SUIT Manifest Extensions for Multiple Trust Domains
draft-ietf-suit-trust-domains-06
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (suit WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Brendan Moran , Ken Takayama | ||
| Last updated | 2024-03-04 | ||
| Replaces | draft-moran-suit-trust-domains | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources |
GitHub Repository
Mailing List Archive Related Implementations Mailing list discussion |
||
| Stream | WG state | Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead | |
| Associated WG milestones |
|
||
| Document shepherd | Dave Thaler | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2023-07-17 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | dthaler@microsoft.com |
draft-ietf-suit-trust-domains-06
SUIT B. Moran
Internet-Draft Arm Limited
Intended status: Standards Track K. Takayama
Expires: 5 September 2024 SECOM CO., LTD.
4 March 2024
SUIT Manifest Extensions for Multiple Trust Domains
draft-ietf-suit-trust-domains-06
Abstract
This specification describes extensions to the SUIT Manifest format
(as defined in [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) for use in deployments with
multiple trust domains. A device has more than one trust domain when
it enables delegation of different rights to mutually distrusting
entities for use for different purposes or Components in the context
of firmware or software update.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 5 September 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Changes to SUIT Workflow Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Changes to Manifest Metadata Structure . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Changes to Required Checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Changes to Manifest Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2.1. Manifest Component ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2.2. SUIT_Dependencies Manifest Element . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. Changes to Abstract Machine Description . . . . . . . . . 11
5.4. Processing Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.4.1. Multiple Manifest Processors . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.5. Dependency Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.6. Added and Modified Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.6.1. suit-directive-set-parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.6.2. suit-directive-process-dependency . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.6.3. suit-condition-is-dependency . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.6.4. suit-condition-dependency-integrity . . . . . . . . . 16
5.6.5. suit-directive-unlink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Uninstall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Staging and Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.1. suit-candidate-verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8. Creating Manifests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.1. Dependency Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.1.1. Integrated Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.2. Encrypted Manifest Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.3. Overriding Encryption Info Template . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.4. Operating on Multiple Components . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.1. SUIT Envelope Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.2. SUIT Manifest Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.3. SUIT Common Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.4. SUIT Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
Appendix A. A. Full CDDL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Appendix B. B. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
B.1. Example 0: Process Dependency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
B.2. Example 1: Integrated Dependency . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1. Introduction
Devices that go beyond single-signer update require more complex
rules for deploying software updates. For example, devices may
require:
* software Components from multiple software signing authorities.
* a mechanism to remove an unneeded Component
* single-object Dependencies
* a partly encrypted Manifest so that distribution does not reveal
private information
* installation performed by a different execution mode than payload
fetch
Dependency Manifests enable several additional use cases. In
particular, they enable two or more entities who are trusted for
different privileges to coordinate. This can be used in many
scenarios. For example:
* A device may contain a processor in its radio in addition to the
primary processor. These two processors may have separate
Software with separate signing authorities. Dependencies allow
the Software for the primary processor to reference a Manifest
signed by a different authority.
* A network operator may wish to provide local caching of Update
Payloads. The network operator overrides the URI of a Payload by
providing a dependent Manifest that references the original
Manifest, but replaces its URI.
* A device operator provides a device with some additional
configuration. The device operator wants to test their
configuration with each new Software version before releasing it.
The configuration is delivered as a binary in the same way as a
Software Image. The device operator references the Software
Manifest from the Software author in their own Manifest which also
defines the configuration.
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
* An Author wants to entrust a Distributor to provide devices with
firmware decryption keys, but not permit the Distributor to sign
code. Dependencies allow the Distributor to deliver a device's
decryption information without also granting code signing
authority.
* A Trusted Application Manager (TAM) wants to distribute
personalisation information to a Trusted Execution Environment in
addition to a Trusted Application (TA), but does not have code
signing authority. Dependencies enable the TAM to construct an
update containing the personalisation information and a dependency
on the TA, but leaves the TA signed by the TA's Author.
By using Dependencies, Components such as Software, configuration,
and other Resource data authenticated by different Trust Anchors can
be delivered to devices.
These mechanisms are not part of the core Manifest specification, but
they are needed for more advanced use cases, such as the architecture
described in [I-D.ietf-teep-architecture].
This specification extends the SUIT Manifest specification
([I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]).
2. Conventions and Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Additionally, the following terminology is used throughout this
document:
* SUIT: Software Update for the Internet of Things, also the IETF
working group for this standard.
* Payload: A piece of information to be delivered. Typically
Firmware/Software, configuration, or Resource data such as text or
images.
* Resource: A piece of information that is used to construct a
Payload.
* Manifest: A Manifest is a bundle of metadata about one or more
Components for a device, where to find them, and the devices to
which they apply.
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
* Envelope: A container with the Manifest, an authentication wrapper
with cryptographic information protecting the Manifest,
authorization information, and severable elements (see Section 5.1
of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]).
* Update: One or more Manifests that describe one or more Payloads.
* Update Authority: The owner of a cryptographic key used to sign
Updates, trusted by Recipients.
* Recipient: The system that receives and processes a Manifest.
* Manifest Processor: A component of the Recipient that consumes
Manifests and executes the Commands in the Manifest.
* Component: An updatable logical block of the Firmware, Software,
configuration, or data of the Recipient.
* Component Set: A group of interdependent Components that must be
updated simultaneously.
* Command: A Condition or a Directive.
* Condition: A test for a property of the Recipient or its
Components.
* Directive: An action for the Recipient to perform.
* Trusted Invocation: A process by which a system ensures that only
trusted code is executed, for example secure boot or launching a
Trusted Application.
* A/B Images: Dividing a Recipient's storage into two or more
bootable Images, at different offsets, such that the active Image
can write to the inactive Image(s).
* Record: The result of a Command and any metadata about it.
* Report: A list of Records.
* Procedure: The process of invoking one or more sequences of
Commands.
* Update Procedure: A superset of Staging Procedure and Installation
Procedure.
* Staging Procedure: A procedure that fetches dependencies and
images referenced by an Update and stores them to a Staging Area.
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
* Installation Procedure: A procedure that installs dependencies and
images stored in a Staging Area; copying (and optionally,
transforming them) into an active Image storage location.
* Invocation Procedure: A Procedure in which a Recipient verifies
Dependencies and Images, loading Images, and invokes one or more
Image.
* Staging Area: A Component or group of Components that are used for
transient storage of Images between fetch and installation.
Images in this area are opaque, except for use by the Installation
Procedure.
* Software: Instructions and data that allow a Recipient to perform
a useful function.
