RATS Working Group L. Lundblade
Internet-Draft Security Theory LLC
Intended status: Standards Track G. Mandyam
Expires: January 11, 2023 J. O'Donoghue
Qualcomm Technologies Inc.
July 10, 2022
The Entity Attestation Token (EAT)
draft-ietf-rats-eat-14
Abstract
An Entity Attestation Token (EAT) provides an attested claims set
that describes state and characteristics of an entity, a device like
a phone, IoT device, network equipment or such. This claims set is
used by a relying party, server or service to determine how much it
wishes to trust the entity.
An EAT is either a CBOR Web Token (CWT) or JSON Web Token (JWT) with
attestation-oriented claims. To a large degree, all this document
does is extend CWT and JWT.
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 January 11, 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1. Entity Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2. CWT, JWT and DEB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3. CDDL, CBOR and JSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4. Operating Model and RATS Architecture . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4.1. Relationship between Evidence and Attestation Results 9
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. Top-Level Token Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. The Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Nonce Claim (nonce) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Claims Describing the Entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.1. Universal Entity ID Claim (ueid) . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.2. Semi-permanent UEIDs (SUEIDs) . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.3. Hardware OEM Identification (oemid) . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2.3.1. Random Number Based OEMID . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2.3.2. IEEE Based OEMID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2.3.3. IANA Private Enterprise Number Based OEMID . . . 18
4.2.4. Hardware Model Claim (hardware-model) . . . . . . . . 19
4.2.5. Hardware Version Claims (hardware-version-claims) . . 19
4.2.6. Software Name Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.2.7. Software Version Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.2.8. The Security Level Claim (security-level) . . . . . . 20
4.2.9. Secure Boot Claim (secure-boot) . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.2.10. Debug Status Claim (debug-status) . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.2.10.1. Enabled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2.10.2. Disabled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2.10.3. Disabled Since Boot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2.10.4. Disabled Permanently . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.2.10.5. Disabled Fully and Permanently . . . . . . . . . 24
4.2.11. The Location Claim (location) . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.2.12. The Uptime Claim (uptime) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.2.13. The Boot Count Claim (boot-count) . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.2.14. The Boot Seed Claim (boot-seed) . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.2.15. The DLOA (Digital Letter of Approval) Claim (dloas) . 26
4.2.16. The Software Manifests Claim (manifests) . . . . . . 27
4.2.17. The Software Evidence Claim (swevidence) . . . . . . 28
4.2.18. The Measurement Results Claim (measurement-results) . 29
4.2.19. Submodules (submods) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.2.19.1. Submodule Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
4.2.19.2. No Inheritance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.2.19.3. Security Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.2.19.4. Submodule Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.3. Claims Describing the Token . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.3.1. Token ID Claim (cti and jti) . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.3.2. Timestamp claim (iat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.3.3. The Profile Claim (profile) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.3.4. The Intended Use Claim (intended-use) . . . . . . . . 37
4.4. Claims That Include Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5. Detached EAT Bundles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6. Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
6.1. Format of a Profile Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6.2. List of Profile Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6.2.1. Use of JSON, CBOR or both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6.2.2. CBOR Map and Array Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6.2.3. CBOR String Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6.2.4. CBOR Preferred Serialization . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6.2.5. CBOR Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6.2.6. COSE/JOSE Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6.2.7. COSE/JOSE Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6.2.8. DEB Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6.2.9. Key Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6.2.10. Endorsement Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
6.2.11. Freshness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
6.2.12. Claims Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
6.3. The Constrained Device Standard Profile . . . . . . . . . 45
7. Encoding and Collected CDDL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
7.1. Claims-Set and CDDL for CWT and JWT . . . . . . . . . . . 46
7.2. Encoding Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
7.2.1. Common Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
7.2.2. JSON Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
7.2.3. Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
7.2.4. CBOR Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
7.3. Collected CDDL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
7.3.1. Payload CDDL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
7.3.2. CBOR-Specific CDDL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
7.3.3. JSON-Specific CDDL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
8. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
8.1. UEID and SUEID Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 55
8.2. Location Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
8.3. Boot Seed Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
8.4. Replay Protection and Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
9.1. Key Provisioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
9.1.1. Transmission of Key Material . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
9.2. Transport Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
9.3. Multiple EAT Consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
9.4. DEB Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
10.1. Reuse of CBOR and JSON Web Token (CWT and JWT) Claims
Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
10.2. Claims Registered by This Document . . . . . . . . . . . 59
10.2.1. Claims for Early Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
10.2.2. To be Assigned Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
10.2.3. Version Schemes Registered by this Document . . . . 66
10.2.4. UEID URN Registered by this Document . . . . . . . . 67
10.2.5. Tag for Detached EAT Bundle . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
10.2.6. Media Types Registered by this Document . . . . . . 67
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
A.1. Payload Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
A.1.1. Simple TEE Attestation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
A.1.2. Submodules for Board and Device . . . . . . . . . . . 76
A.1.3. EAT Produced by Attestation Hardware Block . . . . . 78
A.1.4. Key / Key Store Attestation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
A.1.5. Submodules for Board and Device . . . . . . . . . . . 80
A.1.6. EAT Produced by Attestation Hardware Block . . . . . 82
A.1.7. Key / Key Store Attestation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
A.1.8. SW Measurements of an IoT Device . . . . . . . . . . 84
A.1.9. Attestation Results in JSON format . . . . . . . . . 86
A.1.10. JSON-encoded Token with Sumodules . . . . . . . . . . 87
A.2. Full Token Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
A.2.1. Basic CWT Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
A.2.2. Detached EAT Bundle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
A.2.3. JSON-encoded Detached EAT Bundle . . . . . . . . . . 91
Appendix B. UEID Design Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
B.1. Collision Probability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
B.2. No Use of UUID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Appendix C. EAT Relation to IEEE.802.1AR Secure Device Identity
(DevID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
C.1. DevID Used With EAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
C.2. How EAT Provides an Equivalent Secure Device Identity . . 96
C.3. An X.509 Format EAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
C.4. Device Identifier Permanence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Appendix D. CDDL for CWT and JWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Appendix E. Claim Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
E.1. Interoperability and Relying Party Orientation . . . . . 99
E.2. Operating System and Technology Neutral . . . . . . . . . 99
E.3. Security Level Neutral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
E.4. Reuse of Extant Data Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
E.5. Proprietary Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Appendix F. Endorsements and Verification Keys . . . . . . . . . 101
F.1. Identification Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
F.1.1. COSE/JWS Key ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
F.1.2. JWS and COSE X.509 Header Parameters . . . . . . . . 102
F.1.3. CBOR Certificate COSE Header Parameters . . . . . . . 102
F.1.4. Claim-Based Key Identification . . . . . . . . . . . 102
F.2. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Appendix G. Changes from Previous Drafts . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
G.1. From draft-rats-eat-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
G.2. From draft-mandyam-rats-eat-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
G.3. From draft-ietf-rats-eat-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
G.4. From draft-ietf-rats-eat-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
G.5. From draft-ietf-rats-eat-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
G.6. From draft-ietf-rats-eat-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
G.7. From draft-ietf-rats-eat-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
G.8. From draft-ietf-rats-eat-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
G.9. From draft-ietf-rats-eat-07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
G.10. From draft-ietf-rats-eat-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
G.11. From draft-ietf-rats-eat-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
G.12. From draft-ietf-rats-eat-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
G.13. From draft-ietf-rats-eat-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
G.14. From draft-ietf-rats-eat-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
G.15. From draft-ietf-rats-eat-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
1. Introduction
EAT provides the definition of a base set of claims that can be made
about an entity, a device, some software and/or some hardware. This
claims set is received by a relying party who uses it to decide if
and how it will interact with the remote entity. It may choose to
not trust the entity and not interact with it. It may choose to
trust it. It may partially trust it, for example allowing monetary
transactions only up to a limit.
EAT defines the encoding of the claims set in CBOR [RFC8949] and JSON
[RFC7159]. EAT is an extension to CBOR Web Token (CWT) [RFC8392] and
JSON Web Token (JWT) [RFC7519].
The claims set is secured in transit with the same mechanisms used by
CWT and JWT, in particular CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)
[RFC9052] and JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE) [RFC7515]
[RFC7516]. Authenticity and integrity protection must always be
provided. Privacy (encryption) may additionally be provided. The
key material used to sign and encrypt is specifically created and
provisioned for the purpose of attestation. It is the use of this
key material that make the claims set "attested" rather than just
some parameters sent to the relying party by the device.
EAT is focused on authenticating, identifying and characterizing
implementations where implementations are devices, chips, hardware,
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
software and such. This is distinct from protocols like TLS
[RFC8446] that authenticate and identify servers and services. It is
equally distinct from protocols like SASL [RFC4422] that authenticate
and identify persons.
The notion of attestation is large, ranging over a broad variety of
use cases and security levels. Here are a few examples of claims:
o Make and model of manufactured consumer device
o Make and model of a chip or processor, particularly for a
security-oriented chip
o Identification and measurement of the software running on a device
o Configuration and state of a device
o Environmental characteristics of a device like its GPS location
o Formal certifications received
EAT also supports nesting of sets of claims and EAT tokens for use
with complex composite devices.
This document uses the terminology and main operational model defined
in [RATS.Architecture]. In particular, it can be used for Evidence
and Attestation Results.
1.1. Entity Overview
The document uses the term "entity" to refer to the target of the
attestation token. The claims defined in this document are claims
about an entity.
An entity is an implementation in hardware, software or both.
An entity is the same as the Attester Target Environment defined in
RATS Architecture.
An entity may be the whole device or it may be a subsystem, a
subsystem of a subsystem and so on. EAT allows claims to be
organized into submodules, nested EATs and so on. See
Section 4.2.19. The entity to which a claim applies is the submodule
in which it appears, or to the top-level entity if it doesn't appear
in a submodule.
An entity also corresponds to a "system component" as defined in the
Internet Security Glossary [RFC4949]. That glossary also defines
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
"entity" and "system entity" as something that may be a person or
organization as well as a system component. Here "entity" never
refers to a person or organization.
The hardware and software that implement a server or service like a
web site may be an entity, but the web site itself or the
organization that runs the web site are not an entity.
Some examples of entities:
o A Secure Element
o A TEE
o A card in a network router
o A network router, perhaps with each card in the router a submodule
o An IoT device
o An individual process
o An app on a smartphone
o A smartphone with many submodules for its many subsystems
o A subsystem in a smartphone like the modem or the camera
An entity may have strong security like defenses against hardware
invasive attacks. It may also have low security, having no special
security defenses. There is no minimum security requirement to be an
entity.
1.2. CWT, JWT and DEB
An EAT is primarily a claims set about an entity based on one of the
following:
o CBOR Web Token (CWT) [RFC8392]
o JSON Web Token (JWT) [RFC7519]
All definitions, requirements, creation and validation procedures,
security considerations, IANA registrations and so on from these
carry over to EAT.
This specification extends those specifications by defining
additional claims for attestation. This specification also describes
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
the notion of a "profile" that can narrow the definition of an EAT,
ensure interoperability and fill in details for specific usage
scenarios. This specification also adds some considerations for
registration of future EAT-related claims.
The identification of a protocol element as an EAT, whether CBOR or
JSON encoded, follows the general conventions used by CWT, JWT.
Largely this depends on the protocol carrying the EAT. In some cases
it may be by content type (e.g., MIME type). In other cases it may
be through use of CBOR tags. There is no fixed mechanism across all
use cases.
