A Firmware Update Architecture for Internet of Things Devices
draft-moran-suit-architecture-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Brendan Moran , Milosch Meriac , Hannes Tschofenig | ||
| Last updated | 2018-01-29 | ||
| Replaces | draft-moran-fud-architecture | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-suit-architecture, draft-ietf-suit-information-model, draft-ietf-suit-information-model, draft-ietf-suit-architecture, draft-ietf-suit-information-model, RFC 9019, RFC 9124 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-moran-suit-architecture-01
SUIT B. Moran
Internet-Draft M. Meriac
Intended status: Informational H. Tschofenig
Expires: August 2, 2018 Arm Limited
January 29, 2018
A Firmware Update Architecture for Internet of Things Devices
draft-moran-suit-architecture-01
Abstract
Vulnerabilities with Internet of Things (IoT) devices have raised the
need for a solid and secure firmware update mechanism that is also
suitable for constrained devices. Incorporating such update
mechanism to fix vulnerabilities, to update configuration settings as
well as adding new functionality is recommended by security experts.
This document lists requirements and describes an architecture for a
firmware update mechanism suitable for IoT devices. The architecture
is agnostic to the transport of the firmware images and associated
meta-data.
This version of the document assumes asymmetric cryptography and a
public key infrastructure. Future versions may also describe a
symmetric key approach for very constrained devices.
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 http://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 August 2, 2018.
Moran, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IoT Firmware Update Architecture January 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Agnostic to how firmware images are distributed . . . . . 5
3.2. Friendly to broadcast delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Uses state-of-the-art security mechanisms . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Rollback attacks must be prevented. . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5. High reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.6. Minimal bootloader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.7. Minimal impact on existing firmware formats . . . . . . . 7
3.8. Robust permissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.8.1. Policy documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Manifest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Example Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Mailing List Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Moran, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IoT Firmware Update Architecture January 2018
11. Appendix A: Threat Model, User Stories, Security
Requirements, and Usability Requirements . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.1. Threat Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.2. Threat Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.2.1. Threat MFT1: Old Firmware . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.2.2. Threat MFT2: Mismatched Firmware . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.2.3. Threat MFT3: Offline device + Old Firmware . . . . . 15
11.2.4. Threat MFT4: The target device misinterprets the
type of payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.2.5. Threat MFT5: The target device installs the payload
to the wrong location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.2.6. Threat MFT6: Redirection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11.2.7. Threat MFT7: Payload Verification on Boot . . . . . 16
11.2.8. Threat MFT8: Unauthenticated Updates . . . . . . . . 16
11.2.9. Threat MFT9: Unexpected Precursor images . . . . . . 16
11.2.10. Threat MFT10: Unqualified Firmware . . . . . . . . . 16
11.3. Security Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.3.1. Security Requirement MFSR1: Monotonic Sequence
Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.3.2. Security Requirement MFSR2: Vendor, Device-type
Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.3.3. Security Requirement MFSR3: Best-Before Timestamps . 18
11.3.4. Security Requirement MFSR4: Signed Payload
Descriptor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.3.5. Security Requirement MFSR5: Cryptographic
Authenticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11.3.6. Security Requirement MFSR6: Rights Require
Authenticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11.4. User Stories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11.4.1. Use Case MFUC1: Installation Instructions . . . . . 19
11.4.2. Use Case MFUC2: Reuse Local Infrastructure . . . . . 20
11.4.3. Use Case MFUC3: Modular Update . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11.4.4. Use Case MFUC4: Multiple Authorisations . . . . . . 20
11.4.5. Use Case MFUC5: Multiple Payload Formats . . . . . . 20
11.5. Usability Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11.5.1. Usability Requirement MFUR1: . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.5.2. Usability Requirement MFUR2: . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.5.3. Usability Requirement MFUR3: . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.5.4. Usability Requirement MFUR4: . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.5.5. Usability Requirement MFUR5: . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.6. Manifest Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11.6.1. Manifest Field: Timestamp . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11.6.2. Manifest Field: Vendor ID Condition . . . . . . . . 22
11.6.3. Manifest Field: Class ID Condition . . . . . . . . . 22
11.6.4. Manifest Field: Precursor Image Digest Condition . . 22
11.6.5. Manifest Field: Best-Before timestamp . . . . . . . 23
11.6.6. Manifest Field: Payload Format . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.6.7. Manifest Field: Storage Location . . . . . . . . . . 23
Moran, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IoT Firmware Update Architecture January 2018
11.6.8. Manifest Field: URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.6.9. Manifest Field: Digests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.6.10. Manifest Field: Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.6.11. Manifest Field: Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11.6.12. Manifest Field: Directives . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11.6.13. Manifest Field: Aliases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11.6.14. Manifest Field: Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
12.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1. Introduction
When developing IoT devices, one of the most difficult problems to
solve is how to update the firmware on the device. Once the device
is deployed, firmware updates play a critical part in its lifetime,
particularly when devices have a long lifetime, are deployed in
remote or inaccessible areas or where manual intervention is cost
prohibitive or otherwise difficult. The need for a firmware update
may be to fix bugs in software, to add new functionality, or to re-
configure the device.