* Firmware: Software that is typically changed infrequently, stored
in nonvolatile memory, and small enough to apply to [RFC7228]
Class 0-2 devices.
* Image: Information that a Recipient uses to perform its function,
typically Firmware/Software, configuration, or Resource data such
as text or images. Also, a Payload, once installed is an Image.
* Slot: One of several possible storage locations for a given
Component, typically used in A/B Image systems
* Abort: An event in which the Manifest Processor immediately halts
execution of the current Procedure. It creates a Record of an
error Condition.
* Trust Anchor: A Trust Anchor, as defined in [RFC6024], represents
an authoritative entity via a public key and associated data. The
public key is used to verify digital signatures, and the
associated data is used to constrain the types of information for
which the Trust Anchor is authoritative.
3. Changes to SUIT Workflow Model
The use of the features presented for use with multiple trust domains
requires some augmentation of the workflow presented in the SUIT
Manifest specification ([I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]):
One additional assumption is added for the Update Procedure:
* All Dependency Manifests must be present before any Payload is
fetched.
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
One additional assumption is added to the Invocation Procedure:
* All Dependencies must be validated prior to loading.
Steps 3 and 5 are added to the expected installation workflow of a
Recipient:
1. Verify the signature of the Manifest.
2. Verify the applicability of the Manifest.
3. Resolve Dependencies.
4. Fetch Payload(s).
5. Verify Candidate.
6. Install Payload(s).
In addition, when multiple Manifests are used for an Update, each
Manifest's steps occur in a lockstep fashion; all Manifests have
Dependency resolution performed before any Manifest performs a
Payload fetch, etc.
4. Changes to Manifest Metadata Structure
To accommodate the additional metadata needed to enable these
features, the Envelope and Manifest have several new elements added.
The Envelope gains one more elements: Integrated Dependencies. The
Common metadata section in the Manifest also gains a list of
Dependencies.
The new metadata structure is shown below.
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
+-------------------------+
| Envelope |
+-------------------------+
| Authentication Block |
| Manifest --------------> +------------------------------+
| Severable Elements | | Manifest |
| Human-Readable Text | +------------------------------+
| CoSWID | | Structure Version |
| Integrated Dependencies | | Sequence Number |
| Integrated Payloads | | Reference to Full Manifest |
+-------------------------+ +------ Common Structure |
| +---- Command Sequences |
+-------------------------+ | | | Digests of Envelope Elements |
| Common Structure | <--+ | +------------------------------+
+-------------------------+ |
| Dependency Indices | +-> +-----------------------+
| Component IDs | | Command Sequence |
| Common Command Sequence ---------> +-----------------------+
+-------------------------+ | List of ( pairs of ( |
| * command code |
| * argument / |
| reporting policy |
| )) |
+-----------------------+
5. Dependencies
A Dependency is another SUIT_Envelope that describes additional
Components.
As described in Section 1, Dependencies enable several common use
cases.
5.1. Changes to Required Checks
This section augments the definitions in Required Checks
(Section 6.2) of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest].
More checks are required when handling Dependencies. By default, any
signature of a Dependency MUST be verified. However, there are some
exceptions to this rule: where a device supports only one level of
access (no ACLs defining which authorities have access to different
Components/Commands/Parameters), it MAY choose to skip signature
verification of Dependencies, since they are verified by digest.
Where a device differentiates between trust levels, such as with an
ACL, it MAY choose to defer the verification of signatures of
Dependencies until the list of affected Components is known so that
it can skip redundant signature verifications. For example, if a
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
dependent's signer has access rights to all Components specified in a
Dependency, then that Dependency does not require a signature
verification. Similarly, if the signer of the dependent has full
rights to the device, according to the ACL, then no signature
verification is necessary on the Dependency.
Components that should be treated as Dependency Manifests are
identified in the suit-common metadata. See Section 5.2 for details.
If the Manifest contains more than one Component and/or Dependency,
each Command sequence MUST begin with a Set Component Index Command.
If a Dependency is specified, then the Manifest processor MUST
perform the following checks:
1. The dependent MUST populate all Command sequences for the current
Procedure (Update or Invoke).
2. At the end of each section in the dependent: The corresponding
section in each Dependency has been executed.
If the interpreter does not support Dependencies and a Manifest
specifies a Dependency, then the interpreter MUST Abort.
If a Recipient supports groups of interdependent Components (a
Component Set), then it SHOULD verify that all Components in the
Component Set are specified by a single Manifest and all its
Dependencies that together:
1. have sufficient permissions imparted by their signatures
2. specify a digest and a Payload for every Component in the
Component Set.
The single dependent Manifest is sometimes called a Root Manifest.
5.2. Changes to Manifest Structure
This section augments the Manifest Structure (Section 8.4) in
[I-D.ietf-suit-manifest].
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
5.2.1. Manifest Component ID
In complex systems, it may not always be clear where the Root
Manifest should be stored; this is particularly complex when a system
has multiple, independent Root Manifests. The Manifest Component ID
resolves this contention. The manifest-component-id is intended to
be used by the Root Manifest. When a Dependency Manifest also
declares a Component ID, the Dependency Manifest's Component ID is
overridden by the Component ID declared by the dependent.
The following CDDL describes the Manifest Component ID:
$$SUIT_Manifest_Extensions //=
(suit-manifest-component-id => SUIT_Component_Identifier)
5.2.2. SUIT_Dependencies Manifest Element
The suit-common section, as described in [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest],
Section 8.4.5 is extended with a map of Component indices that
indicate a Dependency Manifest. The keys of the map are the
Component indices and the values of the map are any extra metadata
needed to describe those Dependency Manifests.
Because some operations treat Dependency Manifests differently from
other Components, it is necessary to identify them.
SUIT_Dependencies identifies which Components from suit-components
(see Section 8.4.5 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) are to be treated as
Dependency Manifest Envelopes. SUIT_Dependencies is a map of
Components, referenced by Component Index. Optionally, a Component
prefix or other metadata may be delivered with the Component index.
The CDDL for suit-dependencies is shown below:
$$SUIT_Common-extensions //= (
suit-dependencies => SUIT_Dependencies
)
SUIT_Dependencies = {
+ uint => SUIT_Dependency_Metadata
}
SUIT_Dependency_Metadata = {
? suit-dependency-prefix => SUIT_Component_Identifier
* $$SUIT_Dependency_Extensions
}
If no extended metadata is needed for an extension,
SUIT_Dependency_Metadata is an empty map (this is the same encoding
size as a null). SUIT_Dependencies MUST be sorted according to CBOR
canonical encoding.