This specification adds one more top-level token type:
o Detached EAT Bundle (DEB), Section 5
A DEB is structure to hold a collection of detached claims sets and
the EAT that separately provides integrity and authenticity
protection for them. It can be either CBOR or JSON encoded.
Last, the definition of other token types is allowed. Of particular
use may be a token type that provides no authenticity or integrity
protection at all for use with transports like TLS that do provide
that.
1.3. CDDL, CBOR and JSON
This document defines Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)
[RFC8949] and Javascript Object Notation (JSON) [RFC7159] encoding
for an EAT. All claims in an EAT MUST use the same encoding except
where otherwise explicitly stated. It is explicitly allowed for a
nested token to be of a different encoding. Some claims explicitly
contain objects and messages that may use a different encoding than
the enclosing EAT.
This specification uses Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL)
[RFC8610] for all definitions. The implementor interprets the CDDL
to come to either the CBOR or JSON encoding. In the case of JSON,
Appendix E of [RFC8610] is followed. Additional rules are given in
Section 7.2.2 where Appendix E is insufficient.
In most cases where the CDDL for CBOR is different than JSON a CDDL
Generic named "JC<>" is used. It is described in Appendix D.
The CWT and JWT specifications were authored before CDDL was
available and did not use CDDL. This specification includes a CDDL
definition of most of what is defined in [RFC8392]. Similarly, this
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
specification includes CDDL for most of what is defined in [RFC7519].
These definitions are in Appendix D and are not normative.
1.4. Operating Model and RATS Architecture
While it is not required that EAT be used with the RATS operational
model described in Figure 1 in [RATS.Architecture], or even that it
be used for attestation, this document is oriented around that model.
To summarize, an Attester generates Evidence. Evidence is a claims
set describing various characteristics of an entity. Evidence also
is usually signed by a key that proves the entity and the evidence it
produces are authentic. The claims set includes a nonce or some
other means to provide freshness. EAT is designed to carry Evidence.
The Evidence goes to a Verifier where the signature is verified.
Some of the claims may also be checked against Reference Values. The
Verifier then produces Attestation Results which is also usually a
claims set.
EAT is also designed to carry Attestation Results. The Attestation
Results go to the Relying Party which is the ultimate consumer of the
Remote Attestation Procedure. The Relying Party uses the Attestation
Results as needed for the use case, perhaps allowing an entity on the
network, allowing a financial transaction or such.
Note that sometimes the Verifier and Relying Party are not separate
and thus there is no need for a protocol to carry Attestation
Results.
1.4.1. Relationship between Evidence and Attestation Results
Any claim defined in this document or in the IANA CWT or JWT registry
may be used in Evidence or Attestation Results.
The relationship of claims in Attestation Results to Evidence is
fundamentally governed by the Verifier and the Verifier's Policy.
A common use case is for the Verifier and its Policy to perform
checks, calculations and processing with Evidence as the input to
produce a summary result in Attestation Results that indicates the
overall health and status of the entity. For example, measurements
in Evidence may be compared to Reference Values the results of which
are represented as a simple pass/fail in Attestation Results.
It is also possible that some claims in the Evidence will be
forwarded unmodified to the Relying Party in Attestation Results.
This forwarding is subject to the Verifier's implementation and
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
Policy. The Relying Party should be aware of the Verifier's Policy
to know what checks it has performed on claims it forwards.
The Verifier may also modify or transform claims it forwards. This
may be to implement some privacy preservation functionality.
It is also possible the Verifier will put claims in the Attestation
Results that give details about the entity that it has computed or
looked up in a database. For example, the Verifier may be able to
put a HW OEM ID Claim in the Attestation Results by performing a look
up based on a UEID (serial number) it received in Evidence.
This specification does not establish any normative rules for the
Verifier to follow. They are a matter of configured policy. It is
up to each Relying Party to understand the processing rules of each
Verifier to know how to interpret claims in Attestation Results.
2. 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.
This document reuses terminology from JWT [RFC7519] and CWT
[RFC8392].
Claim: A piece of information asserted about a subject. A claim is
represented as pair with a value and either a name or key to
identify it.
Claim Name: A unique text string that identifies the claim. It is
used as the claim name for JSON encoding.
Claim Key: The CBOR map key used to identify a claim.
Claim Value: The value portion of the claim. A claim value can be
any CBOR data item or JSON value.
Claims Set: The CBOR map or JSON object that contains the claims
conveyed by the CWT or JWT.
This document reuses terminology from RATS Architecure
[RATS.Architecture]
Attester: A role performed by an entity (typically a device) whose
Evidence must be appraised in order to infer the extent to which
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
the Attester is considered trustworthy, such as when deciding
whether it is authorized to perform some operation.
Verifier: A role that appraises the validity of Evidence about an
Attester and produces Attestation Results to be used by a Relying
Party.
Relying Party: A role that depends on the validity of information
about an Attester, for purposes of reliably applying application
specific actions. Compare /relying party/ in [RFC4949].
Evidence: A set of Claims generated by an Attester to be appraised
by a Verifier. Evidence may include configuration data,
measurements, telemetry, or inferences.
Attestation Results: The output generated by a Verifier, typically
including information about an Attester, where the Verifier
vouches for the validity of the results
Reference Values: A set of values against which values of Claims can
be compared as part of applying an Appraisal Policy for Evidence.
Reference Values are sometimes referred to in other documents as
known-good values, golden measurements, or nominal values,
although those terms typically assume comparison for equality,
whereas here Reference Values might be more general and be used in
any sort of comparison.
Endorsement: A secure statement that an Endorser vouches for the
integrity of an Attester's various capabilities such as Claims
collection and Evidence signing.
3. Top-Level Token Definition
An EAT is a "message", a "token", or such whose content is a Claims-
Set about an entity or some number of entities. An EAT MUST always
contains a Claims-Set.
An EAT may be encoded in CBOR or JSON as defined here. While not
encouraged, other documents may define EAT encoding in other formats.
EAT as defined here is always integrity and authenticity protected
through use of CWT or JWT. Other token formats using other methods
of protection may be defined outside this document.
This document also defines the Detatched EAT Bundle Section 5, a
bundle of some detached Claims-Sets and CWTs or JWTs that provide
protection for the detached Claims-Set.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
The following CDDL defines the top-levels of an EAT token as a socket
indicating future token formats may be defined. Any new format that
plugs into this socket MUST be defined in a IETF standards track
document. See Appendix D for the CDDL definitions of a CWT and JWT.
Nesting of EATs is allowed and defined in Section 4.2.19.1.2. This
nesting includes nesting of a token that is a different format than
the enclosing token. The definition of Nested-Token references the
CDDL defined in this section. When new token formats are defined,
the means for identification in a nested token MUST also be defined.
EAT-CBOR-Token = $$EAT-CBOR-Tagged-Token / $$EAT-CBOR-Untagged-Token
$$EAT-CBOR-Tagged-Token /= CWT-Tagged-Message
$$EAT-CBOR-Tagged-Token /= DEB-Tagged-Message
$$EAT-CBOR-Untagged-Token /= CWT-Untagged-Message
$$EAT-CBOR-Untagged-Token /= DEB-Untagged-Message
EAT-JSON-Token = $$EAT-JSON-Token-Formats
$$EAT-JSON-Token-Formats /= JWT-Message
$$EAT-JSON-Token-Formats /= DEB-Untagged-Message
4. The Claims
This section describes new claims defined for attestation that are to
be added to the CWT [IANA.CWT.Claims] and JWT [IANA.JWT.Claims] IANA
registries.
This section also describes how several extant CWT and JWT claims
apply in EAT.
CDDL, along with a text description, is used to define each claim
independent of encoding. Each claim is defined as a CDDL group. In
Section 7 on encoding, the CDDL groups turn into CBOR map entries and
JSON name/value pairs.
Each claim described has a unique text string and integer that
identifies it. CBOR-encoded tokens MUST use only the integer for
Claim Keys. JSON-encoded tokens MUST use only the text string for
Claim Names.
4.1. Nonce Claim (nonce)
All EATs MUST have a nonce to prevent replay attacks.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
This claim is either a single byte or text string or an array of byte
or text strings. The array is to accommodate multistage EAT
verification and consumption. See the extensive discussion on
attestation freshness in Appendix A of RATS Architecture
[RATS.Architecture].
A claim named "nonce" is previously defined and registered with IANA
for JWT, but MUST not be used in an EAT. It does not support
multiple nonces. No previous nonce claim was defined for CWT.
The nonce MUST have 64 bits of entropy as fewer bits are unlikely to
be secure. A maximum nonce size is set to limit the memory required
for an implementation. All receivers MUST be able to accommodate the
maximum size.
In CBOR, the nonce is a byte string. The minimum size is 8 bytes.
The maximum size is 64 bytes.
In JSON the nonce is a text string. It is assumed that the only
characters represented by the lower 7 bits will be used so the text
string must be one-seventh longer because the 8th bit doesn't
contribute to entropy. The minimum size is 10 bytes. The maximum
size is 74 bytes.
$$Claims-Set-Claims //=
(nonce-label => nonce-type / [ 2* nonce-type ])
nonce-type = JC< tstr .size (10..74), bstr .size (8..64)>
4.2. Claims Describing the Entity
The claims in this section describe the entity itself. They describe
the entity whether they occur in Evidence or occur in Attestation
Results. See Section 1.4.1 for discussion on how Attestation Results
relate to Evidence.
4.2.1. Universal Entity ID Claim (ueid)
A UEID identifies an individual manufactured entity like a mobile
phone, a water meter, a Bluetooth speaker or a networked security
camera. It may identify the entire entity or a submodule. It does
not identify types, models or classes of entities. It is akin to a
serial number, though it does not have to be sequential.
UEIDs MUST be universally and globally unique across manufacturers
and countries. UEIDs MUST also be unique across protocols and
systems, as tokens are intended to be embedded in many different
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
protocols and systems. No two products anywhere, even in completely
different industries made by two different manufacturers in two
different countries should have the same UEID (if they are not global
and universal in this way, then Relying Parties receiving them will
have to track other characteristics of the entity to keep entities
distinct between manufacturers).
There are privacy considerations for UEIDs. See Section 8.1.
The UEID is permanent. It MUST never change for a given entity.
A UEID is constructed of a single type byte followed by the bytes
that are the identifier. Several types are allowed to accommodate
different industries, different manufacturing processes and to have
an alternative that doesn't require paying a registration fee.
Creation of new types requires a Standards Action [RFC8126].
UEIDS are variable length to accommodate the types defined here and
new types that may be defined in the future.
All implementations MUST be able to receive UEIDs up to 33 bytes
long. 33 bytes is the longest defined in this document and gives
necessary entropy for probabilistic uniqueness. See Appendix B.