The firmware update process has to ensure that
- The firmware image is authenticated and attempts to flash a
malicious firmware image are prevented.
- The firmware image can be confidentiality protected so that
attempts by an adversary to recover the plaintext binary can be
prevented. Obtaining the plaintext binary is often one of the
first steps for an attack to mount an attack.
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 RFC
2119 [RFC2119].
This document uses the following terms:
- Manifest: The manifest contains meta-data about the firmware
image. The manifest is protected against modification and
provides information about the author.
Moran, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IoT Firmware Update Architecture January 2018
- Firmware Image: The firmware image is a binary that may contain
the complete software of a device or a subset of it. The firmware
image may consist of multiple images, if the device contains more
than one microcontroller. The image may consist of a differential
update for performance reasons.
The following entities are used:
- Author: The author is the entity that creates the firmware image,
signs and/or encrypts it and attaches a manifest to it. The
author is most likely a developer using a set of tools.
- Device: The device is the recipient of the firmware image and the
manifest. The goal is to update the firmware of the device.
- Untrusted Storage: Firmware images and manifests are stored on
untrusted fileservers or cloud storage infrastructure. Some
deployments may require storage of the firmware images/manifests
to be stored on various entities before they reach the device.
3. Requirements
The firmware update mechanism described in this specification was
designed with the following requirements in mind:
- Agnostic to how firmware images are distributed
- Friendly to broadcast delivery
- Uses state-of-the-art security mechanisms
- Operates with a small bootloader
- Minimal impact on existing firmware formats
- Robust permissions
3.1. Agnostic to how firmware images are distributed
Firmware images can be conveyed to devices in a variety of ways,
including USB, UART, WiFi, BLE, low-power WAN technologies, etc and
use different protocols (e.g., CoAP, HTTP). The specified mechanism
needs to be agnostic to the distribution of the firmware images and
manifests.
Moran, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IoT Firmware Update Architecture January 2018
3.2. Friendly to broadcast delivery
For an update to be broadcast friendly, it cannot rely on link layer,
network layer, or transport layer security. In addition, the same
message must be deliverable to many devices; both those to which it
applies and those to which it does not without a chance that the
wrong device will accept the update. Considerations that apply to
network broadcasts apply equally to the use of third-party content
distribution networks for payload distribution.
3.3. Uses state-of-the-art security mechanisms
End-to-end security between the author and the device, as shown in
Section 4, is used to ensure that the device can verify firmware
images and manifests produced by authorized authors.
If the firmware image is to be encrypted, it must be done in such a
way that every intended recipient can decrypt it. The information
that is encrypted individually for each device must be an absolute
minimum.
3.4. Rollback attacks must be prevented.
All information necessary for a device to make a decision about the
installation of a firmware update must fit into the available RAM of
a constrained IoT device. This prevents flash write exhaustion.
Since parsers are known sources of bugs it must be easy to parse only
those fields which are required to validate at least one signature
with minimal exposure.
3.5. High reliability
A power failure at any time must not cause a failure of the device.
A failure to validate any part of an update must not cause a failure
of the device. To achieve this, the device is required to provide a
minimum of two storage locations for firmware and one bootable
location for firmware. Note: This is an implementation requirement
rather than a requirement on the manifest format.