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
The Components specified by SUIT_Dependency will contain a Manifest
Envelope that describes a Dependency of the current Manifest. The
Manifest is identified, but the Recipient should expect an Envelope
when it acquires the Dependency. This is because the Manifest is the
one invariant element of the Envelope, where other elements may
change by countersigning, adding authentication blocks, or severing
elements.
When executing suit-condition-image-match over a Component that is
designated in SUIT_Dependency, the digest MUST be computed over just
the bstr-wrapped SUIT_Manifest contained in the Manifest Envelope
designated by the Component Index. This enables a Dependency
reference to uniquely identify a particular Manifest structure. This
is identical to the digest that is present as the first element of
the suit-authentication-block in the Dependency's Envelope. The
digest is calculated over the Manifest structure to ensure that
removing a signature from a Manifest does not break Dependencies due
to missing signature elements. This is also necessary to support the
trusted intermediary use case, where an intermediary re-signs the
Manifest, removing the original signature, potentially with a
different algorithm, or trading COSE_Sign for COSE_Mac.
The suit-dependency-prefix element contains a
SUIT_Component_Identifier (see Section 8.4.5.1 of
[I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]). This specifies the scope at which the
Dependency operates. This allows the Dependency to be forwarded on
to a Component that is capable of parsing its own Manifests. It also
allows one Manifest to be deployed to multiple dependent Recipients
without those Recipients needing consistent Component hierarchy.
This element is OPTIONAL for Recipients to implement.
A Dependency prefix can be used with a Component identifier. This
allows complex systems to understand where Dependencies need to be
applied. The Dependency prefix can be used in one of two ways. The
first simply prepends the prefix to all Component Identifiers in the
Dependency.
A Dependency prefix can also be used to indicate when a Dependency
Manifest needs to be processed by a secondary Manifest processor, as
described in Section 5.4.1.
5.3. Changes to Abstract Machine Description
This section augments the Abstract Machine Description (Section 6.4)
in [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]. With the addition of Dependencies, some
changes are necessary to the abstract machine, outside the typical
scope of added Commands. These changes alter the behaviour of an
existing Command and way that the parser processes Manifests:
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
* Five new Commands are introduced:
- Set Parameters
- Process Dependency
- Is Dependency
- Dependency Integrity
- Unlink
* Dependency Manifests are also Components. All Commands may target
Dependency Manifests as well as Components, with one exception:
process Dependency. Commands defined outside of this draft and
[I-D.ietf-suit-manifest] MAY have additional restrictions.
* Dependencies are processed in lockstep with the Root Manifest.
This means that every Dependency's current Command sequence must
be executed before a dependent's later Command sequence may be
executed. For example, every Dependency's Dependency Resolution
step MUST be executed before any dependent's Payload fetch step.
* When a Manifest Processor supports multiple independent
Components, they MAY have shared Dependencies.
* When a Manifest Processor supports shared Dependencies, it MUST
support reference counting of those Dependencies.
* When reference counting is used, Components MUST NOT be
overwritten. The Manifest Uninstall section must be called, then
the component MUST be Unlinked.
5.4. Processing Dependencies
As described in Section 5.1, each Manifest must invoke each of its
Dependencies' sections from the corresponding section of the
dependent. Any changes made to Parameters by the Dependency persist
in the dependent.
When a Process Dependency Command is encountered, the Manifest
processor:
1. Checks whether the map of Dependencies contains an entry for the
current Component Index. If not present, it causes an immediate
Abort.
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
2. Checks whether the Dependency has been the target of a Dependency
integrity check. If not, it causes an immediate Abort.
3. Loads the specified Component as a Dependency Manifest Envelope.
4. Authenticates the Dependency Manifest.
5. Executes the common-sequence section of the Dependency Manifest.
6. Executes the section of the Dependency Manifest that corresponds
to the currently executing section of the dependent.
If the specified Dependency does not contain the current section,
Process Dependency succeeds immediately.
The interpreter also performs the checks described in Section 5.1 to
ensure that the dependent is processing the Dependency correctly.
5.4.1. Multiple Manifest Processors
When a system has multiple trust domains, each domain might require
independent verification of authenticity or security policies. Trust
domains might be divided by separation technology such as Arm
TrustZone, Intel SGX, or another Trusted Execution Environment (TEE)
technology. Trust domains might also be divided into separate
processors and memory spaces, with a communication interface between
them.
For example, an application processor may have an attached
communications module that contains a processor. The communications
module might require metadata signed by a specific Trust Authority
for regulatory approval. This may be a different Trust Authority
than the application processor.
When there are two or more trust domains, a Manifest processor might
be required in each. The first Manifest processor is the normal
Manifest processor as described for the Recipient in Section 6 of
[I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]. The second Manifest processor only
executes sections when the first Manifest processor requests it. An
API interface is provided from the second Manifest processor to the
first. This allows the first Manifest processor to request a limited
set of operations from the second. These operations are limited to:
setting Parameters, inserting an Envelope, and invoking a Manifest
Command Sequence. The second Manifest processor declares a prefix to
the first, which tells the first Manifest processor when it should
delegate to the second. These rules are enforced by underlying
separation of privilege infrastructure, such as TEEs, or physical
separation.
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
When the first Manifest processor encounters a Dependency prefix,
that informs the first Manifest processor that it should provide the
second Manifest processor with the corresponding Dependency Envelope.
This is done when the Dependency is fetched. The second Manifest
processor immediately verifies any authentication information in the
Dependency Envelope. When a Parameter is set for any Component that
matches the prefix, this Parameter setting is passed to the second
Manifest processor via an API. As the first Manifest processor works
through the Procedure (set of Command sequences) it is executing,
each time it sees a Process Dependency Command that is associated
with the prefix declared by the second Manifest processor, it uses
the API to ask the second Manifest processor to invoke that
Dependency section instead.
This mechanism ensures that the two or more Manifest processors do
not need to trust each other, except in a very limited case. When
Parameter setting across trust domains is used, it must be very
carefully considered. Only Parameters that do not have an effect on
security properties should be allowed. The Dependency Manifest MAY
control which Parameters are allowed to be set by using the Override
Parameters Directive. The second Manifest processor MAY also control
which Parameters may be set by the first Manifest processor by means
of an ACL that lists the allowed Parameters. For example, a URI may
be set by a dependent without a substantial impact on the security
properties of the Manifest.
5.5. Dependency Resolution
The Dependency Resolution Command Sequence is a container for the
Commands needed to acquire and process the Dependencies of the
current Manifest. All Dependency Manifests SHOULD be fetched before
any Payload is fetched to ensure that all Manifests are available and
authenticated before any of the (larger) Payloads are acquired.