UEIDs SHOULD NOT be longer than 33 bytes. If they are longer, there
is no guarantee that a receiver will be able to accept them.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
+------+------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Type | Type | Specification |
| Byte | Name | |
+------+------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| 0x01 | RAND | This is a 128, 192 or 256-bit random number |
| | | generated once and stored in the entity. This may |
| | | be constructed by concatenating enough identifiers |
| | | to make up an equivalent number of random bits and |
| | | then feeding the concatenation through a |
| | | cryptographic hash function. It may also be a |
| | | cryptographic quality random number generated once |
| | | at the beginning of the life of the entity and |
| | | stored. It MUST NOT be smaller than 128 bits. See |
| | | the length analysis in Appendix B. |
| 0x02 | IEEE | This uses the IEEE company identification registry. |
| | EUI | An EUI is either an EUI-48, EUI-60 or EUI-64 and |
| | | made up of an OUI, OUI-36 or a CID, different |
| | | registered company identifiers, and some unique |
| | | per-entity identifier. EUIs are often the same as |
| | | or similar to MAC addresses. This type includes |
| | | MAC-48, an obsolete name for EUI-48. (Note that |
| | | while entities with multiple network interfaces may |
| | | have multiple MAC addresses, there is only one UEID |
| | | for an entity) [IEEE.802-2001], [OUI.Guide]. |
| 0x03 | IMEI | This is a 14-digit identifier consisting of an |
| | | 8-digit Type Allocation Code and a 6-digit serial |
| | | number allocated by the manufacturer, which SHALL |
| | | be encoded as byte string of length 14 with each |
| | | byte as the digit's value (not the ASCII encoding |
| | | of the digit; the digit 3 encodes as 0x03, not |
| | | 0x33). The IMEI value encoded SHALL NOT include |
| | | Luhn checksum or SVN information. See |
| | | [ThreeGPP.IMEI]. |
+------+------+-----------------------------------------------------+
Table 1: UEID Composition Types
UEIDs are not designed for direct use by humans (e.g., printing on
the case of a device), so no textual representation is defined.
The consumer of a UEID MUST treat a UEID as a completely opaque
string of bytes and not make any use of its internal structure. For
example, they should not use the OUI part of a type 0x02 UEID to
identify the manufacturer of the entity. Instead, they should use
the OEMID claim. See Section 4.2.3. The reasons for this are:
o UEIDs types may vary freely from one manufacturer to the next.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
o New types of UEIDs may be created. For example, a type 0x07 UEID
may be created based on some other manufacturer registration
scheme.
o The manufacturing process for an entity is allowed to change from
using one type of UEID to another. For example, a manufacturer
may find they can optimize their process by switching from type
0x01 to type 0x02 or vice versa.
The type byte is needed to distinguish UEIDs of different types that
by chance have the same identifier value, but do not identify the
same entity. The type byte MUST be treated as part of the opaque
UEID and MUST not be used to make use of the internal structure of
the UEID.
A Device Identifier URN is registered for UEIDs. See Section 10.2.4.
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (ueid-label => ueid-type)
ueid-type = JC<base64-url-text .size (12..44) , bstr .size (7..33)>
4.2.2. Semi-permanent UEIDs (SUEIDs)
An SUEID has the same format, characteristics and requirements as a
UEID, but MAY change to a different value on entity life-cycle
events. An entity MAY have both a UEID and SUEIDs, neither, one or
the other.
Examples of life-cycle events are change of ownership, factory reset
and on-boarding into an IoT device management system. It is beyond
the scope of this document to specify particular types of SUEIDs and
the life-cycle events that trigger their change. An EAT profile MAY
provide this specification.
There MAY be multiple SUEIDs. Each has a text string label the
purpose of which is to distinguish it from others. The label MAY
name the purpose, application or type of the SUEID. For example, the
label for the SUEID used by FIDO Onboarding Protocol could be "FDO".
It is beyond the scope of this document to specify any SUEID labeling
schemes. They are use-case specific and MAY be specified in an EAT
profile.
If there is only one SUEID, the claim remains a map and there still
MUST be a label.
An SUEID provides functionality similar to an IEEE LDevID
[IEEE.802.1AR].
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
There are privacy considerations for SUEIDs. See Section 8.1.
A Device Indentifier URN is registered for SUEIDs. See
Section 10.2.4.
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (sueids-label => sueids-type)
sueids-type = {
+ tstr => ueid-type
}
4.2.3. Hardware OEM Identification (oemid)
This claim identifies the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) of
the hardware. Any of the three forms described below MAY be used at
the convenience of the claim sender. The receiver of this claim MUST
be able to handle all three forms.
4.2.3.1. Random Number Based OEMID
The random number based OEMID MUST always 16 bytes (128 bits).
The OEM MAY create their own ID by using a cryptographic-quality
random number generator. They would perform this only once in the
life of the company to generate the single ID for said company. They
would use that same ID in every entity they make. This uniquely
identifies the OEM on a statistical basis and is large enough should
there be ten billion companies.
The OEM MAY also use a hash function like SHA-256 and truncate the
output to 128 bits. The input to the hash should be somethings that
have at least 96 bits of entropy, but preferably 128 bits of entropy.
The input to the hash MAY be something whose uniqueness is managed by
a central registry like a domain name.
In JSON format tokens this MUST be base64url encoded.
4.2.3.2. IEEE Based OEMID
The IEEE operates a global registry for MAC addresses and company
IDs. This claim uses that database to identify OEMs. The contents
of the claim may be either an IEEE MA-L, MA-M, MA-S or an IEEE CID
[IEEE.RA]. An MA-L, formerly known as an OUI, is a 24-bit value used
as the first half of a MAC address. MA-M similarly is a 28-bit value
uses as the first part of a MAC address, and MA-S, formerly known as
OUI-36, a 36-bit value. Many companies already have purchased one of
these. A CID is also a 24-bit value from the same space as an MA-L,
but not for use as a MAC address. IEEE has published Guidelines for
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
Use of EUI, OUI, and CID [OUI.Guide] and provides a lookup service
[OUI.Lookup].
Companies that have more than one of these IDs or MAC address blocks
SHOULD select one and prefer that for all their entities.
Commonly, these are expressed in Hexadecimal Representation as
described in [IEEE.802-2001]. It is also called the Canonical
format. When this claim is encoded the order of bytes in the bstr
are the same as the order in the Hexadecimal Representation. For
example, an MA-L like "AC-DE-48" would be encoded in 3 bytes with
values 0xAC, 0xDE, 0x48.
This format is always 3 bytes in size in CBOR.
In JSON format tokens, this MUST be base64url encoded and always 4
bytes.
4.2.3.3. IANA Private Enterprise Number Based OEMID
IANA maintains a integer-based company registry called the Private
Enterprise Number (PEN) [PEN].
PENs are often used to create an OID. That is not the case here.
They are used only as an integer.
In CBOR this value MUST be encoded as a major type 0 integer and is
typically 3 bytes. In JSON, this value MUST be encoded as a number.
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (
oemid-label => oemid-pen / oemid-ieee / oemid-random
)
oemid-pen = int
oemid-ieee = JC<oemid-ieee-json, oemid-ieee-cbor>
oemid-ieee-cbor = bstr .size 3
oemid-ieee-json = base64-url-text .size 4
oemid-random = JC<oemid-random-json, oemid-random-cbor>
oemid-random-cbor = bstr .size 16
oemid-random-json = base64-url-text .size 24
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
4.2.4. Hardware Model Claim (hardware-model)
This claim differentiates hardware models, products and variants
manufactured by a particular OEM, the one identified by OEM ID in
Section 4.2.3.
This claim must be unique so as to differentiate the models and
products for the OEM ID. This claim does not have to be globally
unique, but it can be. A receiver of this claim MUST not assume it
is globally unique. To globally identify a particular product, the
receiver should concatenate the OEM ID and this claim.
The granularity of the model identification is for each OEM to
decide. It may be very granular, perhaps including some version
information. It may be very general, perhaps only indicating top-
level products.
The purpose of this claim is to identify models within protocols, not
for human-readable descriptions. The format and encoding of this
claim should not be human-readable to discourage use other than in
protocols. If this claim is to be derived from an already-in-use
human-readable identifier, it can be run through a hash function.
There is no minimum length so that an OEM with a very small number of
models can use a one-byte encoding. The maximum length is 32 bytes.
All receivers of this claim MUST be able to receive this maximum
size.
The receiver of this claim MUST treat it as a completely opaque
string of bytes, even if there is some apparent naming or structure.
The OEM is free to alter the internal structure of these bytes as
long as the claim continues to uniquely identify its models.
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (
hardware-model-label => hardware-model-type
)
hardware-model-type = JC<base64-url-text .size (4..44),
bytes .size (1..32)>
4.2.5. Hardware Version Claims (hardware-version-claims)
The hardware version is a text string the format of which is set by
each manufacturer. The structure and sorting order of this text
string can be specified using the version-scheme item from CoSWID
[CoSWID]. It is useful to know how to sort versions so the newer can
be distinguished from the older.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
The hardware version can also be given by a 13-digit [EAN-13]. A new
CoSWID version scheme is registered with IANA by this document in
Section 10.2.3. An EAN-13 is also known as an International Article
Number or most commonly as a bar code.
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (
hardware-version-label => hardware-version-type
)
hardware-version-type = [
version: tstr,
? scheme: $version-scheme
]
4.2.6. Software Name Claim
This is a very simple free-form text claim for naming the software
used by the entity. Intentionally, no general rules or structure are
set. This will make it unsuitable for use cases that wish precise
naming.
If precise and rigourous naming of the SW for the entity is needed,
the manifests claim Section 4.2.16 may be used instead.
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= ( sw-name-label => tstr )
4.2.7. Software Version Claim
This makes use of the CoSWID version scheme data type to give a
simple version for the software. A full CoSWID manifest or other
type of manifest can be instead if this is too simple.
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (sw-version-label => sw-version-type)
sw-version-type = [
version: tstr
? scheme: $version-scheme
]
4.2.8. The Security Level Claim (security-level)
This claim characterizes the design intent of the entity's ability to
defend against attacks aimed at capturing the signing key, forging
claims and forging EATs.
This claim is only to give the recipient a rough idea of the security
design the entity is aiming for. This is via a simple, non-
extensible set of three levels.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
While this claim may be forwarded in Attestation Results as described
in Section 1.4.1, this claim MUST NOT be used to represent the output
of a RATS Verifier.
This takes a broad view of the range of defenses because EAT is
targeted at a broad range of use cases. The least secure level may
have only minimal SW defenses. The most secure level may have
specialized hardware to defend against hardware-based attacks.
Only through expansive certification programs like Common Criteria is
it possible to sharply define security levels. Sharp definition of
security levels is not possible here because the IETF doesn't define
and operate certification programs. It is also not possible here
because any sharp definition of security levels would be a document
larger than the EAT specification. Thus, this definition takes the
view that the security level definition possible is a simple, modest,
rough characterization.
1 - Unrestricted: An entity is categorized as unrestricted when it
doesn't meet the criteria for any of the higher levels. This
level does not indicate there is no protection at all, just that
the entity doesn't qualify for the higher levels.
2 - Restricted: Entities at this level MUST meet the criteria
defined in Section 4 of FIDO Allowed Restricted Operating
Environments [FIDO.AROE]. (Note only Section 4 is referenced.
The other sections, in particularly Section 3 do not apply.)
Examples include TEE's and schemes using virtualization-based
security. Security at this level is aimed at defending against
large-scale network/remote attacks by having a reduced attack
surface.
3 - Hardware: Entities at this level are indicating they have some
countermeasures to defend against physical or electrical attacks
against the entity. Security at this level is aimed at defending
against attackers that physically capture the entity to attack it.
Examples include TPMs and Secure Elements.
The security level claimed should be for the weakest point in the
entity, not the strongest. For example, if attestation key is
protected by hardware, but the rest of the attester is in a TEE, the
claim must be for restriced.