3.6. Minimal bootloader
The bootloader must be minimal, containing only the flash and
cryptographic primitives necessary to read the stored firmware,
validate the received firmware, and write the bootable firmware. The
bootloader should not require updating, since a failed update poses a
risk in reliability. If more functionality is required in the
bootloader, it must use a two-stage bootloader, with the first stage
Moran, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IoT Firmware Update Architecture January 2018
comprising the functionality defined above. Note: This is an
implementation requirement.
3.7. Minimal impact on existing firmware formats
The design of the firmware update mechanism must not require changes
to existing firmware formats.
3.8. Robust permissions
A device may have many modules that require updating individually.
It may also need to trust several actors in order to authorize an
update. For example, a firmware author may not have the authority to
install firmware on a device in critical infrastructure without the
authorization of a device operator. In this case, the device should
reject firmware updates unless they are signed both by the firmware
author and by the device operator. To facilitate complex use-cases
such as this, updates require several permissions.
3.8.1. Policy documents
When a simple set of permissions fails to encapsulate the rules
required for a device make decisions about firmware, a policy
document can be used instead. Several policy documents can be used
together, when multiple actors should have the rights to set
policies.
Some example policies:
- Trust the actor identified by the referenced public key.
- Three actors are trusted identified by their public keys.
Signatures from at least two of these actors are required to trust
a manifest.
- The actor identified by the referenced public key is authorized to
create secondary policies
The baseline policies for all manifests are described in Appendix A.
In summary, they are:
- Do not install firmware with earlier metadata than the current
metadata.
- Only install firmware with a matching vendor, model, hardware
revision, software version, etc.
- Only install firmware that is before its best-before timestamp.
Moran, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IoT Firmware Update Architecture January 2018
- Only install firmware with metadata signed by a trusted actor.
- Only allow an actor to exercise rights on the device via a
manifest if that actor has signed the manifest.
- Only allow a firmware installation if all required rights have
been met through signatures (one or more) or manifest dependencies
(one or more).
- Use the instructions provided by the manifest to install the
firmware.
- Any authorized actor may redirect any URI.
- Install any and all firmware images that are linked together with
manifest dependencies.
- Choose the mechanism to install the firmware, based on the type of
firmware it is.
4. Architecture
The architecture graphically shown in Figure 1 illustrates that an
author creates a firmware image and the corresponding manifest. The
firmware image may be encrypted and will be integrity protected. The
meta-data is integrity protected. When the author is ready to
distribute the firmware image it conveys it using his or her favorite
communication channel to the device, which will typically involve the
use of untrusted storage, like a file server. Whether the firmware
image and the manifest is pushed to the device or fetched by the
device is outside the scope of this work and existing device
management protocols can be used for efficiently distributing this
information.
+-----------+
+--------+ Firmware Image | | Firmware Image +--------+
| | + Manifest | Untrusted | + Manifest | |
| Device |<-----------------| Storage |<------------------| Author |
| | | | | |
+--------+ +-----------+ +--------+
^ *
* *
************************************************************
End-to-End Security
Figure 1: End-to-End Security Architecture.
Moran, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IoT Firmware Update Architecture January 2018
The following assumptions are made to allow the device to verify the
received firmware image and manifest before updating software:
- To accept an update, a device needs to decide whether the author
signing the firmware image and the manifest is authorized to make
the updates. We use public key cryptography to accomplish this.
The device verifies the signature covering the manifest using a
digital signature algorithm. The device is provisioned with a
trust anchor that is used to validate the digital signature
produced by the author. This trust anchor is potentially
different from the trust anchor used to validate the digital
signature produced for other protocols (such as device management
protocols). This trust anchor may be provisioned to the device
during manufacturing or during commissioning.
- For confidentiality protection of firmware images the author needs
to be in possession of the certificate/public key of a device.
5. Manifest
In order for a device to apply an update, it has to make several
decisions about the update:
- Does it trust the author of the update?
- Has the firmware been corrupted?
- Does the firmware update apply to this device?
- Is the update older than the active firmware?
- When should the device apply the update?
- How should the device apply the update?
- What kind of firmware binary is it?
- Where should the update be obtained?
- Where should the firmware be stored?