5.6. Added and Modified Commands
All Commands are modified in that they can also target Dependencies.
However, Set Component Index has a larger modification.
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
+================+====================================+
| Command Name | Semantic of the Operation |
+================+====================================+
| Set Parameters | current.params[k] := v if not k in |
| | current.params for-each k,v in arg |
+----------------+------------------------------------+
| Process | exec(current[common]); |
| Dependency | exec(current[current-segment]) |
+----------------+------------------------------------+
| Dependency | verify(current, |
| Integrity | current.params[image-digest]) |
+----------------+------------------------------------+
| Is Dependency | assert(current exists in |
| | Dependencies) |
+----------------+------------------------------------+
| Unlink | unlink(current) |
+----------------+------------------------------------+
Table 1
5.6.1. suit-directive-set-parameters
Similar to suit-directive-override-parameters, suit-directive-set-
parameters allows the Manifest to configure behavior of future
Directives by changing Parameters that are read by those Directives.
Set Parameters is for use when Dependencies are used because it
allows a Manifest to modify the behavior of its Dependencies.
Available Parameters are defined in [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest], section
8.4.8.
If a Parameter is already set, suit-directive-set-parameters will
skip setting the Parameter to its argument. This allows dependent
Manifests to change the behavior of a Manifest, a Dependency that
wishes to enforce a specific value of a Parameter MAY use suit-
directive-override-parameters instead.
suit-directive-set-parameters does not specify a reporting policy.
5.6.2. suit-directive-process-dependency
Execute the Commands in the common section of the current Dependency,
followed by the Commands in the equivalent section of the current
Dependency. For example, if the current section is "Payload Fetch,"
this will execute "Common metadata" in the current Dependency, then
"Payload Fetch" in the current Dependency. Once this is complete,
the Command following suit-directive-process-dependency will be
processed.
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
If the current Component index does not have an entry in the suit-
dependencies map, then this Command MUST Abort.
If the current Component index has not been the target of a suit-
condition-dependency-integrity, then this Command MUST Abort.
If the current Component is True, then this Directive applies to all
Dependencies. If the current section is "Common metadata," then the
Command sequence MUST Abort.
When SUIT_Process_Dependency completes, it forwards the last status
code that occurred in the Dependency.
5.6.3. suit-condition-is-dependency
Check whether the current Component index is present in the
Dependency list. If the current Component is in the Dependency list,
suit-condition-is-dependency succeeds. Otherwise, it fails. This
can be used along with component-id = True to act on all Dependencies
or on all non-Dependency Components. See Section 8 for more details.
5.6.4. suit-condition-dependency-integrity
Verify the integrity of a Dependency Manifest. When a Manifest
Processor executes suit-condition-dependency-integrity, it performs
the following operations:
1. Verify the signature of the Manifest hash
2. Compare the Manifest hash to the provided hash
3. Verify the Manifest against the Manifest hash
If any of these steps fails, the Manifest Process MUST immediately
Abort.
The Manifest Processor MAY cache the results of these operations for
later use from the context of the current Manifest. The Manifest
Processor MUST NOT use cached results from any other Manifest
context. If the Manifest Processor caches the results of these
checks, it MUST eliminate this cache if any Fetch, or Copy operation
targets the Dependency Manifest's Component ID.
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
5.6.5. suit-directive-unlink
A manifest processor that supports multiple independent root
manifests MUST support suit-directive-unlink. When a Component is no
longer needed, the Manifest processor unlinks the Component to inform
the Manifest processor that it is no longer needed.
If a Manifest is no longer needed, the Manifest Processor unlinks it.
This causes the Manifest Processor to execute the suit-uninstall
section of the unlinked Manifest, after which it decrements the
reference count of the unlinked Manifest. The suit-uninstall section
of a manifest typically contains an unlink of all its dependencies
and components.
All components, including Manifests must be unlinked before deletion
or overwrite. If the reference count of a component is non-zero, any
command that alters that component MUST cause an immediate ABORT.
Affected commands are:
* suit-directive-copy
* suit-directive-fetch
* suit-directive-write
The unlink Command decrements an implementation-defined reference
counter. This reference counter MUST persist across restarts. The
reference counter MUST NOT be decremented by a given Manifest more
than once, and the Manifest processor must enforce this. The
Manifest processor MAY choose to ignore an Unlink Directive depending
on device policy.
When the reference counter of a Manifest reaches zero, the suit-
uninstall Command sequence is invoked (see Section 6).
suit-directive-unlink is OPTIONAL to implement in Manifest
processors, but Manifest processors that support multiple independent
Root Manifests MUST support suit-directive-unlink.
6. Uninstall
In some systems, particularly with multiple, independent, optional
Components, it may be that there is a need to uninstall the
Components that have been installed by a Manifest. Where this is
expected, the uninstall Command sequence can provide the sequence
needed to cleanly remove the Components defined by the Manifest and
its Dependencies. In general, the suit-uninstall Command Sequence
will contain primarily unlink Directives.
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
WARNING: This can cause faults where there are loose Dependencies
(e.g., version range matching, see
[I-D.ietf-suit-update-management]), since a Component can be removed
while it is depended upon by another Component. To avoid Dependency
faults, a Manifest author MAY use explicit Dependencies where
possible, or a Manifest processor MAY track references to loose
Dependencies via reference counting in the same way as explicit
Dependencies, as described in Section 5.6.5.
The suit-uninstall Command Sequence is not severable, since it must
always be available to enable uninstalling.
7. Staging and Installation
In order to coordinate between download and installation in different
trust domains, the Update Procedure defined in
[I-D.ietf-suit-manifest], Section 8.4.6 is divided into two sub-
procedures:
* The Staging Procedure: This procedure is responsible for
dependency resolution and acquiring all payloads required for the
Update to proceed. It is composed of two command sequences
- suit-dependency-resolution
- suit-payload-fetch
* The Installation Procedure: This procedure is responsible for
validating staged components and installing them. It is composed
of:
- suit-candidate-validation
- suit-install
This extension is backwards compatible when used with a Manifest
Processor that supports the Update Procedure but = does not support
the Staging Procedure and Installation Procedure: the payload-fetch
command sequence already contains suit-condition-image tests for each
payload (see [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest], section 7.3) which means that
images are already validated when suit-install is invoked. This
makes suit-candidate-verification OPTIONAL to implement and OPTIONAL
to parse.