This set of three is not extensible so this remains broadly
interoperable. In particular use cases, alternate claims may be
defined that give finer grained information than this claim.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
See also the DLOAs claim in Section 4.2.15, a claim that specifically
provides information about certifications received.
$$Claims-Set-Claims //=
( security-level-label => security-level-type )
security-level-type = unrestricted /
restricted /
hardware
unrestricted = JC< "unrestricted", 1>
restricted = JC< "restricted", 2>
hardware = JC< "hardware", 3>
4.2.9. Secure Boot Claim (secure-boot)
The value of true indicates secure boot is enabled. Secure boot is
considered enabled when the firmware and operating system, are under
control of the manufacturer of the entity identified in the OEMID
claim described in Section 4.2.3. Control by the manufacturer of the
firmware and the operating system may be by it being in ROM, being
cryptographically authenticated, a combination of the two or similar.
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (secure-boot-label => bool)
4.2.10. Debug Status Claim (debug-status)
This applies to entity-wide or submodule-wide debug facilities of the
entity like JTAG and diagnostic hardware built into chips. It
applies to any software debug facilities related to root, operating
system or privileged software that allow system-wide memory
inspection, tracing or modification of non-system software like user
mode applications.
This characterization assumes that debug facilities can be enabled
and disabled in a dynamic way or be disabled in some permanent way
such that no enabling is possible. An example of dynamic enabling is
one where some authentication is required to enable debugging. An
example of permanent disabling is blowing a hardware fuse in a chip.
The specific type of the mechanism is not taken into account. For
example, it does not matter if authentication is by a global password
or by per-entity public keys.
As with all claims, the absence of the debug level claim means it is
not reported. A conservative interpretation might assume the enabled
state.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
This claim is not extensible so as to provide a common interoperable
description of debug status. If a particular implementation
considers this claim to be inadequate, it can define its own
proprietary claim. It may consider including both this claim as a
coarse indication of debug status and its own proprietary claim as a
refined indication.
The higher levels of debug disabling requires that all debug
disabling of the levels below it be in effect. Since the lowest
level requires that all of the target's debug be currently disabled,
all other levels require that too.
There is no inheritance of claims from a submodule to a superior
module or vice versa. There is no assumption, requirement or
guarantee that the target of a superior module encompasses the
targets of submodules. Thus, every submodule must explicitly
describe its own debug state. The receiver of an EAT MUST not assume
that debug is turned off in a submodule because there is a claim
indicating it is turned off in a superior module.
An entity may have multiple debug facilities. The use of plural in
the description of the states refers to that, not to any aggregation
or inheritance.
The architecture of some chips or devices may be such that a debug
facility operates for the whole chip or device. If the EAT for such
a chip includes submodules, then each submodule should independently
report the status of the whole-chip or whole-device debug facility.
This is the only way the receiver can know the debug status of the
submodules since there is no inheritance.
4.2.10.1. Enabled
If any debug facility, even manufacturer hardware diagnostics, is
currently enabled, then this level must be indicated.
4.2.10.2. Disabled
This level indicates all debug facilities are currently disabled. It
may be possible to enable them in the future. It may also be that
they were enabled in the past, but they are currently disabled.
4.2.10.3. Disabled Since Boot
This level indicates all debug facilities are currently disabled and
have been so since the entity booted/started.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
4.2.10.4. Disabled Permanently
This level indicates all non-manufacturer facilities are permanently
disabled such that no end user or developer can enable them. Only
the manufacturer indicated in the OEMID claim can enable them. This
also indicates that all debug facilities are currently disabled and
have been so since boot/start.
4.2.10.5. Disabled Fully and Permanently
This level indicates that all debug facilities for the entity are
permanently disabled.
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= ( debug-status-label => debug-status-type )
debug-status-type = ds-enabled /
disabled /
disabled-since-boot /
disabled-permanently /
disabled-fully-and-permanently
ds-enabled = JC< "enabled", 0 >
disabled = JC< "disabled", 1 >
disabled-since-boot = JC< "disabled-since-boot", 2 >
disabled-permanently = JC< "disabled-permanently", 3 >
disabled-fully-and-permanently = JC< "disabled-fully-and-permanently",
4 >
4.2.11. The Location Claim (location)
The location claim gives the location of the entity from which the
attestation originates. It is derived from the W3C Geolocation API
[W3C.GeoLoc]. The latitude, longitude, altitude and accuracy must
conform to [WGS84]. The altitude is in meters above the [WGS84]
ellipsoid. The two accuracy values are positive numbers in meters.
The heading is in degrees relative to true north. If the entity is
stationary, the heading is NaN (floating-point not-a-number). The
speed is the horizontal component of the entity velocity in meters
per second.
The location may have been cached for a period of time before token
creation. For example, it might have been minutes or hours or more
since the last contact with a GPS satellite. Either the timestamp or
age data item can be used to quantify the cached period. The
timestamp data item is preferred as it a non-relative time.
The age data item can be used when the entity doesn't know what time
it is either because it doesn't have a clock or it isn't set. The
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
entity MUST still have a "ticker" that can measure a time interval.
The age is the interval between acquisition of the location data and
token creation.
See location-related privacy considerations in Section 8.2.
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (location-label => location-type)
location-type = {
latitude => number,
longitude => number,
? altitude => number,
? accuracy => number,
? altitude-accuracy => number,
? heading => number,
? speed => number,
? timestamp => ~time-int,
? age => uint
}
latitude = JC< "latitude", 1 >
longitude = JC< "longitude", 2 >
altitude = JC< "altitude", 3 >
accuracy = JC< "accuracy", 4 >
altitude-accuracy = JC< "altitude-accuracy", 5 >
heading = JC< "heading", 6 >
speed = JC< "speed", 7 >
timestamp = JC< "timestamp", 8 >
age = JC< "age", 9 >
4.2.12. The Uptime Claim (uptime)
The "uptime" claim MUST contain a value that represents the number of
seconds that have elapsed since the entity or submod was last booted.
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (uptime-label => uint)
4.2.13. The Boot Count Claim (boot-count)
This claim contains a count of the number times the entity or submod
has been booted. Support for this claim requires a persistent
storage on the device.
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (boot-count-label => uint)
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
4.2.14. The Boot Seed Claim (boot-seed)
The Boot Seed claim contains a value created at system boot time that
allows differentiation of attestation reports from different boot
sessions of a particular entity (e.g., a certain UEID).
This value is usually public. It is not a secret and MUST NOT be
used for any purpose that a secret seed is needed, such as seeding a
random number generator.
There are privacy considerations for Boot Seed. See Section 8.3.
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (boot-seed-label => binary-data)
4.2.15. The DLOA (Digital Letter of Approval) Claim (dloas)
A DLOA (Digital Letter of Approval) [DLOA] is a document that
describes a certification that an entity has received. Examples of
certifications represented by a DLOA include those issued by Global
Platform and those based on Common Criteria. The DLOA is unspecific
to any particular certification type or those issued by any
particular organization.
This claim is typically issued by a Verifier, not an Attester.
Verifiers MUST NOT issue this claim unless the entity has received
the certification indicated by the DLOA.
This claim MAY contain more than one DLOA. If multiple DLOAs are
present, Verifiers MUST NOT issue this claim unless the entity has
received all of the certifications.
DLOA documents are always fetched from a registrar that stores them.
This claim contains several data items used to construct a URL for
fetching the DLOA from the particular registrar.
This claim MUST be encoded as an array with either two or three
elements. The first element MUST be the URI for the registrar. The
second element MUST be a platform label indicating which platform was
certified. If the DLOA applies to an application, then the third
element is added which MUST be an application label. The method of
constructing the registrar URI, platform label and possibly
application label is specified in [DLOA].
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (
dloas-label => [ + dloa-type ]
)
dloa-type = [
dloa_registrar: general-uri
dloa_platform_label: text
? dloa_application_label: text
]
4.2.16. The Software Manifests Claim (manifests)
This claim contains descriptions of software present on the entity.
These manifests are installed on the entity when the software is
installed or are created as part of the installation process.
Installation is anything that adds software to the entity, possibly
factory installation, the user installing elective applications and
so on. The defining characteristic is they are created by the
software manufacturer. The purpose of these claims in an EAT is to
relay them without modification to the Verifier and possibly to the
Relying Party.
Some manifests may be signed by their software manufacturer before
they are put into this EAT claim. When such manifests are put into
this claim, the manufacturer's signature SHOULD be included. For
example, the manifest might be a CoSWID signed by the software
manufacturer, in which case the full signed CoSWID should be put in
this claim.
This claim allows multiple formats for the manifest. For example,
the manifest may be a CBOR-format CoSWID, an XML-format SWID or
other. Identification of the type of manifest is always by a CoAP
Content-Format integer [RFC7252]. If there is no CoAP identifier
registered for the manifest format, one should be registered, perhaps
in the experimental or first-come-first-served range.
This claim MUST be an array of one or more manifests. Each manifest
in the claim MUST be an array of two. The first item in the array of
two MUST be an integer CoAP Content-Format identifier. The second
item is MUST be the actual manifest.
In JSON-format tokens the manifest, whatever format it is, MUST be
placed in a text string. When a non-text format manifest like a
CBOR-encoded CoSWID is put in a JSON-encoded token, the manifest MUST
be base-64 encoded.
This claim allows for multiple manifests in one token since multiple
software packages are likely to be present. The multiple manifests
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
MAY be of different formats. In some cases EAT submodules may be
used instead of the array structure in this claim for multiple
manifests.
When the [CoSWID] format is used, it MUST be a payload CoSWID, not an
evidence CoSWID.
This document registers CoAP Content Formats for CycloneDX
[CycloneDX] and SPDX [SPDX] so they can be used as a manifest.
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (
manifests-label => manifests-type
)
manifests-type = [+ manifest-format]
manifest-format = [
content-type: coap-content-format,
content-format: JC< $$manifest-body-json,
$$manifest-body-cbor >
]
$$manifest-body-cbor /= bytes .cbor untagged-coswid
$$manifest-body-json /= base64-url-text
$$manifest-body-cbor /= bytes .cbor SUIT_Envelope
$$manifest-body-json /= base64-url-text
$$manifest-body-cbor /= spdx-json
$$manifest-body-json /= spdx-json
spdx-json = text
$$manifest-body-cbor /= cyclone-dx-json
$$manifest-body-cbor /= cyclone-dx-xml
$$manifest-body-json /= cyclone-dx-json
$$manifest-body-json /= cyclone-dx-xml
cyclone-dx-json = text
cyclone-dx-xml = text
suit-directive-process-dependency = 19
4.2.17. The Software Evidence Claim (swevidence)
This claim contains descriptions, lists, evidence or measurements of
the software that exists on the entity. The defining characteristic
of this claim is that its contents are created by processes on the
entity that inventory, measure or otherwise characterize the software
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
on the entity. The contents of this claim do not originate from the
software manufacturer.
This claim can be a [CoSWID]. When the CoSWID format is used, it
MUST be evidence CoSWIDs, not payload CoSWIDS.
Formats other than CoSWID can be used. The identification of format
is by CoAP Content Format, the same as the manifests claim in
Section 4.2.16.
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (
swevidence-label => swevidence-type
)
swevidence-type = [+ swevidence-format]
swevidence-format = [
content-type: coap-content-format,
content-format: JC< $$swevidence-body-json,
$$swevidence-body-cbor >
]
$$swevidence-body-cbor /= bytes .cbor untagged-coswid
$$swevidence-body-json /= base64-url-text
4.2.18. The Measurement Results Claim (measurement-results)
This claim is a general-purpose structure for reporting comparison of
measurements to expected Reference Values. This claim provides a
simple standard way to report the result of a comparison as success,
failure, fail to run, ...