The manifest encodes the information that devices need in order to
make these decisions. It is a data structure that contains the
following information:
- information about the device(s) the firmware image is intented to
be applied to,
Moran, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IoT Firmware Update Architecture January 2018
- information about when the firmware update has to be applied,
- information about when the manifest was created,
- dependencies to other manifests,
- pointers to the firmware image and information about the format,
- information about where to store the firmware image,
- cryptographic information, such as digital signatures.
The manifest format is described in a companion document.
6. Example Flow
The following example message flow illustrates the interaction for
distributing a firmware image to a device starting with an author
uploading the new firmware to untrusted storage and creating a
manifest.
+--------+ +-----------------+ +------+
| Author | |Untrusted Storage| |Device|
+--------+ +-----------------+ +------+
| | |
| Create Firmware | |
|--------------- | |
| | | |
|<-------------- | |
| | |
| Upload Firmware | |
|------------------>| |
| | |
| Create Manifest | |
|---------------- | |
| | | |
|<--------------- | |
| | |
| Sign Manifest | |
|-------------- | |
| | | |
|<------------- | |
| | |
| Upload Manifest | |
|------------------>| |
| | |
| | Query Manifest |
| |<--------------------|
Moran, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IoT Firmware Update Architecture January 2018
| | |
| | Send Manifest |
| |-------------------->|
| | |
| | | Validate Manifest
| | |------------------
| | | |
| | |<-----------------
| | |
| | Request Firmware |
| |<--------------------|
| | |
| | Send Firmware |
| |-------------------->|
| | |
| | | Verify Firmware
| | |---------------
| | | |
| | |<--------------
| | |
| | | Store Firmware
| | |--------------
| | | |
| | |<-------------
| | |
| | | Reboot
| | |-------
| | | |
| | |<------
| | |
| | | Bootloader validates
| | | Firmware
| | |----------------------
| | | |
| | |<---------------------
| | |
| | | Bootloader activates
| | | Firmware
| | |----------------------
| | | |
| | |<---------------------
| | |
| | | Bootloader transfers
| | | control to new Firmware
| | |----------------------
| | | |
| | |<---------------------
| | |
Moran, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IoT Firmware Update Architecture January 2018
Figure 2: Example Flow for a Firmware Upate.
7. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any actions by IANA.
8. Security Considerations
Firmware updates fix security vulnerabilities and are considered to
be an important building block in securing IoT devices. Due to the
importance of firmware updates for IoT devices the Internet
Architecture Board (IAB) organized a 'Workshop on Internet of Things
(IoT) Software Update (IOTSU)', which took place at Trinity College
Dublin, Ireland on the 13th and 14th of June, 2016 to take a look at
the big picture. A report about this workshop can be found at
[RFC8240]. This document (and associated specifications) offer a
standardized firmware manifest format providing end-to-end security
from the author to the device.
There are, however, many other considerations raised during the
workshop. Many of them are outside the scope of standardization
organizations since they fall into the realm of product engineering,
regulatory frameworks, and business models. The following
considerations are outside the scope of this document, namely
- installing firmware updates in a robust fashion so that the update
does not break the device functionality of the environment this
device operates in.
- installing firmware updates in a timely fashion considering the
complexity of the decision making process of updating devices,
potential re-certification requirements, and the need for user's
consent to install updates.
- the distribution of the actual firmware update, potentially in an
efficient manner to a large number of devices without human
involvement.
- energy efficiency and battery lifetime considerations.
- key management required for verifying the digitial signature
protecting the manifest.
- incentives for manufacturers to offer a firmware update mechanism
as part of their IoT products.
Moran, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IoT Firmware Update Architecture January 2018
9. Mailing List Information
The discussion list for this document is located at the e-mail
address suit@ietf.org [1]. Information on the group and information
on how to subscribe to the list is at
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/suit
Archives of the list can be found at: https://www.ietf.org/mail-
archive/web/suit/current/index.html
10. Acknowledgements
We would like the following persons for their feedback:
- Geraint Luff
- Amyas Phillips
- Dan Ros
- Thomas Eichinger
- Michael Richardson
- Emmanuel Baccelli
- Ned Smith
- David Brown
- Jim Schaad
- Carsten Bormann
- Cullen Jennings
- Olaf Bergmann
- Suhas Nandakumar
- Phillip Hallam-Baker
We would also like to thank the WG chairs, Russ Housley, David
Waltermire, Dave Thaler and the responsible security area director,
Kathleen Moriarty, for their support.
