of Security Properties in IoT and Emerging Technologies". Dr. Antonio Muñoz (Universidad de Málaga, Spain), Prof. Dr. Eduardo B. Fernandez (Florida Atlantic University, USA) and Prof. Dr. Haris Mouratidis (University of Brighton, UK) are serving as Guest Editors for this issue. We think you could make an excellent contribution based on your expertise. The recent advances in technologies such as cloud computing, IoT, edge computing, and fog computing are transforming the way in which large-scale computations are performed. This has introduced improvements in terms of scalability for clouds, and in terms of permanent connection and user-centric computation for IoT, edge, and pervasive computing. However, the incursion of these technologies entails the introduction of new challenges regarding security and privacy. Monitoring of security properties in each of these technologies implies tailoring solutions according to particular features of baseline technology. [...] For further reading, please follow the link to the Special Issue Website at: https://www.mdpi.com/si/sensors/MSP_IoTET The submission deadline is 31 August 2020. You may send your manuscript now or up until the deadline. Submitted papers should not be under consideration for publication elsewhere. We also encourage authors to send a short abstract or tentative title to the Editorial Office in advance (callie.liu(a)mdpi.com or sensors(a)mdpi.com) Sensors is covered by leading indexing services, including the Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Chemical Abstracts, INSPEC, and CAB Abstracts. The latest Impact Factor for the year 2018 is 3.031, and the five-year Impact Factor is 3.302. Sensors is fully open access. Open access (unlimited and free access by readers) increases publicity and promotes more frequent citations, as indicated by several studies. Open access is supported by the authors and their institutes. An Article Processing Charge (APC) of CHF 1800 currently applies to all accepted papers (APC: CHF 2000 from 1 January 2020 onwards). You may be entitled to a discount if you have previously received a discount code or if your institute is participating in the MDPI Institutional Open Access Program (IOAP), for more information see: http://www.mdpi.com/about/ioap. For further details on the submission process, please see the instructions for authors at the journal website (http://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors/instructions) We look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards, Ms. Callie Liu Assistant Editor Sensors (ISSN 1424-8220; http://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors) is a journal published by MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Sensors maintains rigorous peer-review and a rapid publication process. All articles are published with a CC BY 4.0 license. For more information on the CC BY license, please see: http://creativecommons.org To submit to the journal click here: http://susy.mdpi.com/user/manuscripts/upload?journal=sensors. Unsubscribe: http://www.mdpi.com/unsub/managesubscriptions/mail/ZnJhbmNlc2NvLm1vc2NhdG9A…. Manage your subscriptions: https://susy.mdpi.com/user/subscriptions. MDPI http://www.mdpi.com/ St. Alban-Anlage 66 4052 Basel Switzerland Tel. +41 61 683 77 34 Fax +41 61 302 89 18 Disclaimer: MDPI recognizes the importance of data privacy and protection. We treat personal data in line with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and with what the community expects of us. The information contained in this message is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please notify me and delete this message from your system. You may not copy this message in its entirety or in part, or disclose its contents to anyone.

1 0

Paper Invitation: [Sensors] IF 3.031— Special Issue "Smart, Autonomous and Evolved Technologies in Internet of Things"
by Callie Liu 17 Jun '20

17 Jun '20

Dear Colleagues, The open access journal Sensors (ISSN 1424-8220, IF 3.031) is pleased to announce a new Special Issue entitled "Smart, Autonomous and Evolved Technologies in Internet of Things". Dr. Tuan Nguyen Gia is serving as Guest Editors for this issue. The submission deadline is 31 October 2020 and papers may be submitted immediately or at any point until 31 October 2020, as papers will be published on an ongoing basis. For more information on this Special Issue and submission guidelines, please visit the following page: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors/special_issues/SAET_IoT. Kind regards, Callie Liu Assistant Editor Sensors is fully open access. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed and a first decision provided to authors approximately 17.85 days after submission. An Article Processing Charge (APC) of CHF 2000 currently applies to all accepted papers. To submit to the journal click here: http://susy.mdpi.com/user/manuscripts/upload?journal=sensors. Unsubscribe: http://www.mdpi.com/unsub/managesubscriptions/mail/Y2FsbGllLmxpdUBtZHBpLmNv…. Manage your subscriptions: https://susy.mdpi.com/user/subscriptions. MDPI http://www.mdpi.com/ St. Alban-Anlage 66 4052 Basel Switzerland Tel. +41 61 683 77 34 Fax +41 61 302 89 18 Disclaimer: MDPI recognizes the importance of data privacy and protection. We treat personal data in line with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and with what the community expects of us. The information contained in this message is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please notify me and delete this message from your system. You may not copy this message in its entirety or in part, or disclose its contents to anyone.