It is the nature of measurement systems that they are specific to the
operating system, software and hardware of the entity that is being
measured. It is not possible to standardize what is measured and how
it is measured across platforms, OS's, software and hardware. The
recipient must obtain the information about what was measured and
what it indicates for the characterization of the security of the
entity from the provider of the measurement system. What this claim
provides is a standard way to report basic success or failure of the
measurement. In some use cases it is valuable to know if
measurements succeeded or failed in a general way even if the details
of what was measured is not characterized.
This claim MAY be generated by the Verifier and sent to the Relying
Party. For example, it could be the results of the Verifier
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
comparing the contents of the swevidence claim, Section 4.2.17, to
Reference Values.
This claim MAY also be generated on the entity if the entity has the
ability for one subsystem to measure and evaluate another subsystem.
For example, a TEE might have the ability to measure the software of
the rich OS and may have the Reference Values for the rich OS.
Within an entity, attestation target or submodule, multiple results
can be reported. For example, it may be desirable to report the
results for measurements of the file system, chip configuration,
installed software, running software and so on.
Note that this claim is not for reporting the overall result of a
Verifier. It is solely for reporting the result of comparison to
reference values.
An individual measurement result is an array of two, an identifier of
the measurement and an enumerated type that is the result. The range
and values of the measurement identifier varies from one measurement
scheme to another.
Each individual measurement result is part of a group that may
contain many individual results. Each group has a text string that
names it, typically the name of the measurement scheme or system.
The claim itself consists of one or more groups.
The values for the results enumerated type are as follows:
1 - comparison successful Indicates successful comparison to
reference values.
2 - comparison fail The comparison was completed and did not compare
correctly to the Reference Values.
3 - comparison not run The comparison was not run. This includes
error conditions such as running out of memory.
4 - measurement absent The particular measurement was not available
for comparison.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (
measurement-results-label =>
[ + measurement-results-group ] )
measurement-results-group = [
measurement-system: tstr,
measruement-results: [ + individual-result ]
]
individual-result = [
results-id: tstr / binary-data,
result: result-type,
]
result-type = comparison-successful /
comparison-fail /
comparison-not-run /
measurement-absent
comparison-successful = JC< "success", 1 >
comparison-fail = JC< "fail", 2 >
comparison-not-run = JC< "not-run", 3 >
measurement-absent = JC< "absent", 4 >
4.2.19. Submodules (submods)
Some devices are complex, having many subsystems. A mobile phone is
a good example. It may have several connectivity subsystems for
communications (e.g., Wi-Fi and cellular). It may have subsystems
for low-power audio and video playback. It may have multiple
security-oriented subsystems like a TEE and a Secure Element.
The claims for a subsystem can be grouped together in a submodule or
submod.
The submods are in a single map/object, one entry per submodule.
There is only one submods map/object in a token. It is identified by
its specific label. It is a peer to other claims, but it is not
called a claim because it is a container for a claims set rather than
an individual claim. This submods part of a token allows what might
be called recursion. It allows claims sets inside of claims sets
inside of claims sets...
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
4.2.19.1. Submodule Types
The following sections define the three types of submodules:
o A submodule Claims-Set
o A nested token, which can be any valid EAT token, CBOR or JSON
o The digest of a detached Claims-Set
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (submods-label => { + text => Submodule })
Submodule = Claims-Set / Nested-Token / Detached-Submodule-Digest
4.2.19.1.1. Submodule Claims-Set
This is a subordinate Claims-Set containing claims about a submodule,
a subordinate entity.
The submodule Claims-Set is produced by the same Attester as the
surrounding token. It is secured by the same mechanism as the
enclosing token (e.g., it is signed by the same attestation key). It
roughly corresponds to an Attester Target Environment, as described
in the RATS architecture.
It may contain claims that are the same as its surrounding token or
superior submodules. For example, the top-level of the token may
have a UEID, a submod may have a different UEID and a further
subordinate submodule may also have a UEID.
The encoding of a submodule Claims-Set MUST be the same as the
encoding as the token it is part of.
The data type for this type of submodule is a map/object. It is
identified when decoding by its type being a map/object.
4.2.19.1.2. Nested Token
This type of submodule is a fully formed complete token. It is
typically produced by a separate Attester. It is typically used by a
composite device as described in RATS Architecture
[RATS.Architecture] In being a submodule of the surrounding token, it
is cryptographically bound to the surrounding token. If it was
conveyed in parallel with the surrounding token, there would be no
such binding and attackers could substitute a good attestation from
another device for the attestation of an errant subsystem.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
A nested token does not need to use the same encoding as the
enclosing token. This is to allow composite devices to be built
without regards to the encoding supported by their Attesters. Thus,
a CBOR-encoded token like a CWT can have a JWT as a nested token
submodule and vice versa.
4.2.19.1.2.1. Surrounding EAT is CBOR-Encoded
This describes the encoding and decoding of CBOR or JSON-encoded
tokens nested inside a CBOR-encoded token.
If the nested token is CBOR-encoded, then it MUST be a CBOR tag and
MUST be wrapped in a byte string. The tag identifies whether the
nested token is a CWT, a CBOR-encoded DEB, or some other CBOR-format
token defined in the future. A nested CBOR-encoded token that is not
a CBOR tag is NOT allowed.
If the nested token is JSON-encoded, then the data item MUST be a
text string containing JSON. The JSON is defined in CDDL by JSON-
Nested-Token in the next section.
When decoding, if a byte string is encountered, it is known to be a
nested CBOR-encoded token. The byte string wrapping is removed. The
type of the token is determined by the CBOR tag.
When decoding, if a text string is encountered, it is known to be a
JSON-encoded token. The two-item array is decoded and tells the type
of the JSON-encoded token.
Nested-Token = CBOR-Nested-Token
CBOR-Nested-Token =
JSON-Token-Inside-CBOR-Token /
CBOR-Token-Inside-CBOR-Token
CBOR-Token-Inside-CBOR-Token = bstr .cbor $$EAT-CBOR-Tagged-Token
JSON-Token-Inside-CBOR-Token = tstr
4.2.19.1.2.2. Surrounding EAT is JSON-Encoded
This describes the encoding and decoding of CBOR or JSON-encoded
tokens nested inside a JSON-encoded token.
The nested token MUST be an array of two, a text string type
indicator and the actual token.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
The string identifying the JSON-encoded token MUST be one of the
following:
"JWT": The second array item MUST be a JWT formatted according to
[RFC7519]
"CBOR": The second array item must be some base64url-encoded CBOR
that is a tag, typically a CWT or CBOR-encoded DEB
"DEB": The second array item MUST be a JSON-encoded Detached EAT
Bundle as defined in this document.
Additional types may be defined by a standards action.
When decoding, the array of two is decoded. The first item indicates
the type and encoding of the nested token. If the type string is not
"CBOR", then the token is JSON-encoded and of the type indicated by
the string.
If the type string is "CBOR", then the token is CBOR-encoded. The
base64url encoding is removed. The CBOR-encoded data is then
decoded. The type of nested token is determined by the CBOR-tag. It
is an error if the CBOR is not a tag.
Nested-Token = JSON-Nested-Token
JSON-Nested-Token = [
type : "JWT" / "CBOR" / "DEB",
nested-token : JWT-Message /
CBOR-Token-Inside-JSON-Token /
Detached-EAT-Bundle
]
CBOR-Token-Inside-JSON-Token = base64-url-text
4.2.19.1.3. Detached Submodule Digest
This is type of submodule equivalent to a Claims-Set submodule,
except the Claims-Set is conveyed separately outside of the token.
This type of submodule consists of a digest made using a
cryptographic hash of a Claims-Set. The Claims-Set is not included
in the token. It is conveyed to the Verifier outside of the token.
The submodule containing the digest is called a detached digest. The
separately conveyed Claims-Set is called a detached claims set.
The input to the digest is exactly the byte-string wrapped encoded
form of the Claims-Set for the submodule. That Claims-Set can
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
include other submodules including nested tokens and detached
digests.
The primary use for this is to facilitate the implementation of a
small and secure attester, perhaps purely in hardware. This small,
secure attester implements COSE signing and only a few claims,
perhaps just UEID and hardware identification. It has inputs for
digests of submodules, perhaps 32-byte hardware registers. Software
running on the device constructs larger claim sets, perhaps very
large, encodes them and digests them. The digests are written into
the small secure attesters registers. The EAT produced by the small
secure attester only contains the UEID, hardware identification and
digests and is thus simple enough to be implemented in hardware.
Probably, every data item in it is of fixed length.
The integrity protection for the larger Claims Sets will not be as
secure as those originating in hardware block, but the key material
and hardware-based claims will be. It is possible for the hardware
to enforce hardware access control (memory protection) on the digest
registers so that some of the larger claims can be more secure. For
example, one register may be writable only by the TEE, so the
detached claims from the TEE will have TEE-level security.
The data type for this type of submodule MUST be an array It contains
two data items, an algorithm identifier and a byte string containing
the digest.
When decoding a CBOR format token the detached digest type is
distringuished from the other types by it being an array. In CBOR
the none of other submodule types are arrays.
When decoding a JSON format token, a little more work is required
because both the nested token and detached digest types are an array.
To distinguish the nested token from the detached digest, the first
element in the array is examined. If it is "JWT" or "DEB", then the
submodule is a nested token. Otherwise it will contain an algorithm
identifier and is a detached digest.
A DEB, described in Section 5, may be used to convey detached claims
sets and the token with their detached digests. EAT, however,
doesn't require use of a DEB. Any other protocols may be used to
convey detached claims sets and the token with their detached
digests. Note that since detached Claims-Sets are signed, protocols
conveying them must make sure they are not modified in transit.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
Detached-Submodule-Digest = [
algorithm : JC< text, int >
digest : binary-data
]
4.2.19.2. No Inheritance
The subordinate modules do not inherit anything from the containing
token. The subordinate modules must explicitly include all of their
claims. This is the case even for claims like the nonce.
This rule is in place for simplicity. It avoids complex inheritance
rules that might vary from one type of claim to another.
4.2.19.3. Security Levels
The security level of the non-token subordinate modules should always
be less than or equal to that of the containing modules in the case
of non-token submodules. It makes no sense for a module of lesser
security to be signing claims of a module of higher security. An
example of this is a TEE signing claims made by the non-TEE parts
(e.g. the high-level OS) of the device.
The opposite may be true for the nested tokens. They usually have
their own more secure key material. An example of this is an
embedded secure element.
4.2.19.4. Submodule Names
The label or name for each submodule in the submods map is a text
string naming the submodule. No submodules may have the same name.
4.3. Claims Describing the Token
The claims in this section provide meta data about the token they
occur in. They do not describe the entity.
They may appear in Evidence or Attestation Results. When these
claims appear in Evidence, they SHOULD not be passed through the
Verifier into Attestation Results.
4.3.1. Token ID Claim (cti and jti)
CWT defines the "cti" claim. JWT defines the "jti" claim. These are
equivalent in EAT and carry a unique token identifier as they do in
JWT and CWT. They may be used to defend against re use of the token
but are not a substitute for the nonce described in Section 4.1 and
do not guarantee freshness and defend against replay.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
4.3.2. Timestamp claim (iat)
The "iat" claim defined in CWT and JWT is used to indicate the date-
of-creation of the token, the time at which the claims are collected
and the token is composed and signed.