The Staging and Installation Procedures are only required when
Staging occurs in a different trust domain to Installation.
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
7.1. suit-candidate-verification
This command sequence is responsible for verifying that all elements
of an update are present and correct prior to installation. This is
only required when Installation occurs in a trust domain different
from Staging, such as an installer invoked by the bootloader.
8. Creating Manifests
This section details a set of templates for creating Manifests.
These templates explain which Parameters, Commands, and orders of
Commands are necessary to achieve a stated goal.
8.1. Dependency Template
The goal of the Dependency template is to obtain, verify, and process
a Dependency Manifest as appropriate.
The following Commands are added to the shared sequence:
* Set Component Index Directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of
[I-D.ietf-suit-manifest])
* Set Parameters Directive (see Section 5.6.1) for digest (see
Section 8.4.8.6 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]). Note that the
digest MUST match the SUIT_Digest in the Dependency's suit-
authentication-block (see Section 8.3 of
[I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]).
The following Commands are placed into the Dependency resolution
sequence:
* Set Component Index Directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of
[I-D.ietf-suit-manifest])
* Set Parameters Directive (see Section 5.6.1) for a URI (see
Section 8.4.8.10 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest])
* Fetch Directive (see Section 8.4.10.4 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest])
* Dependency Integrity Condition (see Section 5.6.4)
* Process Dependency Directive (see Section 5.6.2)
Then, the validate sequence contains the following operations:
* Set Component Index Directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of
[I-D.ietf-suit-manifest])
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
* Dependency Integrity Condition (see Section 5.6.4)
* Process Dependency Directive (see Section 5.6.2)
If any Dependency is declared, the dependent MUST populate all
Command sequences for the current Procedure (Update or Invoke).
NOTE: Any changes made to Parameters in a Dependency persist in the
dependent.
8.1.1. Integrated Dependencies
An implementer MAY choose to place a Dependency's Envelope in the
Envelope of its dependent. The dependent Envelope key for the
Dependency Envelope MUST be a text string. The URI for the
Dependency MUST match the text string key of the dependent's Envelope
key. It is RECOMMENDED to make the text string key a resolvable URI
so that a Dependency Manifest that is removed from the Envelope can
still be fetched.
8.2. Encrypted Manifest Template
The goal of the Encrypted Manifest template is to fetch and decrypt a
Manifest so that it can be used as a Dependency. To use an encrypted
Manifest, create a plaintext dependent, and add the encrypted
Manifest as a Dependency. The dependent can include very little
information.
NOTE: This template also requires the extensions defined in
[I-D.ietf-suit-firmware-encryption].
The following Commands are added to the shared sequence:
* Set Component Index Directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of
[I-D.ietf-suit-manifest])
* Set Parameters Directive (see Section 5.6.1) for digest (see
Section 8.4.8.6 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]). Note that the
digest MUST match the SUIT_Digest in the Dependency's suit-
authentication-block (see Section 8.3 of
[I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]).
The following operations are placed into the Dependency resolution
block:
* Set Component Index Directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of
[I-D.ietf-suit-manifest])
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
* Set Parameters Directive (see Section 5.6.1) for
- URI (see Section 8.4.8.9 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest])
- Encryption Info (See [I-D.ietf-suit-firmware-encryption])
* Fetch Directive (see Section 8.4.10.4 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest])
* Dependency Integrity Condition (see Section 5.6.4)
* Process Dependency Directive (see Section 5.6.2)
Then, the validate block contains the following operations:
* Set Component Index Directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of
[I-D.ietf-suit-manifest])
* Check Image Match Condition (see Section 8.4.9.2 of
[I-D.ietf-suit-manifest])
* Process Dependency Directive (see Section 5.6.2)
A plaintext Manifest and its encrypted Dependency may also form a
composite Manifest (Section 8.1.1).
8.3. Overriding Encryption Info Template
The goal of overriding the Encryption Info template is to separate
the role of generating encrypted Payload and Encryption Info with
Key-Encryption Key addressing Section 3 of
[I-D.ietf-suit-firmware-encryption].
As an example, this template describes two manifests: - The dependent
Manifest created by the Distribution System contains Encryption Info,
allowing the Device to generate the Content-Encryption Key. - The
dependency Manifest created by the Author contains Commands to
decrypt the encrypted Payload using Encryption Info above and to
validate the plaintext Payload with SUIT_Digest.
NOTE: This template also requires the extensions defined in
[I-D.ietf-suit-firmware-encryption].
The following operations are placed into the Dependency resolution
block of dependent Manifest:
* Set Component Index Directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of
[I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) pointing at dependency Manifest
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
* Set Parameters Directive (see Section 5.6.1) for
- Image Digest (see Section 8.4.8.6 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest])
- URI (see Section 8.4.8.9 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) of
dependency Manifest
* Fetch Directive (see Section 8.4.10.4 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest])
* Dependency Integrity Condition (see Section 5.6.4)
The following Commands are placed into the Fetch/Install block of
dependent Manifest
* Set Component Index Directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of
[I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) pointing at encrypted Payload
* Set Parameters Directive (see Section 5.6.1) for
- URI (see Section 8.4.8.9 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest])
* Set Component Index Directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of
[I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) pointing at dependency Manifest
* Set Parameters Directive (see Section 5.6.1) for
- Encryption Info (See [I-D.ietf-suit-firmware-encryption])
* Process Dependency Directive (see Section 5.6.2)
The following Commands are placed into the same block of dependency
Manifest:
* Set Component Index Directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of
[I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) pointing at encrypted Payload
* Fetch Directive (see Section 8.4.10.4 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest])
* Set Component Index Directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of
[I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) pointing at to be decrypted Payload
* Override Parameters Directive (see Section 8.4.10.3 of
[I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) for
- Source Component (see Section 8.4.8.11 of
[I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]) pointing at encrypted Payload
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
* Copy Directive (see Section 8.4.10.5 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest])
consuming the Encryption Info above
The Distribution System can Set the Parameter URI in the Fetch/
Install block of dependent Manifest if it wants to overwrite the URI
of encrypted Payload.
Because the Author and the Distribution System have different roles
and MAY be separate entities, it is highly RECOMMENDED to leverage
permissions (see Section 9 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]). For
example, The Device can protect itself from attacker who breaches the
Distribution System by allowing only the Author's Manifest to modify
the Component of (to be) decrypted Payload.
8.4. Operating on Multiple Components
In order to produce compact encoding, it is efficient to perform
operations on multiple Components simultaneously. Because Dependency
Manifests and Component Images are processed at different times,
there is a mechanism to distinguish between these elements: suit-
condition-is-dependency. This can be used with suit-directive-try-
each to perform operations just on Dependency Manifests or just on
Component Images.
