4.5 Article

PKI4IoT: Towards public key infrastructure for the Internet of Things

期刊

COMPUTERS & SECURITY
卷 89, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DOI: 10.1016/j.cose.2019.101658

关键词

Security; CBOR; IoT; PKI; Digital certificates; Enrollment; Embedded systems; Contiki

资金

  1. Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (SSF), Vinnova, Formas
  2. Energimyn-digheten under the Strategic Innovation Program for loT (SIP-1 T) SecureCare project
  3. H2020 ECSEL SECREDAS [783119]
  4. H2020 CONCORDIA [830927]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Public Key Infrastructure is the state-of-the-art credential management solution on the Internet. However, the millions of constrained devices that make of the Internet of Things currently lack a centralized, scalable system for managing keys and identities. Modern PKI is built on a set of protocols which were not designed for constrained environments, and as a result many small, battery-powered IoT devices lack the required computing resources. In this paper, we develop an automated certificate enrollment protocol light enough for highly constrained devices, which provides end-to-end security between certificate authorities (CA) and the recipient IoT devices. We also design a lightweight profile for X.509 digital certificates with CBOR encoding, called XIOT. Existing CAs can now issue traditional X.509 to IoT devices. These are converted to and from the XIOT format by edge devices on constrained networks. This procedure preserves the integrity of the original CA signature, so the edge device performing certificate conversion need not be trusted. We implement these protocols within the Contiki embedded operating system and evaluate their performance on an ARM Cortex-M3 platform. Our evaluation demonstrates reductions in energy expenditure and communication latency. The RAM and ROM required to implement these protocols are on par with the other lightweight protocols in Contiki's network stack. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据