The data for some claims may be held or cached for some period of
time before the token is created. This period may be long, even
days. Examples are measurements taken at boot or a geographic
position fix taken the last time a satellite signal was received.
There are individual timestamps associated with these claims to
indicate their age is older than the "iat" timestamp.
CWT allows the use floating-point for this claim. EAT disallows the
use of floating-point. An EAT token MUST NOT contain an iat claim in
floating-point format. Any recipient of a token with a floating-
point format iat claim MUST consider it an error.
A 64-bit integer representation of the CBOR epoch-based time
[RFC8949] used by this claim can represent a range of +/- 500 billion
years, so the only point of a floating-point timestamp is to have
precession greater than one second. This is not needed for EAT.
4.3.3. The Profile Claim (profile)
See Section 6 for the detailed description of a profile.
A profile is identified by either a URL or an OID. Typically, the
URI will reference a document describing the profile. An OID is just
a unique identifier for the profile. It may exist anywhere in the
OID tree. There is no requirement that the named document be
publicly accessible. The primary purpose of the profile claim is to
uniquely identify the profile even if it is a private profile.
The OID is always absolute and never relative.
See Section 7.2.1 for OID and URI encoding.
Note that this is named "eat_profile" for JWT and is distinct from
the already registered "profile" claim in the JWT claims registry.
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (profile-label => general-uri / general-oid)
4.3.4. The Intended Use Claim (intended-use)
EAT's may be used in the context of several different applications.
The intended-use claim provides an indication to an EAT consumer
about the intended usage of the token. This claim can be used as a
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
way for an application using EAT to internally distinguish between
different ways it uses EAT.
1 - Generic: Generic attestation describes an application where the
EAT consumer requires the most up-to-date security assessment of
the attesting entity. It is expected that this is the most
commonly-used application of EAT.
2- Registration: Entities that are registering for a new service may
be expected to provide an attestation as part of the registration
process. This intended-use setting indicates that the attestation
is not intended for any use but registration.
3 - Provisioning: Entities may be provisioned with different values
or settings by an EAT consumer. Examples include key material or
device management trees. The consumer may require an EAT to
assess entity security state of the entity prior to provisioning.
4 - Certificate Issuance Certification Authorities (CA's) may
require attestations prior to the issuance of certificates related
to keypairs hosted at the entity. An EAT may be used as part of
the certificate signing request (CSR).
5 - Proof-of-Possession: An EAT consumer may require an attestation
as part of an accompanying proof-of-possession (PoP) application.
More precisely, a PoP transaction is intended to provide to the
recipient cryptographically-verifiable proof that the sender has
possession of a key. This kind of attestation may be necceesary
to verify the security state of the entity storing the private key
used in a PoP application.
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= ( intended-use-label => intended-use-type )
intended-use-type = generic /
registration /
provisioning /
csr /
pop
generic = JC< "generic", 1 >
registration = JC< "registration", 2 >
provisioning = JC< "provisioning", 3 >
csr = JC< "csr", 4 >
pop = JC< "pop", 5 >
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
4.4. Claims That Include Keys
This document defines no claims that contain cryptographic keys.
When claims are defined that include cryptographic keys, they SHOULD
use COSE_Key [RFC9052] in CBOR-encoded tokens or JSON Web Key
[RFC7517] in JSON-encoded tokens.
[RFC7800] defines a proof-of-possion/confirmation claim named "cnf"
that can hold a cryptographic key for JWTs. [RFC8747] does the same
for CWTs with claim key 8. These particular claims are defined for
authentication and authorization. Their semantics don't translate to
attestation and they SHOULD NOT be used in an EAT.
5. Detached EAT Bundles
A detached EAT bundle is a structure to convey a fully-formed and
signed token plus detached claims set that relate to that token. It
is a top-level EAT message like a CWT or JWT. It can be occur any
place that CWT or JWT messages occur. It may also be sent as a
submodule.
A DEB has two main parts.
The first part is a full top-level token. This top-level token must
have at least one submodule that is a detached digest. This top-
level token may be either CBOR or JSON-encoded. It may be a CWT, or
JWT but not a DEB. It may also be some future-defined token type.
The same mechanism for distinguishing the type for nested token
submodules is used here.
The second part is a map/object containing the detached Claims-Sets
corresponding to the detached digests in the full token. When the
DEB is CBOR-encoded, each Claims-Set is wrapped in a byte string.
When the DEB is JSON-encoded, each Claims-Set is base64url encoded.
All the detached Claims-Sets MUST be encoded in the same format as
the DEB. No mixing of encoding formats is allowed for the Claims-
Sets in a DEB.
For CBOR-encoded DEBs, tag TBD602 can be used to identify it. The
normal rules apply for use or non-use of a tag. When it is sent as a
submodule, it is always sent as a tag to distinguish it from the
other types of nested tokens.
The digests of the detached claims sets are associated with detached
Claims-Sets by label/name. It is up to the constructor of the
detached EAT bundle to ensure the names uniquely identify the
detachedclaims sets. Since the names are used only in the detached
EAT bundle, they can be very short, perhaps one byte.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
DEB-Messages = DEB-Tagged-Message / DEB-Untagged-Message
DEB-Tagged-Message = #6.TBD(DEB-Untagged-Message)
DEB-Untagged-Message = Detached-EAT-Bundle
Detached-EAT-Bundle = [
main-token : Nested-Token,
detached-claims-sets: {
+ tstr => JC<json-wrapped-claims-set,
cbor-wrapped-claims-set>
}
]
json-wrapped-claims-set = base64-url-text
cbor-wrapped-claims-set = bstr .cbor Claims-Set
6. Profiles
EAT makes normative use of CBOR, JSON, COSE, JOSE, CWT and JWT. Most
of these have implementation options to accommodate a range of use
cases.
For example, COSE doesn't require a particular set of cryptographic
algorithms so as to accommodate different usage scenarios and
evolution of algorithms over time. Section 10 of [RFC9052] describes
the profiling considerations for COSE.
The use of encryption is optional for both CWT and JWT. Section 8 of
[RFC7519] describes implementation requirement and recommendations
for JWT.
Similarly, CBOR provides indefinite length encoding which is not
commonly used, but valuable for very constrained devices. For EAT
itself, in a particular use case some claims will be used and others
will not. Section 4 of [RFC8949] describes serialization
considerations for CBOR.
For example a mobile phone use case may require the device make and
model, and prohibit UEID and location for privacy policy. The
general EAT standard retains all this flexibility because it too is
aimed to accommodate a broad range of use cases.
It is necessary to explicitly narrow these implementation options to
guarantee interoperability. EAT chooses one general and explicit
mechanism, the profile, to indicate the choices made for these
implementation options for all aspects of the token.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
Below is a list of the various issues that should be addressed by a
profile.
The profile claim in Section 4.3.3 provides a unique identifier for
the profile a particular token uses.
A profile can apply to Evidence or to Attestation Results or both.
6.1. Format of a Profile Document
A profile document doesn't have to be in any particular format. It
may be simple text, something more formal or a combination.
A profile may define, and possibly register, one or more new claims
if needed. A profile may also reuse one or more already defined
claims, either as-is or with values constrained to a subset or
subrange.
6.2. List of Profile Issues
The following is a list of EAT, CWT, JWS, COSE, JOSE and CBOR options
that a profile should address.
6.2.1. Use of JSON, CBOR or both
A profile should specify whether CBOR, JSON or both may be sent. A
profile should specify that the receiver can accept all encoding
formats that the sender is allowed to send.
This should be specified for the top-level and all nested tokens.
For example, a profile might require all nested tokens to be of the
same encoding of the top level token.
6.2.2. CBOR Map and Array Encoding
A profile should specify whether definite-length arrays/maps,
indefinite-length arrays/maps or both may be sent. A profile should
specify that the receiver be able to accept all length encodings that
the sender is allowed to send.
This applies to individual EAT claims, CWT and COSE parts of the
implementation.
For most use cases, specifying that only definite-length arrays/maps
may be sent is suitable.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
6.2.3. CBOR String Encoding
A profile should specify whether definite-length strings, indefinite-
length strings or both may be sent. A profile should specify that
the receiver be able to accept all types of string encodings that the
sender is allowed to send.
For most use cases, specifying that only definite-length strings may
be sent is suitable.
6.2.4. CBOR Preferred Serialization
A profile should specify whether or not CBOR preferred serialization
must be sent or not. A profile should specify the receiver be able
to accept preferred and/or non-preferred serialization so it will be
able to accept anything sent by the sender.
6.2.5. CBOR Tags
The profile should specify whether the token should be a CWT Tag or
not.
When COSE protection is used, the profile should specify whether COSE
tags are used or not. Note that RFC 8392 requires COSE tags be used
in a CWT tag.
Often a tag is unnecessary because the surrounding or carrying
protocol identifies the object as an EAT.
6.2.6. COSE/JOSE Protection
COSE and JOSE have several options for signed, MACed and encrypted
messages. JWT may use the JOSE NULL protection option. It is
possible to implement no protection, sign only, MAC only, sign then
encrypt and so on. All combinations allowed by COSE, JOSE, JWT, and
CWT are allowed by EAT.
A profile should specify all signing, encryption and MAC message
formats that may be sent. For example, a profile might allow only
COSE_Sign1 to be sent. For another example, a profile might allow
COSE_Sign and COSE_Encrypt to be sent to carry multiple signatures
for post quantum cryptography and to use encryption to provide
confidentiality.
A profile should specify the receiver accepts all message formats
that are allowed to be sent.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
When both signing and encryption are allowed, a profile should
specify which is applied first.
6.2.7. COSE/JOSE Algorithms
See the section on "Application Profiling Considerations" in
[RFC9052] for a discussion on selection of cryptgraphic algorithms
and related issues.
The profile document should list the COSE algorithms that a Verifier
must implement. The Attester will select one of them. Since there
is no negotiation, the Verifier should implement all algorithms
listed in the profile. If detached submodules are used, the COSE
algorithms allowed for their digests should also be in the profile.
6.2.8. DEB Support
A profile should specify whether or not a Detached EAT Bundle
Section 5 can be sent. A profile should specify that a receiver be
able to accept a Detached EAT Bundle if the sender is allowed to send
it.
6.2.9. Key Identification
A profile should specify what must be sent to identify the
verification, decryption or MAC key or keys. If multiple methods of
key identification may be sent, a profile should require the receiver
support them all.
Appendix F describes a number of methods for identifying verification
keys. When encryption is used, there are further considerations. In
some cases key identification may be very simple and in others
involve a multiple components. For example, it may be simple through
use of COSE key ID or it may be complex through use of an X.509
certificate hierarchy.
While not always possible, a profile should specify, or make
reference to, a full end-end specification for key identification.
For example, a profile should specify in full detail how COSE key IDs
are to be created, their lifecycle and such rather than just
specifying that a COSE key ID be used. For example, a profile should
specify the full details of an X.509 hierarchy including extension
processing, algorithms allowed and so on rather than just saying
X.509 certificate are used. Though not always possible, ideally, a
profile should be a complete specification for key identification for
both the sender and the receiver such that interoperability is
guaranteed.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
6.2.10. Endorsement Identification
Similar to, or perhaps the same as Verification Key Identification,
the profile may wish to specify how Endorsements are to be
identified. However note that Endorsement Identification is
optional, where as key identification is not.