For example, to fetch all Dependency Manifests, the following
Commands are added to the Dependency resolution block:
* Set Component Index Directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of
[I-D.ietf-suit-manifest])
* Set Parameters Directive (see Section 5.6.1) for a URI (see
Section 8.4.8.9 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest])
* Set Component Index Directive, with argument "True" (see
Section 8.4.10.1 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest])
* Try Each Directive
- Sequence 0
o Condition Is Dependency Manifest
o Fetch
o Dependency Integrity Condition (see Section 5.6.4)
o Process Dependency
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
- Sequence 1 (Empty; no Commands, succeeds immediately)
Another example is to fetch and validate all Component Images. The
Image fetch sequence contains the following Commands:
* Set Component Index Directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of
[I-D.ietf-suit-manifest])
* Set Parameters Directive (see Section 5.6.1) for a URI (see
Section 8.4.8.9 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest])
* Set Component Index Directive, with argument "True" (see
Section 8.4.10.1 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest])
* Try Each Directive
- Sequence 0
o Condition Is Dependency Manifest
o Process Dependency
- Sequence 1
o Fetch
o Condition Image Match
When some Components are "installed" or "loaded" it is more
productive to use lists of Component indices rather than Component
Index = True. For example, to install several Components, the
following Commands should be placed in the Image Install Sequence:
* Set Component Index Directive (see Section 8.4.10.1 of
[I-D.ietf-suit-manifest])
* Set Parameters Directive (see Section 5.6.1) for the Source
Component (see Section 8.4.8.11 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest])
* Set Component Index Directive, with argument containing list of
destination Component indices (see Section 8.4.10.1 of
[I-D.ietf-suit-manifest])
* Copy
* Set Component Index Directive, with argument containing list
Dependency Component indices (see Section 8.4.10.1 of
[I-D.ietf-suit-manifest])
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
* Process Dependency
9. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to allocate the following numbers in the listed
registries created by draft-ietf-suit-manifest:
9.1. SUIT Envelope Elements
+=======+========================+=============+
| Label | Name | Reference |
+=======+========================+=============+
| 15 | Dependency Resolution | Section 5.5 |
+-------+------------------------+-------------+
| 18 | Candidate Verification | Section 7.1 |
+-------+------------------------+-------------+
Table 2
9.2. SUIT Manifest Elements
+=======+=======================+===============+
| Label | Name | Reference |
+=======+=======================+===============+
| 5 | Manifest Component ID | Section 5.2.1 |
+-------+-----------------------+---------------+
| 15 | Dependency Resolution | Section 5.5 |
+-------+-----------------------+---------------+
| 24 | Uninstall | Section 6 |
+-------+-----------------------+---------------+
Table 3
9.3. SUIT Common Elements
+=======+==============+===============+
| Label | Name | Reference |
+=======+==============+===============+
| 1 | Dependencies | Section 5.2.2 |
+-------+--------------+---------------+
Table 4
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
9.4. SUIT Commands
+=======+======================+===============+
| Label | Name | Reference |
+=======+======================+===============+
| 7 | Dependency Integrity | Section 5.6.4 |
+-------+----------------------+---------------+
| 8 | Is Dependency | Section 5.6.3 |
+-------+----------------------+---------------+
| 11 | Process Dependency | Section 5.6.2 |
+-------+----------------------+---------------+
| 19 | Set Parameters | Section 5.6.1 |
+-------+----------------------+---------------+
| 33 | Unlink | Section 5.6.5 |
+-------+----------------------+---------------+
Table 5
10. Security Considerations
This document is about a Manifest format protecting and describing
how to retrieve, install, and invoke Images and as such it is part of
a larger solution for delivering software updates to devices. A
detailed security treatment can be found in the architecture
[RFC9019] and in the information model [RFC9124] documents.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]
Moran, B., Tschofenig, H., Birkholz, H., Zandberg, K., and
O. Rønningstad, "A Concise Binary Object Representation
(CBOR)-based Serialization Format for the Software Updates
for Internet of Things (SUIT) Manifest", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-suit-manifest-25, 5 February
2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
suit-manifest-25>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986>.
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
[RFC6024] Reddy, R. and C. Wallace, "Trust Anchor Management
Requirements", RFC 6024, DOI 10.17487/RFC6024, October
2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6024>.
[RFC7228] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7228>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC8392] Jones, M., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and H. Tschofenig,
"CBOR Web Token (CWT)", RFC 8392, DOI 10.17487/RFC8392,
May 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8392>.
[RFC8747] Jones, M., Seitz, L., Selander, G., Erdtman, S., and H.
Tschofenig, "Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for CBOR
Web Tokens (CWTs)", RFC 8747, DOI 10.17487/RFC8747, March
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8747>.
[RFC9019] Moran, B., Tschofenig, H., Brown, D., and M. Meriac, "A
Firmware Update Architecture for Internet of Things",
RFC 9019, DOI 10.17487/RFC9019, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9019>.
[RFC9124] Moran, B., Tschofenig, H., and H. Birkholz, "A Manifest
Information Model for Firmware Updates in Internet of
Things (IoT) Devices", RFC 9124, DOI 10.17487/RFC9124,
January 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9124>.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-suit-firmware-encryption]
Tschofenig, H., Housley, R., Moran, B., Brown, D., and K.
Takayama, "Encrypted Payloads in SUIT Manifests", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-suit-firmware-
encryption-19, 3 March 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-suit-
firmware-encryption-19>.
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
[I-D.ietf-suit-update-management]
Moran, B. and K. Takayama, "Update Management Extensions
for Software Updates for Internet of Things (SUIT)
Manifests", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
suit-update-management-05, 8 November 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-suit-
update-management-05>.
[I-D.ietf-teep-architecture]
Pei, M., Tschofenig, H., Thaler, D., and D. M. Wheeler,
"Trusted Execution Environment Provisioning (TEEP)
Architecture", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-teep-architecture-19, 24 October 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teep-
architecture-19>.
