Breaking News
Design How-To

Bluetooth low energy and proprietary RF for HID applications—A comparison

NO RATINGS
More Related Links
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
electronix79
User Rank
Rookie
re: Bluetooth low energy and proprietary RF for HID applications—A comparison
electronix79   1/19/2012 4:00:18 PM
NO RATINGS
Small fix (correct not to now) :) This C Key *now* can be used with AES in created wireless link, which is also can be automatically updated in BT v2.1 and over, depend how you setup the parameter for the updated the link Keys.

electronix79
User Rank
Rookie
re: Bluetooth low energy and proprietary RF for HID applications—A comparison
electronix79   1/19/2012 3:57:28 PM
NO RATINGS
It is obvious that AES is not used for Authentication, but in the created wireless link. The usually standard procedure in exchange of Key is through the Asymmetric Cryptography and generally to my knowledge the ECC (Elliptic Curve Cryptography) is used. The common key exchange algorithm is ECDH. Where: A - device generate the pair keys (public and private), then send to B - device the Ka * P, where P is the point in Elliptic curve. B - device do the similar and send Kb * P to A device. And finally the created secure Key is defined as C = Ka * Kb * P This C Key not can be used with AES in created wireless link, which is also can be automatically updated in BT v2.1 and over, depend how you setup the parameter for the updated the link Keys.

Luis Sanchez
User Rank
Rookie
re: Bluetooth low energy and proprietary RF for HID applications—A comparison
Luis Sanchez   1/18/2012 6:36:37 AM
NO RATINGS
Good to read this article. Though I would like to add my two cents by saying... The AES engine in a BLE chip isn´t used for authentication, only for encryption. Authentication is identifying or confirming the peer device is trusted or not. The AES engine applies a code to the data being transmitted so that third parties can't listen or decode. In regards the example of binding several BLE devices at the same time I doubt this would happen. One reason for this is that BLE allows for filtering devices by using a "white list", this way a mouse vendor can match the peripheral mouse and the BLE USB adapter together and this way avoid or reduce the devices that can connect. And finally I think comparing BLE to a specific and named propietary wireless technology would be better.

t.alex
User Rank
Rookie
re: Bluetooth low energy and proprietary RF for HID applications—A comparison
t.alex   1/15/2012 12:32:54 AM
NO RATINGS
I think the 'binding' issue in th classroom will happen with any protocol isn't it?

mema0
User Rank
Rookie
re: Bluetooth low energy and proprietary RF for HID applications—A comparison
mema0   1/6/2012 11:59:33 AM
NO RATINGS
I write as one who works with several wireless systems, including Cypress. Ble and 802.15.4 are good initiatives, and they will help in many applications. There is also (less) room for proprietary systems, but of course Ble and 802.15.4 are taking some market shares away! This c ould be a concern for firms that only have proprietary systems. It seems to me that this article reflects that fear. When will the industry be ready? Right now, I have several mobile phones in my lab that implement Ble. Of certain things will take time. Profiles will also take time to be ready. That is the case with ALL new technologies. You can make your own stuff with Ble HW if you want. With proprietary systems, you also need time!! ....Binding. Your example is quite extreme!! I will suggest you give more realistic cases. You will need to have students who are sooooo synchronised that they manage to push buttons within hundred of millisecs. The Cypress devices have interesting features such as DSSS+ FHSS, but these features are not always needed. They also have weaknesses, compared to Ble or 802.15.4 http://www.ines.zhaw.ch/

electronix79
User Rank
Rookie
re: Bluetooth low energy and proprietary RF for HID applications—A comparison
electronix79   1/6/2012 10:37:07 AM
NO RATINGS
I think this is more advertisement for Cypress RF modules, but the more right approach for this will be if you provide a real example with some block diagrams and comparison and support what you say. For me this article is fine because I am specialize in Wireless technology but when you try to sell the product you should be very careful what you compare. My personal opinion is that the wireless communication should have strong security such as AES which BLE support it and also support strong Athentication where secure Link Keys are creates and updates during communication in order to protect from Man in the middle attack. Also I am on the side of the standard protocol which is monitoring by organization and updated for detect bugs rather from using proprietary protocols which may have many weakness. It will be much better if you mention where you want to use the proprietary RF protocols with Cypress product, because few application are not sensitive to attack. The simplicity is not always the key point for selection, especially when you want to use Mesh network and not just peer to peer connection. Mesh network require intelligent wireless stack and also well secure communication.

Flash Poll
Radio
LATEST ARCHIVED BROADCAST
Join our online Radio Show on Friday 11th July starting at 2:00pm Eastern, when EETimes editor of all things fun and interesting, Max Maxfield, and embedded systems expert, Jack Ganssle, will debate as to just what is, and is not, and embedded system.
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Top Comments of the Week