6.2.11. Freshness
A nonce is always required by EAT.
A profile should specify whether multiple nonces may be sent. If a
profile allows multiple nonces to be sent, it should require the
receiver to process multiple nonces.
Just about every use case will require some means of knowing the EAT
is recent enough and not a replay of an old token. The profile
should describe how freshness is achieved. The section on Freshness
in [RATS.Architecture] describes some of the possible solutions to
achieve this.
6.2.12. Claims Requirements
A profile may define new claims that are not defined in this
document.
This document requires an EAT receiver must accept all claims it does
not understand. A profile for a specific use case may reverse this
and allow a receiver to reject tokens with claims it does not
understand. A profile for a specific use case may specify that
specific claims are prohibited.
By default only the nonce claim is required by EAT. A profile for a
specific use case may modify this and specify that some claims are
required.
A profile may constrain the definition of claims that are defined in
this document or elsewhere. For example, a profile may require the
nonce be a certain length or the location claim always include the
altitude.
Some claims are "pluggable" in that they allow different formats for
their content. The manifests and software evidence claims are
examples of this, allowing the use of CoSWID, TEEP Manifests and
other formats. A profile should specify which formats are allowed to
be sent. A profile should require the receiver to accept all formats
that are allowed to be sent.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
Further, if there is variation within a format that is allowed, the
profile should specify which variations can be sent. For example,
there are variations in the CoSWID format. A profile that require
the receiver to accept all variations that are allowed to be sent.
6.3. The Constrained Device Standard Profile
It is anticipated that there will be many profiles defined for EAT
for many different use cases. This section standardizes one profile
that is good for many constrained device use cases.
The identifier for this profile is "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/
rfcTBD".
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Issue | Profile Definition |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| CBOR/JSON | CBOR only |
| CBOR Encoding | Only definite length maps and arrays are allowed |
| CBOR Encoding | Only definite length strings are allowed |
| CBOR | Only preferred serialization is allowed |
| Serialization | |
| COSE | Only COSE_Sign1 format is used |
| Protection | |
| Algorithms | Receiver MUST accept ES256, ES384 and ES512; |
| | sender MUST send one of these |
| DEB Usage | DEB may not be sent with this profile |
| Verification | Either the COSE kid or the UEID MUST be used to |
| Key | identify the verication key. If both are |
| Identification | present, the kid takes precedence |
| Endorsements | This profile contains no endorsement identifier |
| Nonce | A new single unique nonce must be used for every |
| | token request |
| Claims | No requirement is made on the presence or |
| | absence of claims. The general EAT rules apply. |
| | The nonce MUST be present and the receiver MUST |
| | not error out on any claims it doesn't |
| | understand. |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
Strictly speaking, slight modifications such use of a different means
of key identification are a divergence from this profile and MUST use
a different profile identifier.
A profile that is similar to this can be defined and/or standardized
by making normative reference to this and adding other requirements.
Such a definition MUST have a different profile identifier.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
7. Encoding and Collected CDDL
An EAT is fundamentally defined using CDDL. This document specifies
how to encode the CDDL in CBOR or JSON. Since CBOR can express some
things that JSON can't (e.g., tags) or that are expressed differently
(e.g., labels) there is some CDDL that is specific to the encoding
format.
7.1. Claims-Set and CDDL for CWT and JWT
CDDL was not used to define CWT or JWT. It was not available at the
time.
This document defines CDDL for both CWT and JWT. This document does
not change the encoding or semantics of anything in a CWT or JWT.
A Claims-Set is the central data structure for EAT, CWT and JWT. It
holds all the claims and is the structure that is secured by signing
or other means. It is not possible to define EAT, CWT, or JWT in
CDDL without it. The CDDL definition of Claims-Set here is
applicable to EAT, CWT and JWT.
This document specifies how to encode a Claims-Set in CBOR or JSON.
With the exception of nested tokens and some other externally defined
structures (e.g., SWIDs) an entire Claims-Set must be in encoded in
either CBOR or JSON, never a mixture.
CDDL for the seven claims defined by [RFC8392] and [RFC7519] is
included here.
7.2. Encoding Data Types
This makes use of the types defined in [RFC8610] Appendix D, Standard
Prelude.
7.2.1. Common Data Types
time-int is identical to the epoch-based time, but disallows
floating-point representation.
The OID encoding from [RFC9090] is used without the tag number in
CBOR-encoded tokens. In JSON tokens OIDs are a text string in the
common form of "nn.nn.nn...".
Unless expliclity indicated, URIs are not the URI tag defined in
[RFC8949]. They are just text strings that contain a URI.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
time-int = #6.1(int)
binary-data = JC< base64-url-text, bstr>
base64-url-text = tstr .regexp "[A-Za-z0-9_=-]+"
general-oid = JC< json-oid, ~oid >
json-oid = tstr .regexp "([0-2])((\.0)|(\.[1-9][0-9]*))*"
general-uri = JC< text, ~uri >
coap-content-format = uint .le 65535
7.2.2. JSON Interoperability
JSON should be encoded per [RFC8610] Appendix E. In addition, the
following CDDL types are encoded in JSON as follows:
o bstr - must be base64url encoded
o time - must be encoded as NumericDate as described section 2 of
[RFC7519].
o string-or-uri - must be encoded as StringOrURI as described
section 2 of [RFC7519].
o uri - must be a URI [RFC3986].
o oid - encoded as a string using the well established dotted-
decimal notation (e.g., the text "1.2.250.1").
The CDDL generic "JC< >" is used in most places where there is a
variance between CBOR and JSON. The first argument is the CDDL for
JSON and the second is CDDL for CBOR.
7.2.3. Labels
Most map labels, Claims-Keys, Claim-Names and enumerated-type values
are integers for CBOR-encoded tokens and strings for JSON-encoded
tokens. When this is the case the "JC < >" CDDL construct is used to
give both the integer and string values.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
7.2.4. CBOR Interoperability
CBOR allows data items to be serialized in more than one form to
accommodate a variety of use cases. This is addressed in Section 6.
7.3. Collected CDDL
7.3.1. Payload CDDL
This CDDL defines all the EAT Claims that are added to the main
definition of a Claim-Set in Appendix D. Claims-Set is the payload
for CWT, JWT and potentially other token types. This is for both
CBOR and JSON. When there is variation between CBOR and JSON, the
JC<> CDDL generic defined in Appendix D.
This CDDL uses, but doesn't define Nested-Token because its
definition varies between CBOR and JSON and the JC<> generic can't be
used to define it. Nested-Token is the one place that that a CBOR
token can be nested inside a JSON token and vice versa. Nested-Token
is defined in the following sections.
time-int = #6.1(int)
binary-data = JC< base64-url-text, bstr>
base64-url-text = tstr .regexp "[A-Za-z0-9_=-]+"
general-oid = JC< json-oid, ~oid >
json-oid = tstr .regexp "([0-2])((\.0)|(\.[1-9][0-9]*))*"
general-uri = JC< text, ~uri >
coap-content-format = uint .le 65535
$$Claims-Set-Claims //=
(nonce-label => nonce-type / [ 2* nonce-type ])
nonce-type = JC< tstr .size (10..74), bstr .size (8..64)>
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (ueid-label => ueid-type)
ueid-type = JC<base64-url-text .size (12..44) , bstr .size (7..33)>
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (sueids-label => sueids-type)
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
sueids-type = {
+ tstr => ueid-type
}
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (
oemid-label => oemid-pen / oemid-ieee / oemid-random
)
oemid-pen = int
oemid-ieee = JC<oemid-ieee-json, oemid-ieee-cbor>
oemid-ieee-cbor = bstr .size 3
oemid-ieee-json = base64-url-text .size 4
oemid-random = JC<oemid-random-json, oemid-random-cbor>
oemid-random-cbor = bstr .size 16
oemid-random-json = base64-url-text .size 24
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (
hardware-version-label => hardware-version-type
)
hardware-version-type = [
version: tstr,
? scheme: $version-scheme
]
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (
hardware-model-label => hardware-model-type
)
hardware-model-type = JC<base64-url-text .size (4..44),
bytes .size (1..32)>
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= ( sw-name-label => tstr )
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (sw-version-label => sw-version-type)
sw-version-type = [
version: tstr
? scheme: $version-scheme
]
$$Claims-Set-Claims //=
( security-level-label => security-level-type )
security-level-type = unrestricted /
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
restricted /
hardware
unrestricted = JC< "unrestricted", 1>
restricted = JC< "restricted", 2>
hardware = JC< "hardware", 3>
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (secure-boot-label => bool)
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= ( debug-status-label => debug-status-type )
debug-status-type = ds-enabled /
disabled /
disabled-since-boot /
disabled-permanently /
disabled-fully-and-permanently
ds-enabled = JC< "enabled", 0 >
disabled = JC< "disabled", 1 >
disabled-since-boot = JC< "disabled-since-boot", 2 >
disabled-permanently = JC< "disabled-permanently", 3 >
disabled-fully-and-permanently = JC< "disabled-fully-and-permanently",
4 >
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (location-label => location-type)
location-type = {
latitude => number,
longitude => number,
? altitude => number,
? accuracy => number,
? altitude-accuracy => number,
? heading => number,
? speed => number,
? timestamp => ~time-int,
? age => uint
}
latitude = JC< "latitude", 1 >
longitude = JC< "longitude", 2 >
altitude = JC< "altitude", 3 >
accuracy = JC< "accuracy", 4 >
altitude-accuracy = JC< "altitude-accuracy", 5 >
heading = JC< "heading", 6 >
speed = JC< "speed", 7 >
timestamp = JC< "timestamp", 8 >
age = JC< "age", 9 >
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (uptime-label => uint)
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (boot-seed-label => binary-data)
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (boot-count-label => uint)
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= ( intended-use-label => intended-use-type )
intended-use-type = generic /
registration /
provisioning /
csr /
pop
generic = JC< "generic", 1 >
registration = JC< "registration", 2 >
provisioning = JC< "provisioning", 3 >
csr = JC< "csr", 4 >
pop = JC< "pop", 5 >
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (
dloas-label => [ + dloa-type ]
)
dloa-type = [
dloa_registrar: general-uri
dloa_platform_label: text
? dloa_application_label: text
]
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (profile-label => general-uri / general-oid)
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (
manifests-label => manifests-type
)
manifests-type = [+ manifest-format]
manifest-format = [
content-type: coap-content-format,
content-format: JC< $$manifest-body-json,
$$manifest-body-cbor >
]
$$manifest-body-cbor /= bytes .cbor untagged-coswid
$$manifest-body-json /= base64-url-text
$$manifest-body-cbor /= bytes .cbor SUIT_Envelope
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
$$manifest-body-json /= base64-url-text
$$manifest-body-cbor /= spdx-json
$$manifest-body-json /= spdx-json
spdx-json = text
$$manifest-body-cbor /= cyclone-dx-json
$$manifest-body-cbor /= cyclone-dx-xml
$$manifest-body-json /= cyclone-dx-json
$$manifest-body-json /= cyclone-dx-xml
cyclone-dx-json = text
cyclone-dx-xml = text
suit-directive-process-dependency = 19
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (
swevidence-label => swevidence-type
)
swevidence-type = [+ swevidence-format]
swevidence-format = [
content-type: coap-content-format,
content-format: JC< $$swevidence-body-json,
$$swevidence-body-cbor >