Appendix A. A. Full CDDL
To be valid, the following CDDL MUST be appended to the SUIT Manifest
CDDL. The SUIT CDDL is defined in Appendix A of
[I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]
$$SUIT_Envelope_Extensions //=
(suit-delegation => bstr .cbor SUIT_Delegation)
$$SUIT_Envelope_Extensions //= (
suit-integrated-dependency-key => bstr .cbor SUIT_Envelope)
SUIT_Delegation = [ + [ + bstr .cbor CWT ] ]
CWT = SUIT_Authentication_Block
$$SUIT_Manifest_Extensions //=
(suit-manifest-component-id => SUIT_Component_Identifier)
$$SUIT_severable-members-extensions //=
(suit-dependency-resolution => bstr .cbor SUIT_Command_Sequence)
$$SUIT_severable-members-extensions //=
(suit-candidate-verification => bstr .cbor SUIT_Command_Sequence)
$$unseverable-manifest-member-extensions //=
(suit-uninstall => bstr .cbor SUIT_Command_Sequence)
suit-integrated-dependency-key = tstr
$$severable-manifest-members-choice-extensions //= (
suit-dependency-resolution =>
bstr .cbor SUIT_Command_Sequence / SUIT_Digest)
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
$$SUIT_Common-extensions //= (
suit-dependencies => SUIT_Dependencies
)
SUIT_Dependencies = {
+ uint => SUIT_Dependency_Metadata
}
SUIT_Dependency_Metadata = {
? suit-dependency-prefix => SUIT_Component_Identifier
* $$SUIT_Dependency_Extensions
}
SUIT_Condition //= (
suit-condition-dependency-integrity, SUIT_Rep_Policy)
SUIT_Condition //= (
suit-condition-is-dependency, SUIT_Rep_Policy)
SUIT_Directive //= (
suit-directive-process-dependency, SUIT_Rep_Policy)
SUIT_Directive //= (suit-directive-set-parameters,
{+ $$SUIT_Parameters})
SUIT_Directive //= (
suit-directive-unlink, SUIT_Rep_Policy)
suit-manifest-component-id = 5
suit-delegation = 1
suit-dependency-resolution = 15
suit-candidate-verification = 18
suit-uninstall = 24
suit-dependencies = 1
suit-dependency-prefix = 1
suit-condition-dependency-integrity = 7
suit-condition-is-dependency = 8
suit-directive-process-dependency = 11
suit-directive-set-parameters = 19
suit-directive-unlink = 33
Appendix B. B. Examples
The following examples demonstrate a small subset of the
functionalities in this document.
The examples are signed using the following ECDSA secp256r1 key:
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
-----BEGIN PRIVATE KEY-----
MIGHAgEAMBMGByqGSM49AgEGCCqGSM49AwEHBG0wawIBAQQgApZYjZCUGLM50VBC
CjYStX+09jGmnyJPrpDLTz/hiXOhRANCAASEloEarguqq9JhVxie7NomvqqL8Rtv
P+bitWWchdvArTsfKktsCYExwKNtrNHXi9OB3N+wnAUtszmR23M4tKiW
-----END PRIVATE KEY-----
The corresponding public key can be used to verify these examples:
-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----
MFkwEwYHKoZIzj0CAQYIKoZIzj0DAQcDQgAEhJaBGq4LqqvSYVcYnuzaJr6qi/Eb
bz/m4rVlnIXbwK07HypLbAmBMcCjbazR14vTgdzfsJwFLbM5kdtzOLSolg==
-----END PUBLIC KEY-----
Each example uses SHA256 as the digest function.
B.1. Example 0: Process Dependency
This example uses functionalities:
* manifest component id
* dependency resolution
* process dependency
/ SUIT_Envelope_Tagged / 107({
/ authentication-wrapper / 2: << [
<< [
/ digest-algorithm-id: / -16 / SHA256 /,
/ digest-bytes: /
h'4874ADC80A9128A2B2057F5FE59C45F8ED10A9BF9C5308FCF951B8BBAF434B95'
] >>,
<< / COSE_Sign1_Tagged / 18([
/ protected: / << {
/ algorithm-id / 1: -7 / ES256 /
} >>,
/ unprotected: / {},
/ payload: / null,
/ signature: /
h'C257E23A34960BE215BB9B927A5A3CEEDD675DFD81AE6E55A66FDD2209886889
1DF42D71ADB962A64CC008AEF9465DA2153CCF383F00B505F079DB540F64B916'
]) >>
] >>,
/ manifest / 3: << {
/ manifest-version / 1: 1,
/ manifest-sequence-number / 2: 0,
/ common / 3: << {
/ dependencies / 1: {
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
/ component-index / 1: {
/ dependency-prefix / 1: [
'dependent.suit'
]
}
},
/ components / 2: [
[
'10'
]
]
} >>,
/ manifest-component-id / 5: [
'depending.suit'
],
/ invoke / 9: << [
/ directive-set-component-index / 12, 0,
/ directive-override-parameters / 20, {
/ parameter-invoke-args / 23: 'cat 00 10'
},
/ directive-invoke / 23, 15
] >>,
/ dependency-resolution / 15: << [
/ directive-set-component-index / 12, 1,
/ directive-override-parameters / 20, {
/ parameter-image-digest / 3: << [
/ digest-algorithm-id: / -16 / SHA256 /,
/ digest-bytes: /
h'6C86246B90D644F021671F6D42523B2CB5E156F764BE618AA46BFCD0DB23E768'
] >>,
/ parameter-image-size / 14: 352,
/ parameter-uri / 21: "http://example.com/dependent.suit"
},
/ directive-fetch / 21, 2,
/ condition-image-match / 3, 15
] >>,
/ install / 17: << [
/ directive-set-component-index / 12, 1,
/ directive-override-parameters / 20, {
/ parameter-image-digest / 3: << [
/ digest-algorithm-id: / -16 / SHA256 /,
/ digest-bytes: /
h'6EA128D7BB19B86F77C4227F2A29F22026A41958ACC45CC0A35BA388B13E2F51'
] >>
},
/ condition-dependency-integrity / 7, 15,
/ directive-process-dependency / 11, 0,
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
/ directive-set-component-index / 12, 0,
/ directive-override-parameters / 20, {
/ parameter-content / 18: ' in multiple trust domains'
},
/ directive-write / 18, 15
] >>
} >>
})
Total size of Envelope with COSE authentication object: 374
Envelope with COSE authentication object:
D86BA2025873825824822F58204874ADC80A9128A2B2057F5FE59C45F8ED