Moran, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IoT Firmware Update Architecture January 2018
11. Appendix A: Threat Model, User Stories, Security Requirements, and
Usability Requirements
11.1. Threat Model
This appendix aims to provide information about the threats that were
considered, the security requirements that are derived from those
threats and the fields that permit implementation of the security
requirements. This model uses the S.T.R.I.D.E. [STRIDE] approach.
Each threat is classified according to:
- Spoofing Identity
- Tampering with data
- Repudiation
- Information disclosure
- Denial of service
- Elevation of privilege
11.2. Threat Descriptions
11.2.1. Threat MFT1: Old Firmware
Classification: Escalation of Privilege
An attacker sends an old, but valid manifest with an old, but valid
firmware image to a device. If there is a known vulnerability in the
provided firmware image, this may allow an attacker to exploit the
vulnerability and gain control of the device.
Threat Escalation: If the attacker is able to exploit the known
vulnerability, then this threat can be escalated to ALL TYPES.
11.2.2. Threat MFT2: Mismatched Firmware
Classification: Denial of Service
An attacker sends a valid firmware image, for the wrong type of
device, signed by an actor with firmware installation permission on
both types of device. The firmware is verified by the device
positively because it is signed by an actor with the appropriate
permission. This could have wide-ranging consequences. For devices
that are similar, it could cause minor breakage, or expose security
Moran, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IoT Firmware Update Architecture January 2018
vulnerabilities. For devices that are very different, it is likely
to render devices inoperable.
11.2.3. Threat MFT3: Offline device + Old Firmware
Classification: Escalation of Privilege
An attacker targets a device that has been offline for a long time
and runs an old firmware version. The attacker sends an old, but
valid manifest to a device with an old, but valid firmware image.
The attacker-provided firmware is newer than the installed one but
older than the most recently available firmware. If there is a known
vulnerability in the provided firmware image then this may allow an
attacker to gain control of a device. Because the device has been
offline for a long time, it is unaware of any new updates. As such
it will treat the old manifest as the most current.
Threat Escalation: If the attacker is able to exploit the known
vulnerability, then this threat can be escalated to ALL TYPES.
11.2.4. Threat MFT4: The target device misinterprets the type of
payload
Classification: Denial of Service
If a device misinterprets the type of the firmware image, it may
cause a device to install a firmware image incorrectly. An
incorrectly installed firmware image would likely cause the device to
stop functioning.
Threat Escalation: An attacker that can cause a device to
misinterpret the received firmware image may gain escalation of
privilege and potentially expand this to all types of threat.
11.2.5. Threat MFT5: The target device installs the payload to the
wrong location
Classification: Denial of Service
If a device installs a firmware image to the wrong location on the
device, then it is likely to break. For example, a firmware image
installed as an application could cause a device and/or an
application to stop functioning.
Threat Escalation: An attacker that can cause a device to
misinterpret the received code may gain escalation of privilege and
potentially expand this to all types of threat.
Moran, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IoT Firmware Update Architecture January 2018
11.2.6. Threat MFT6: Redirection
Classification: Denial of Service
If a device does not know where to obtain the payload for an update,
it may be redirected to an attacker's server. This would allow an
attacker to provide broken payloads to devices.
11.2.7. Threat MFT7: Payload Verification on Boot
Classification: All Types
An attacker replaces a newly downloaded firmware after a device
finishes verifying a manifest. This could cause the device to
execute the attacker's code. This attack likely requires physical
access to the device. However, it is possible that this attack is
carried out in combination with another threat that allows remote
execution.
11.2.8. Threat MFT8: Unauthenticated Updates
Classification: All Types
If an attacker can install their firmware on a device, by
manipulating either payload or metadata, then they have complete
control of the device.
11.2.9. Threat MFT9: Unexpected Precursor images
Classification: Denial of Service
An attacker sends a valid, current manifest to a device that has an
unexpected precursor image. If a payload format requires a precursor
image (for example, delta updates) and that precursor image is not
available on the target device, it could cause the update to break.
