The invention relates to the field of wireless communication, in particular to the field of wireless communication networks, more particularly to authentication and access control for or to authenticated ranging of devices controlled by wireless communication. It relates to methods and apparatuses according to the opening clauses of the claims.
Distance bounding, as a concept, was first proposed by Brands and Chaum in “Distance bounding protocols” by Stefan Brands and David Chaum, in EUROCRYPT '93, pages 344-359, Secaucus, N.J., USA, 1994, Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. They introduced techniques enabling a verifier to determine an upperbound on the physical distance to a prover. In addition, they considered the case where the verifier also authenticates the prover in addition to establishing the distance bound.
The invention allows to enable secure distance bounding and/or distance ranging. This involve two parties (devices), a verifier V or first device and a prover P or second device, usually equipped with analog and digital processing units.
The method for communicating according to the invention is described in the patent claims, as are corresponding devices and systems according to the invention. Yet, certain aspects of the invention are described in the following.
The method for communicating between a first device and a second device, the first and second devices being structured and configured for communicating via a communication channel by exchanging messages, comprises the steps of
In particular, it can be provided that said processing time is not time-dependent and in particular independent of the received challenge message. The processing time being not time-dependent (or independent of time) means that processing carried out at different times requires (with high precision) the same processing time.
The one device referred to as verifier, is structured and configured for communicating via a communication channel with the further device, referred to as prover, the verifier comprising a transceiver for sending and receiving messages via said communication channel, the verifier being structured and configured for
The other device, referred to as prover, is structured and configured for communicating via a communication channel with a further device, referred to as verifier, the prover comprising a transceiver for sending and receiving messages via said communication channel, the prover being structured and configured for
The distance bounding system according to the invention comprises a first device being a device according to the invention, referred to as verifier, and a second device being a device according to the invention, referred to as prover.
It can be provided that the processing is carried out in a processing unit of the prover.
It is to be noted that for carrying out the invention, it can be sufficient to transmit all messages via one and the same communication channel, in particular wherein that communication channel can be full duplex or possibly even a half duplex communication channel.
Further embodiments and advantages emerge from the dependent claims and the figure.
Below, the invention is described in more detail by means of the included drawing. The figure shows:
The method involves two parties, a verifier V and a prover P, equipped with analog and digital processing units, who carry out a usually three phase protocol. The phases are a setup phase, a measurement phase, and an optional validation phase, i.e., skipping the validation phase, the protocol may be a two phase protocol. There is a time-critical part to the protocol. The time-critical part of the protocol is the measurement phase, where, in an optimum case, the prover's computation must be predictable and have negligible variance (computation time variance). More generally: The processing applied by the prover P during the measurement phase should be known in advance with a high degree of accuracy and precision (repeatability). The validation phase need only be used when authentication is required.
Schematically the phases with associated message exchanges are depicted in
A nonce is, as well known in the art, a number only used once.
The steps taken in the phases are as follows
Setup Phase:
Measurement Phase:
Validation Phase (Optional):
Based on (a) the time taken in the measurement phase, i.e. the measured time between the transmission of NV by verifier V and reception of NV (in the prover's response) and (b) the time estimated for the prover to produce its response (i.e. an estimated processing time), after completion of the measurement phase, the verifier V can compute an upper bound on its distance to the prover. This way, data from a prover located, according to the computed upper bound, farther away than a pre-determined distance, can be rejected or ignored. The precision of the (computed) bound depends on the accuracy of the estimation of (b). Therefore, the processing time needed by the prover to “reflect” (send back) the nonce NV should be constant, i.e. have a high reproducibility, i.e. a low variance. By using digital and analog processing with predictable time requirements, it is possible to estimate (b) accurately where the variance over multiple runs of the measurement phase is negligibly small.
The function F should be known to both, verifier V and prover P. This can be provided, e.g., already during manufacture of verifier V and prover P, or during setup (by transmitting one or more messages indicative of the Function F that will be used by the prover). Data used for the authentication are known to both, verifier and prover, which will be accomplished before the setup phase, usually during manufacture of verifier V and prover P. E.g., a shared key (as would be the case when using MAC), more particularly a shared symmetric key, or an asymmetric key (as would be the case when using a digital signature), can be initially provided in both, verifier and prover.