10A9BF9C5308FCF951B8BBAF434B95584AD28443A10126A0F65840C257E2
3A34960BE215BB9B927A5A3CEEDD675DFD81AE6E55A66FDD22098868891D
F42D71ADB962A64CC008AEF9465DA2153CCF383F00B505F079DB540F64B9
160358FAA70101020003581CA201A101A101814E646570656E64656E742E
7375697402818142313005814E646570656E64696E672E73756974095286
0C0014A11749636174203030203130170F0F5858880C0114A3035824822F
58206C86246B90D644F021671F6D42523B2CB5E156F764BE618AA46BFCD0
DB23E7680E190160157821687474703A2F2F6578616D706C652E636F6D2F
646570656E64656E742E737569741502030F1158538E0C0114A103582482
2F58206EA128D7BB19B86F77C4227F2A29F22026A41958ACC45CC0A35BA3
88B13E2F51070F0B000C0014A112581A20696E206D756C7469706C652074
7275737420646F6D61696E73120F
B.2. Example 1: Integrated Dependency
* manifest component id
* dependency resolution
* process dependency
* integrated dependency
/ SUIT_Envelope_Tagged / 107({
/ authentication-wrapper / 2: << [
<< [
/ digest-algorithm-id: / -16 / SHA256 /,
/ digest-bytes: /
h'318EAD5F671A6D2593D7ADB7B6CCADC49F72704507004F297A25AF16A48A2111'
] >>,
<< / COSE_Sign1_Tagged / 18([
/ protected: / << {
/ algorithm-id / 1: -7 / ES256 /
} >>,
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
/ unprotected: / {},
/ payload: / null,
/ signature: /
h'287D5AAB44D08A34954663942B2732825426893ACD735BF3A79B8B5B38EC3C99
50D917D72D5586867C8FF58CF5827B0C2B94952359C3971DBF202B0774627DC3'
]) >>
] >>,
/ manifest / 3: << {
/ manifest-version / 1: 1,
/ manifest-sequence-number / 2: 0,
/ common / 3: << {
/ dependencies / 1: {
/ component-index / 1: {
/ dependency-prefix / 1: [
'dependent.suit'
]
}
},
/ components / 2: [
[
'10'
]
]
} >>,
/ manifest-component-id / 5: [
'depending.suit'
],
/ invoke / 9: << [
/ directive-set-component-index / 12, 0,
/ directive-override-parameters / 20, {
/ parameter-invoke-args / 23: 'cat 00 10'
},
/ directive-invoke / 23, 15
] >>,
/ dependency-resolution / 15: << [
/ directive-set-component-index / 12, 1,
/ directive-override-parameters / 20, {
/ parameter-image-digest / 3: << [
/ digest-algorithm-id: / -16 / SHA256 /,
/ digest-bytes: /
h'6C86246B90D644F021671F6D42523B2CB5E156F764BE618AA46BFCD0DB23E768'
] >>,
/ parameter-image-size / 14: 352,
/ parameter-uri / 21: "#dependent.suit"
},
/ directive-fetch / 21, 2,
/ condition-image-match / 3, 15
] >>,
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
/ install / 17: << [
/ directive-set-component-index / 12, 1,
/ directive-process-dependency / 11, 0,
/ directive-set-component-index / 12, 0,
/ directive-override-parameters / 20, {
/ parameter-content / 18: ' in multiple trust domains'
},
/ directive-write / 18, 15
] >>
} >>,
/ NOTE: Example 0 /
"#dependent.suit":
h'D86BA301589E8181589AD28443A10126A0584FA108A101A4010220012158200E
908AA8F066DB1F084E0C3652C63952BD99F2A5BDB22F9E01367AAD03ABA68B22
582077DA1BD8AC4F0CB490BA210648BF79AB164D49AD3551D71D314B2749EE42
D29A5840FB2D5ACF66B9C8573CE92E13BFB8D113F798715CC10B5A0010B11925
C155E7245A64E131073B87AC50CAC71650A21315B82D06CA2298CD1A95519AAE
4C4B5315025874835824822F58206EA128D7BB19B86F77C4227F2A29F22026A4
1958ACC45CC0A35BA388B13E2F51584AD28443A10126A0F6584099F949043701
D7BDBA38904A0B49F004DED6B64A4900DECA5C66AE8A9EBA913576DEF136B74E
A89C14FA64624DBD33B4C0BB41C153CA51548C73FF71A2BAF27440035842A601
0102000347A102818142303005814E646570656E64656E742E73756974094D84
14A11746636174203030170F11528414A1124B68656C6C6F20776F726C64120F'
})
Total size of Envelope with COSE authentication object: 683
Envelope with COSE authentication object:
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft SUIT Trust Domains March 2024
D86BA3025873825824822F5820318EAD5F671A6D2593D7ADB7B6CCADC49F
72704507004F297A25AF16A48A2111584AD28443A10126A0F65840287D5A
AB44D08A34954663942B2732825426893ACD735BF3A79B8B5B38EC3C9950
D917D72D5586867C8FF58CF5827B0C2B94952359C3971DBF202B0774627D
C30358BCA70101020003581CA201A101A101814E646570656E64656E742E
7375697402818142313005814E646570656E64696E672E73756974095286
0C0014A11749636174203030203130170F0F5845880C0114A3035824822F
58206C86246B90D644F021671F6D42523B2CB5E156F764BE618AA46BFCD0
DB23E7680E190160156F23646570656E64656E742E737569741502030F11
58288A0C010B000C0014A112581A20696E206D756C7469706C6520747275
737420646F6D61696E73120F6F23646570656E64656E742E737569745901
60D86BA301589E8181589AD28443A10126A0584FA108A101A40102200121
58200E908AA8F066DB1F084E0C3652C63952BD99F2A5BDB22F9E01367AAD
03ABA68B22582077DA1BD8AC4F0CB490BA210648BF79AB164D49AD3551D7
1D314B2749EE42D29A5840FB2D5ACF66B9C8573CE92E13BFB8D113F79871
5CC10B5A0010B11925C155E7245A64E131073B87AC50CAC71650A21315B8
2D06CA2298CD1A95519AAE4C4B5315025874835824822F58206EA128D7BB
19B86F77C4227F2A29F22026A41958ACC45CC0A35BA388B13E2F51584AD2
8443A10126A0F6584099F949043701D7BDBA38904A0B49F004DED6B64A49
00DECA5C66AE8A9EBA913576DEF136B74EA89C14FA64624DBD33B4C0BB41
C153CA51548C73FF71A2BAF27440035842A6010102000347A10281814230
3005814E646570656E64656E742E73756974094D8414A117466361742030
30170F11528414A1124B68656C6C6F20776F726C64120F
Authors' Addresses
Brendan Moran
Arm Limited
Email: brendan.moran.ietf@gmail.com
Ken Takayama
SECOM CO., LTD.
Email: ken.takayama.ietf@gmail.com
Moran & Takayama Expires 5 September 2024 [Page 35]