Threat Escalation: An attacker that can cause a device to install a
payload against the wrong precursor image could gain escalation of
privilege and potentially expand this to all types of threat.
11.2.10. Threat MFT10: Unqualified Firmware
Classification: Denial of Service, Escalation of Privilege
This threat can appear in several ways, however it is ultimately
about interoperability of devices with other systems. The owner or
operator of a network needs to approve firmware for their network in
order to ensure interoperability with other devices on the network,
Moran, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IoT Firmware Update Architecture January 2018
or the network itself. If the firmware is not qualified, it may not
work. Therefore, if a device installs firmware without the approval
of the network owner or operator, this is a threat to devices and the
network.
Example 1: We assume that OEMs expect the rights to create firmware,
but that Operators expect the rights to qualify firmware as fit-for-
purpose on their networks.
An attacker obtains a manifest for a device on Network A. They send
that manifest to a device on Network B. Because Network A and
Network B are different, and the firmware has not been qualified for
Network B, the target device is disabled by this unqualified, but
signed firmware.
This is a denial of service because it can render devices inoperable.
This is an escalation of privilege because it allows the attacker to
make installation decisions that should be made by the Operator.
Example 2: Multiple devices that interoperate are used on the same
network. Some devices are manufactured by OEM A and other devices by
OEM B. These devices communicate with each other. A new firmware is
released by OEM A that breaks compatibility with OEM B devices. An
attacker sends the new firmware to the OEM A devices without approval
of the network operator. This breaks the behaviour of the larger
system causing denial of service and possibly other threats. Where
the network is a distributed SCADA system, this could cause
misbehaviour of the process that is under control.
Threat Escalation: If the firmware expects configuration that is
present in Network A devices, but not Network B devices, then the
device may experience degraded security, leading to threats of All
Types.
11.3. Security Requirements
The security requirements here are a set of policies that mitigate
the threats described in the previous section.
11.3.1. Security Requirement MFSR1: Monotonic Sequence Numbers
Only an actor with firmware installation authority is permitted to
decide when device firmware can be installed. To enforce this rule,
Manifests MUST contain monotonically increasting sequence numbers.
Manifests MAY use UTC epoch timestamps to coordinate monotonically
increasting sequence numbers across many actors in many locations.
Devices MUST reject manifests with sequence numbers smaller than any
onboard sequence number.
Moran, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IoT Firmware Update Architecture January 2018
N.B. This is not a firmware version. It is a manifest sequence
number. A firmware version may be rolled back by creating a new
manifest for the old firmware version with a later sequence number.
Mitigates: Threat MFT1
11.3.2. Security Requirement MFSR2: Vendor, Device-type Identifiers
Devices MUST only apply firmware that is intended for them. Devices
MUST know with fine granularity that a given update applies to their
vendor, model, hardware revision, software revision. Human-readable
identifiers are often error-prone in this regard, so unique
identifiers SHOULD be used.
Mitigates: Threat MFT2
11.3.3. Security Requirement MFSR3: Best-Before Timestamps
Firmware MAY expire after a given time. Devices MAY provide a secure
clock (local or remote). If a secure clock is provided and the
Firmware manifest has a best-before timestamp, the device MUST reject
the manifest if current time is larger than the best-before time.
Mitigates: Threat MFT3
11.3.4. Security Requirement MFSR4: Signed Payload Descriptor
All descriptive information about the payload MUST be signed. This
MUST include:
- The location to store the payload
- The payload digest, in each state of installation (encrypted,
plaintext, installed, etc.)
- The payload size
- The payload format
- Where to obtain the payload
- All instructions or parameters for applying the payload
- Any rules that identify whether or not the payload can be used on
this device
Mitigates: Threats MFT5, MFT6, MFT7, MFT9
Moran, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IoT Firmware Update Architecture January 2018
11.3.5. Security Requirement MFSR5: Cryptographic Authenticity
The authenticity of an update must be demonstrable. Typically, this
means that updates must be digitally signed. Other cryptographic
mechanisms are acceptable, such as MACs, or AEAD algorithms. Because
the manifest contains information about how to install the update,
the manifest's authenticity must also be demonstrable. To reduce the
overhead required for validation, the manifest contains the digest of
the firmware image, rather than a second digitial signature. The
authenticity of the manifest can be verified with a digital
signature, the authenticity of the firmware image is tied to the
manifest by the use of a fingerprint of the firmware image.