The provision and transmission of nonce NP (the prover's nonce) is generally optional. NP can be dispensed with. Including NP (as discussed above and shown in
An advantage of transmitting, in the measurement phase, not only NV but (soon) afterwards also F(NP,P) or, more generally, data comprising an identifier identifying P, is that this contributes to the security of the communication, namely in that a third party trying to pretend to be prover P would have to be very fast for being able to send corresponding data (such as a F(NP′,P′)) before prover P transmits F(NP,P). The computation of F(NP,P) in advance (during the setup phase already) allows the prover to transmit F(NP,P) (merely read out of the buffer) immediately after NV or at least sooner than if F(NP,P) had been computed only after the transmission or after the reception of NV.
As to the minimal computation/processing and the “negligible variance”: The amount of processing involved should deliberately be chosen to be very small, e.g., avoiding a demodulation of a challenge message, and the processing time variance should be so small that it can be neglected, e.g., with respect to the processing time itself E.g., carrying out the (same) processing several times will result in deviations of the respective processing times which are smaller than the processing time itself by at least a factor of 10, or rather by at least a factor of 100, or even by at least a factor of 1000. But generally spoken, the acceptable processing time variance (or negligible processing time variance) depends on the application in which the invention shall be used. In case the communication channel has a signal propagation speed of speed of light, acceptable processing time variances will typically be at most 100 ns or rather at most 10 ns or even at most 1 ns. As usually will be the case, access to or control of verifier V by prover P shall be allowed only if a value relating to the distance between verifier V and prover P as computed by verifier V is indicative of a distance smaller than a pre-defined maximum distance referred to as dmax. With c designating the signal propagation speed of the communication channel, the acceptable processing time variance, i.e. the processing time variance which would be considered negligible, would usually be at most 0.2 times dmax/c or rather at most 0.1 times dmax/c or even at most 0.05 times dmax/c.
The method's application areas include those systems controlling access to objects (e.g., vehicles or buildings) and services (e.g., for vehicles, medical devices, or computing devices). The method can be also used for localization of devices by computing their position based on multilateration schemes performing time-of-flight measurements with a set of base stations.
By means of the invention, it is possible to determine a distance between verifier and prover and thus to ensure that a prover is located within a given maximal distance from the verifier. Furthermore, malicious attacks trying to interfere are effectively impeded.
Aspects of the embodiments have been described in terms of functional units. As is readily understood, these functional units may be realized in virtually any number of hardware and/or software components adapted to performing the specified functions.
Furthermore, the following embodiments are disclosed, wherein each of them may be, as far as logically possible, be combined with the invention as described elsewhere in the present patent application.
Embodiment 1. A method for communicating between a first device and a second device, that is preferably a reader for reading data from the first device and optionally destined for controlling the first device, the method comprising the steps of
Embodiment 2. The method of embodiment 1, comprising the further step of
Embodiment 3. The method of embodiment 1 or embodiment 2, comprising the further steps of
Embodiment 4. The method of embodiment 3, comprising the further steps of
Embodiment 5. The method of one of the preceding embodiments, wherein all of the communication channels are based on RF communication.
Embodiment 6. The method of one of the preceding embodiments, wherein the step of controlling access of the second device to the first device, in addition to the distance, takes into account credential information, such as a device's identity.
Embodiment 7. The method of one of the preceding embodiments, wherein the first device comprises two or more levels of access, and the method comprises the further step of
Embodiment 8. A first device, configured to communicate with a further device, comprising
Embodiment 9. A second device, configured to communicate with a further device, comprising
Embodiment 10. A second device according to embodiment 9, where the buffer is filled computing a function of its own nonce and additional information such as its name, in particular using concatenation or bitwise exclusive-or.
Embodiment 11. A second device according to embodiment 9 or 10, where the unit capable of receiving the initial challenge is based on energy detection within a particular band.
Embodiment 12. A second device according to any of the embodiments 9-11, where the receiving unit is linked to the transmitting unit so that the challenge is reflected back without demodulation.
Embodiment 13. A second device according to any of the embodiments 9-12, where the transmitting unit concatenates the contents of the buffer immediately after reflecting back the received challenge.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
11001132..7 | Feb 2011 | EP | regional |
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/CH12/00039 | 2/13/2012 | WO | 00 | 11/15/2013 |