1 0

Draft RIPE 80 IoT WG Minutes
by sandoche Balakrichenan 04 Jun '20

04 Jun '20

Dear all, Below is the DRAFT minutes received from RIPE. Thanks for providing us the comments on the draft before 14/06/2020. The plan is to publish the minutes on the website in two weeks period. ---- **** ------- ** *1) Administrivia * This presentation is available here: https://ripe80.ripe.net/presentations/34-RIPE-80-IoT-WG.pdf There were no changes to the agenda. The minutes from RIPE 79 were approved. It was noted that at RIPE 79, a group of volunteers had formed to develop on an outline document ona RIPE scope for proactively mitigating IoT attacks. They werecurrently working on a draft and would share this on the mailing list. *2) WG co-chair appointment* Jim Reid The presentation is available here: https://ripe80.ripe.net/archives/video/367/ Jim said his term as WG co-chair was ending and there were twoexcellent candidatesto replace him.However, as they had both received equal support, there was no clear consensus on who should be chosen. According to the WG’s selection process, if consensus was not able to be reached, the RIPE Chair would make this decision. Hans Petter Holen, RIPE Chair, said he would review the mailing list and announce his decision in the closing plenary. Jim thanked both candidates for standing and said he was sure either of them would do a great job. Benedikt Stockebrand, Stepladder IT, suggested theyconsiderhavingthree chairs. Jim said the view of both Sandoche and himself was that the workload was not enough to justify this. However, if the WG wanted to have three chairs, it could update the selection process to allow for a third chair. *3) RIPE NCC IoT Update * Marco Hogewoning, RIPE NCC This presentation is available here: https://ripe80.ripe.net/presentations/23-RIPE80-IoT-WG_comms.pdf Luna, no affiliation, asked if one’s voice used for Google Assistant, Siri and Alexa was searchable and whetherthis would be considered Personal Identifying Information (PII) in the future. Marco saidthis was still uncertain. Jim added that “PII”was an American legal term; the official term used in the European region was“Personal Data”. Jim asked whathad been happening at the ITU regarding IoT. Marco Hogewoning said there were several topics under discussion:the NewIP proposal(which might have its own component in IoT), some attempts at standardising incident and accident reporting, and some developments in authorisation and authentication methodology based on blockchain. *4) Preparing SMEs for IoT Security Standards and Regulation* Stacie Hoffman, Oxford Information Labs This presentation is available here: https://ripe80.ripe.net/presentations/44-RIPE80_Hoffmann.pdf Paul Rendek, DSTREAM GROUP, asked how theywere planning to reach out to small and medium enterprises. Stacie said they would carry out a marketing campaignand they were working with a company to build a strategy for this. Theywerealso using their own network of contacts in the IoT Security Foundation and innovation centers. Stacie said if anyone in the audience knewof networks that would like to contribute, they would be open to this. Blake Willis, iBrowse, asked if they were planning to use conformity logos and stamps. Stacie replied that they were not working on this specifically, but there was another workstream thatwas developing an IoT security compliance framework. Paul asked if links to this material could be sent tothe IoT Working Group when it was available. Paul Steinhäuser, embeDD GmbH, asked how the vulnerability informationwould be used. Stacie said the platform was meant to be a way to report vulnerabilities to a company and for the company to communicate with the reporterto solve it. For now, there were no plans to use this information beyond the platform. *5) AOB * There were no AOBs. End of session.

1 0

government grants for consumer IoT device assurance
by Jim Reid 01 Jun '20

01 Jun '20

The UK government has just launched a grant programme to support the development of industry-led assurance schemes for consumer IoT security. Further details and the application paperwork can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/grant-programme-for-consumer-iot… Grants of up to GBP170k (EUR200k) are on offer. The closing date for applications is June 30th and any grant funding needs to be spent by the end of March next year. Applicants will be informed whether or not they have been successful by the end of July 2020. Individual grant agreements are expected to be finalised by August 2020. AFAICT, anyone is welcome to apply for a grant provided they can deliver the intended grant objectives in the UK, the majority of products assessed by the assurance scheme are intended for the UK market and the IOT device assurance scheme is based on the UK Code of Practice for Consumer IoT Security and/or Final Draft EN 303 645 v2.1.0. If anyone wants further information please contact DCMS, the relevant government department. And FWIW I've no available bandwidth this month to participate in a bid and probably won’t have the time to take part in a proposal that did get funding.

1 0

Co-chair
by Phil Stanhope 14 May '20

14 May '20

I would like to support Peter for co-chair. Phil Stanhope -- -phil (@phone)

1 0