Sigfox is not publishing its detailed specifications. For this reason different people (like me) are doing reverse engineering. Thank to this activity we are now getting more and more information on how the IoT network communication works. I’ve been the first one to publish the uplink frame in details more than a year ago.
Today, during the 35th edition of CCC Congress, Florian Euchner has published, on Github, the first Open-Source Sigfox stack : LibRenard.
This library allows to transform a Sigfox radio signal into a decoded frame (uplink demodulation). It allows to create a Sigfox radio signal from a decoded frame (downlink modulation).
The LibRenard implementation follows the Open Sigfox Protocol specification also host on Github from Florian. It details the uplink as the downlink communication frames. Making this open specification as the real first Sigfox global protocol specification published.
I really want to congratulate Florian for this excellent work. I hope the stack will be soon enriched with the native Sigfox encryption I’ve just finished to detail, with the associated OOB frames.
Hello,
You weren’t the first to publish the frame details.
I have made a complete R.E. and security study about Sigfox in 2015 and then presented it in several security conferences in France and Switzerland starting from *February 2016*.
Here is a french article/summary about it:
www. 01net.com / actualites/ objets-connectes-le-reseau-francais-sigfox-une-passoire-en-matiere-de-securite-957875.html
and its translation in English:
translate.google.com / translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.01net.com%2Factualites%2Fobjets-connectes-le-reseau-francais-sigfox-une-passoire-en-matiere-de-securite-957875.html
Full research has been published here (french):
https://speakerdeck.com/rlifchitz/iot-et-securite-sigfox
and I have also thoroughly studied LoRaWAN security the same year (english):
https://speakerdeck.com/rlifchitz/security-review-of-lorawan-networks
I’m not the first one to have done research on Sigfox and not the first one to have made conference on Sigfox. But I’m the first one to have published a public content with details on Sigfox frame with details of the different fields and values. And honestly I don’t care to be the first or not, I’m just caring about making the Sigfox community progressing and learning. I’ve spent a weekend on it, I learned, I shared.
Basically you have twitted 6 days ago your speakerdeck were just published. You have 150 views confirming this. This document is really interesting and was new in 2016 but not shared across the community other than through talk touching a small number of people, even not me. The content is really interesting for 2016 but actually really poor compared to the work I’ve done past year and the excellent work Florian I’ve done.
The only interesting thing today is: we have a good raw material from Florian on witch we can base new reseach and new innovation. That’s the most interesting.
So, remove the sentence “I’ve been the first one to publish the uplink frame details more than a year ago.” if you say by yourself you are not the first to. As said, my material was publicly released during 4 talks in 2016, 3 of them being completely public and free, in Paris and Toulouse. There are 2 interviews and 4 press releases and a record about it. It’s not my responsibility if you weren’t there ou you don’t care. I just can notice you published *this very page* knowing that my slides were available for you 6 days before (because you answered the given tweet), so it’s very dishonnest to then say you’re the first, and by doing so and not quoting other people’s work you may have stolen their original time and work, who knows?
Slides are not obviously not a full study, and not the only material (there are papers, videos, interviews, reports to the supplier…), just a way to communicate on it, like a blog post. You can notice that your original blog post is way shorter to read than my full presentation to listen to. Of course, going deeper in a existing study is way easier than doing the work in the first place with tools not existing at that time…
Renault, I just not considering your 1 slides frame skeleton containing no detail and no precision like on the 4 missing bits of the “16bit” counter as a publication regarding the Sigfox protocol. We can also add that the content of this slide is not so far from the ESTI document published in 2014 by Sigfox referenced in your document. So I propose Sigfox to claim they have been the first one to publish it 😉
You document indicate it you’ve made the first security study and I do not say anything different.
You focused on this subject and you were too happy to make slides around something Sigfox experts already known (Sigfox is clear payload by default) that you missed to detail the uplink frame format, the OOB format, the downlink format. Since the last two years you were apparently too busy to update your presentation with Sigfox native encryption frame change also.
You claim I based my work on yours, the fact is not, I based it on Sigfox tool RSA (Radio Signal Analyzer) providing the same kind of raw material, I just ignored your unpublished work.
By-the-way, I published your links and anyone will be able to read it, compare your work with my, and make his own point of view on who was the first. Honestly I do not care, I’m not running for medals to make my job.
I know you love to be the last to talk on every discussions but sorry, here you are on my blog and I’m a dictator, as this discussion turning circle it was your last one.