Mitigates: Threat MFT8
11.3.6. Security Requirement MFSR6: Rights Require Authenticity
If a device grants different rights to different actors, exercising
those rights MUST be accompanied by proof of those rights, in the
form of proof of authenticity. Authenticity mechanisms such as those
required in MFSR5 are acceptable but need to follow the end-to-end
security model.
For example, if a device has a policy that requires that firmware
have both an Authorship right and a Qualification right and if that
device grants Authorship and Qualification rights to different
parties, such as an OEM and an Operator, respectively, then the
firmware cannot be installed without proof of rights from both the
OEM and the Operator.
Mitigates: MFT10
11.4. User Stories
User stories provide expected use cases. These are used to feed into
usability requirements.
11.4.1. Use Case MFUC1: Installation Instructions
As an OEM for IoT devices, I want to provide my devices with
additional installation instructions so that I can keep process
details out of my payload data.
Some installation instructions might be:
- Specify a package handler
Moran, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IoT Firmware Update Architecture January 2018
- Use a table of hashes to ensure that each block of the payload is
validate before writing.
- Run post-processing script after the update is installed
- Do not report progress
- Pre-cache the update, but do not install
- Install the pre-cached update matching this manifest
- Install this update immediately, overriding any long-running
tasks.
11.4.2. Use Case MFUC2: Reuse Local Infrastructure
As an Operator of IoT devices, I would like to tell my devices to
look at my own infrastructure for payloads so that I can manage the
traffic generated by firmware updates on my network and my peers'
networks.
11.4.3. Use Case MFUC3: Modular Update
As an OEM of IoT devices, I want to divide my firmware into
frequently updated and infrequently updated components, so that I can
reduce the size of updates and make different parties responsible for
different components.
11.4.4. Use Case MFUC4: Multiple Authorisations
As an Operator, I want to ensure the quality of a firmware update
before installing it, so that I can ensure a high standard of
reliability on my network. The OEM may restrict my ability to create
firmware, so I cannot be the only authority on the device.
11.4.5. Use Case MFUC5: Multiple Payload Formats
As a OEM or Operator of devices, I want to be able to send multiple
payload formats to suit the needs of my update, so that I can
optimise the bandwidth used by my devices.
11.5. Usability Requirements
The following usability requirements satisfy the user stories listed
above.
Moran, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft IoT Firmware Update Architecture January 2018
11.5.1. Usability Requirement MFUR1:
It must be possible to write additional installation instructions
into the manifest.
Satisfies Use-Case MFUC1
11.5.2. Usability Requirement MFUR2:
It must be possible to redirect payload fetches. This applies where
two manifests are used in conjunction. For example, an OEM manifest
specifies a payload and signs it, and provides a URI for that
payload. An Operator creates a second manifest, with a dependency on
the first. They use this second manifest to override the URIs
provided by the OEM, directing them into their own infrastructure
instead.
Satisfies Use-Case MFUC2
11.5.3. Usability Requirement MFUR3:
It MUST be possible to link multiple manifests together so that a
multi-component update can be described. This allows multiple
parties with different permissions to collaborate in creating a
single update for the IoT device, across multiple components.
Satisfies Use-Case MFUC2, MFUC3
11.5.4. Usability Requirement MFUR4:
It MUST be possible to sign a manifest multiple times so that
signatures from multiple parties with different permissions can be
required in order to authorise installation of a manifest.
Satisfies Use-Case MFUC4
11.5.5. Usability Requirement MFUR5:
The manifest format MUST accommodate any payload format that an
operator or OEM wishes to use. Some examples of payload format would
be:
- Binary
- Elf
- Differential
Moran, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft IoT Firmware Update Architecture January 2018
- Compressed
- Packed configuration
Satisfies Use-Case MFUC5
11.6. Manifest Fields
Each manifest field is anchored in a security requirement or a
usability requirement. The manifest fields are described below and
justified by their requirements.
11.6.1. Manifest Field: Timestamp
A monotonically increasing sequence number
Implements: Security Requirement MFSR1.
