Mixed signing 2

[fleinze]

to match the description in http://forum.mysensors.org/topic/1021/security-introducing-signing-support-to-mysensors :

However, the difference is that the gateway will only require signed messages from nodes it knows in turn require signed messages.

[mysensors-jenkins]

As the author of this pull request is not in my whitelist, I may not build this PR automatically.
A member of the MySensors core team can ask me to verify this pull request by telling me "jenkins, build this please".
The author can be whitelisted to get future PR:s automatically verified by telling me "jenkins, add author to whitelist please".
But remember that I will only listen if you name me with a capital 'J'.
If you would like to submit a PR and not have Jenkins build it for you, you can add "[skip ci]" to your PR "body".

[fallberg]

@fleinze Have you tested this change with a GW that require signatures, and two nodes (on that is "secure" and one that is "insecure")?
Expected behavior:
GW<->"secure node": all messages are signed in both directions
GW<->"insecure node": no messages are signed at all

I cannot currently verify the change myself I am afraid. But this is at least how it is supposed to work.

Also, you should be able to set the GW to not require signatures, then the behavior should be like this:
GW<->"secure node": all messages to the node is signed, no messages to the GW is signed
GW<->"insecure node": no messages are signed at all
It would be great if you could test this usecase as well.

[fallberg]

Jenkins, build this please

[fleinze]

thank you fallberg, I did test the usecases:
"insecure" GW -> "secure" node: messages to gateway are not signed, messages to node are signed
"insecure" GW -> "insecure" node: no signing at all

[mysensors-jenkins]

Congratulations! I found no problems building this pull request for any of the supported boards or examples.
You can see the result of the build(s) here: http://ci.mysensors.org/job/MySensorsArduinoPR/103/

[fallberg]

@fleinze Ok, so all testcases did pass as expected?

[fleinze]

I just did final tests with a clean copy: (true means requires signing, false means doesn't require signing, as in the MySigning constructor)
GW(true) -> node(true): all messages signed
GW(true) -> node(false): no messages signed
GW(false) -> node(false): no messages signed
GW(false) -> node(true): messages to the gw are not signed, messages to the node are signed
So, all testcases as expected.

[fallberg]

Thanks @fleinze for finding and fixing this!