11.6.2. Manifest Field: Vendor ID Condition
Vendor IDs MUST be unique. This is to prevent similarly, or
identically named entities from different geographic regions from
colliding in their customer's infrastructure. Recommended practice
is to use type 5 UUIDs with the vendor's domain name and the UUID DNS
prefix. Other options include type 1 and type 4 UUIDs.
Implements: Security Requirement MFSR2, MFSR4.
11.6.3. Manifest Field: Class ID Condition
Class Identifiers MUST be unique within a Vendor ID. This is to
prevent similarly, or identically named devices colliding in their
customer's infrastructure. Recommended practice is to use type 5
UUIDs with the model, hardware revision, etc. and use the Vendor ID
as the UUID prefix. Other options include type 1 and type 4 UUIDs.
A device "Class" is defined as any device that can run the same
firmware without modification. Classes MAY be implemented in a more
granular way. Classes MUST NOT be implemented in a less granular
way. Class ID can encompass model name, hardware revision, software
revision. Devices MAY have multiple Class IDs.
Implements: Security Requirement MFSR2, MFSR4.
11.6.4. Manifest Field: Precursor Image Digest Condition
When a precursor image is required by the payload format, a precursor
image digest condition MUST be present in the conditions list.
Moran, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft IoT Firmware Update Architecture January 2018
Implements: Security Requirement MFSR4
11.6.5. Manifest Field: Best-Before timestamp
This field tells a device the last application time. This is only
usable in conjunction with a secure clock.
Implements Security Requirement MFSR3
11.6.6. Manifest Field: Payload Format
The format of the payload must be indicated to devices is in an
unambiguous way. This field provides a mechanism to describe the
payload format, within the signed metadata.
Implements Security Requirement MFSR4, Usability Requirement MFUR5
11.6.7. Manifest Field: Storage Location
This field tells the device which component is being updated. The
device can use this to establish which permissions are necessary and
the physical location to use.
Implements Security Requirement MFSR4
11.6.8. Manifest Field: URIs
This field is a list of weighted URIs that the device uses to select
where to obtain a payload.
Implements Security Requirement MFSR4
11.6.9. Manifest Field: Digests
This field is a map of digests, each for a separate stage of
installation. This allows the target device to ensure authenticity
of the payload at every step of installation.
Implements Security Requirement MFSR4
11.6.10. Manifest Field: Size
The size of the payload in bytes.
Implements Security Requirement MFSR4
Moran, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft IoT Firmware Update Architecture January 2018
11.6.11. Manifest Field: Signature
This is not strictly a manifest field. Instead, the manifest is
wrapped by a standardised authentication container, such as a COSE or
CMS signature object. The authentication container MUST support
multiple actors and multiple authentications. If Message
Authentication Codes (MAC) are used for authenticity, then devices
MUST have unique pre-shared keys. This means that each device MUST
receive an unique MAC.
Implements Security Requirement MFSR5, MFSR6, MFUR4
11.6.12. Manifest Field: Directives
A list of instructions that the device should execute, in order, when
installing the payload.
Implements Usability Requirement MFUR1
11.6.13. Manifest Field: Aliases
A list of URI/Digest pairs. A device should build an alias table
while paring a manifest tree and treat any aliases as top-ranked URIs
for the corresponding digest.
Implements Usability Requirement MFUR2
11.6.14. Manifest Field: Dependencies
A list of URI/Digest pairs that refer to other manifests by digest.
The manifests that are linked in this way must be acquired and
installed simultaneously in order to form a complete update.
Implements Usability Requirement MFUR3
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[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/info/rfc2119>.
Moran, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft IoT Firmware Update Architecture January 2018
12.2. Informative References
[RFC8240] Tschofenig, H. and S. Farrell, "Report from the Internet
of Things Software Update (IoTSU) Workshop 2016",
RFC 8240, DOI 10.17487/RFC8240, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8240>.
[STRIDE] Microsoft, "The STRIDE Threat Model", January 2018.
12.3. URIs
[1] mailto:suit@ietf.org
Authors' Addresses
Brendan Moran
Arm Limited
EMail: Brendan.Moran@arm.com
Milosch Meriac
Arm Limited
EMail: Milosch.Meriac@arm.com
Hannes Tschofenig
Arm Limited
EMail: hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net
Moran, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 25]