]
$$swevidence-body-cbor /= bytes .cbor untagged-coswid
$$swevidence-body-json /= base64-url-text
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (
measurement-results-label =>
[ + measurement-results-group ] )
measurement-results-group = [
measurement-system: tstr,
measruement-results: [ + individual-result ]
]
individual-result = [
results-id: tstr / binary-data,
result: result-type,
]
result-type = comparison-successful /
comparison-fail /
comparison-not-run /
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
measurement-absent
comparison-successful = JC< "success", 1 >
comparison-fail = JC< "fail", 2 >
comparison-not-run = JC< "not-run", 3 >
measurement-absent = JC< "absent", 4 >
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= (submods-label => { + text => Submodule })
Submodule = Claims-Set / Nested-Token / Detached-Submodule-Digest
Detached-Submodule-Digest = [
algorithm : JC< text, int >
digest : binary-data
]
DEB-Messages = DEB-Tagged-Message / DEB-Untagged-Message
DEB-Tagged-Message = #6.TBD(DEB-Untagged-Message)
DEB-Untagged-Message = Detached-EAT-Bundle
Detached-EAT-Bundle = [
main-token : Nested-Token,
detached-claims-sets: {
+ tstr => JC<json-wrapped-claims-set,
cbor-wrapped-claims-set>
}
]
json-wrapped-claims-set = base64-url-text
cbor-wrapped-claims-set = bstr .cbor Claims-Set
nonce-label = JC< "eat_nonce", 10 >
ueid-label = JC< "ueid", 256 >
sueids-label = JC< "sueids", 257 >
oemid-label = JC< "oemid", 258 >
hardware-model-label = JC< "hwmodel", 259 >
hardware-version-label = JC< "hwversion", 260 >
secure-boot-label = JC< "secboot", 262 >
debug-status-label = JC< "dbgstat", 263 >
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
location-label = JC< "location", 264 >
profile-label = JC< "eat_profile",265 >
submods-label = JC< "submods", 266 >
security-level-label = JC< "seclevel", TBD >
uptime-label = JC< "uptime", TBD >
boot-seed-label = JC< "bootseed", TBD >
intended-use-label = JC< "intuse", TBD >
dloas-label = JC< "dloas", TBD >
sw-name-label = JC< "swname", TBD >
sw-version-label = JC< "swversion", TBD >
manifests-label = JC< "manifests", TBD >
swevidence-label = JC< "swevidence", TBD >
measurement-results-label = JC< "measres" , TBD >
boot-count-label = JC< "bootcount", TBD >
7.3.2. CBOR-Specific CDDL
EAT-CBOR-Token = $$EAT-CBOR-Tagged-Token / $$EAT-CBOR-Untagged-Token
$$EAT-CBOR-Tagged-Token /= CWT-Tagged-Message
$$EAT-CBOR-Tagged-Token /= DEB-Tagged-Message
$$EAT-CBOR-Untagged-Token /= CWT-Untagged-Message
$$EAT-CBOR-Untagged-Token /= DEB-Untagged-Message
Nested-Token = CBOR-Nested-Token
CBOR-Nested-Token =
JSON-Token-Inside-CBOR-Token /
CBOR-Token-Inside-CBOR-Token
CBOR-Token-Inside-CBOR-Token = bstr .cbor $$EAT-CBOR-Tagged-Token
JSON-Token-Inside-CBOR-Token = tstr
7.3.3. JSON-Specific CDDL
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
EAT-JSON-Token = $$EAT-JSON-Token-Formats
$$EAT-JSON-Token-Formats /= JWT-Message
$$EAT-JSON-Token-Formats /= DEB-Untagged-Message
Nested-Token = JSON-Nested-Token
JSON-Nested-Token = [
type : "JWT" / "CBOR" / "DEB",
nested-token : JWT-Message /
CBOR-Token-Inside-JSON-Token /
Detached-EAT-Bundle
]
CBOR-Token-Inside-JSON-Token = base64-url-text
8. Privacy Considerations
Certain EAT claims can be used to track the owner of an entity and
therefore, implementations should consider providing privacy-
preserving options dependent on the intended usage of the EAT.
Examples would include suppression of location claims for EAT's
provided to unauthenticated consumers.
8.1. UEID and SUEID Privacy Considerations
A UEID is usually not privacy-preserving. Any set of Relying Parties
that receives tokens that happen to be from a particular entity will
be able to know the tokens are all from the same entity and be able
to track it.
Thus, in many usage situations UEID violates governmental privacy
regulation. In other usage situations a UEID will not be allowed for
certain products like browsers that give privacy for the end user.
It will often be the case that tokens will not have a UEID for these
reasons.
An SUEID is also usually not privacy-preserving. In some cases it
may have fewer privacy issues than a UEID depending on when and how
and when it is generated.
There are several strategies that can be used to still be able to put
UEIDs and SUEIDs in tokens:
o The entity obtains explicit permission from the user of the entity
to use the UEID/SUEID. This may be through a prompt. It may also
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
be through a license agreement. For example, agreements for some
online banking and brokerage services might already cover use of a
UEID/SUEID.
o The UEID/SUEID is used only in a particular context or particular
use case. It is used only by one Relying Party.
o The entity authenticates the Relying Party and generates a derived
UEID/SUEID just for that particular Relying Party. For example,
the Relying Party could prove their identity cryptographically to
the entity, then the entity generates a UEID just for that Relying
Party by hashing a proofed Relying Party ID with the main entity
UEID/SUEID.
Note that some of these privacy preservation strategies result in
multiple UEIDs and SUEIDs per entity. Each UEID/SUEID is used in a
different context, use case or system on the entity. However, from
the view of the Relying Party, there is just one UEID and it is still
globally universal across manufacturers.
8.2. Location Privacy Considerations
Geographic location is most always considered personally identifiable
information. Implementers should consider laws and regulations
governing the transmission of location data from end user devices to
servers and services. Implementers should consider using location
management facilities offered by the operating system on the entity
generating the attestation. For example, many mobile phones prompt
the user for permission when before sending location data.
8.3. Boot Seed Privacy Considerations
The Boot Seed claim is effectively a stable entity identifier within
a given boot epoch. Therefore, it is not suitable for use in
attestation schemes that are privacy-preserving.
8.4. Replay Protection and Privacy
EAT offers 2 primary mechanisms for token replay protection (also
sometimes known as token "freshness"): the cti/jti claim and the
nonce claim. The cti/jti claim in a CWT/JWT is a field that may be
optionally included in the EAT and is in general derived on the same
device in which the entity is instantiated. The nonce claim is based
on a value that is usually derived remotely (outside of the entity).
These claims can be used to extract and convey personally-identifying
information either inadvertently or by intention. For instance, an
implementor may choose a cti that is equivalent to a username
associated with the device (e.g., account login). If the token is
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
inspected by a 3rd-party then this information could be used to
identify the source of the token or an account associated with the
token (e.g., if the account name is used to derive the nonce). In
order to avoid the conveyance of privacy-related information in
either the cti/jti or nonce claims, these fields should be derived
using a salt that originates from a true and reliable random number
generator or any other source of randomness that would still meet the
target system requirements for replay protection.
9. Security Considerations
The security considerations provided in Section 8 of [RFC8392] and
Section 11 of [RFC7519] apply to EAT in its CWT and JWT form,
respectively. In addition, implementors should consider the
following.
9.1. Key Provisioning
Private key material can be used to sign and/or encrypt the EAT, or
can be used to derive the keys used for signing and/or encryption.
In some instances, the manufacturer of the entity may create the key
material separately and provision the key material in the entity
itself. The manufacturer of any entity that is capable of producing
an EAT should take care to ensure that any private key material be
suitably protected prior to provisioning the key material in the
entity itself. This can require creation of key material in an
enclave (see [RFC4949] for definition of "enclave"), secure
transmission of the key material from the enclave to the entity using
an appropriate protocol, and persistence of the private key material
in some form of secure storage to which (preferably) only the entity
has access.
9.1.1. Transmission of Key Material
Regarding transmission of key material from the enclave to the
entity, the key material may pass through one or more intermediaries.
Therefore some form of protection ("key wrapping") may be necessary.
The transmission itself may be performed electronically, but can also
be done by human courier. In the latter case, there should be
minimal to no exposure of the key material to the human (e.g.
encrypted portable memory). Moreover, the human should transport the
key material directly from the secure enclave where it was created to
a destination secure enclave where it can be provisioned.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
9.2. Transport Security
As stated in Section 8 of [RFC8392], "The security of the CWT relies
upon on the protections offered by COSE". Similar considerations
apply to EAT when sent as a CWT. However, EAT introduces the concept
of a nonce to protect against replay. Since an EAT may be created by
an entity that may not support the same type of transport security as
the consumer of the EAT, intermediaries may be required to bridge
communications between the entity and consumer. As a result, it is
RECOMMENDED that both the consumer create a nonce, and the entity
leverage the nonce along with COSE mechanisms for encryption and/or
signing to create the EAT.
Similar considerations apply to the use of EAT as a JWT. Although
the security of a JWT leverages the JSON Web Encryption (JWE) and
JSON Web Signature (JWS) specifications, it is still recommended to
make use of the EAT nonce.
9.3. Multiple EAT Consumers
In many cases, more than one EAT consumer may be required to fully
verify the entity attestation. Examples include individual consumers
for nested EATs, or consumers for individual claims with an EAT.
When multiple consumers are required for verification of an EAT, it
is important to minimize information exposure to each consumer. In
addition, the communication between multiple consumers should be
secure.
For instance, consider the example of an encrypted and signed EAT
with multiple claims. A consumer may receive the EAT (denoted as the
"receiving consumer"), decrypt its payload, verify its signature, but
then pass specific subsets of claims to other consumers for
evaluation ("downstream consumers"). Since any COSE encryption will
be removed by the receiving consumer, the communication of claim
subsets to any downstream consumer should leverage a secure protocol
(e.g.one that uses transport-layer security, i.e. TLS),
However, assume the EAT of the previous example is hierarchical and
each claim subset for a downstream consumer is created in the form of
a nested EAT. Then transport security between the receiving and
downstream consumers is not strictly required. Nevertheless,
downstream consumers of a nested EAT should provide a nonce unique to
the EAT they are consuming.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
9.4. DEB Security Considerations
A DEB (detached EAT bundle) is composed of a nested full token
appended to an unsigned claims set as per Section 5 . The attached
claims set is vulnerable to modification in transit. Although the
nested token does contain digests corresponding to the unsigned
claims set (as a submodule), these digests themselves should be
protected from manipulation during transit so that a verifier can
detect tampering of the detached claims set. A suitable singing and/
or encryption method should be sufficinet to protect the nested token
if transport layer cryptographic protection is not feasible.
10. IANA Considerations
10.1. Reuse of CBOR and JSON Web Token (CWT and JWT) Claims Registries
Claims defined for EAT are compatible with those of CWT and JWT so
the CWT and JWT Claims Registries, [IANA.CWT.Claims] and
[IANA.JWT.Claims], are re used. No new IANA registry is created.
All EAT claims defined in this document are placed in both
registries. All new EAT claims defined subsequently should be placed
in both registries.
Appendix E describes some considerations when defining new claims.
10.2. Claims Registered by This Document
This specification adds the following values to the "JSON Web Token
Claims" registry established by [RFC7519] and the "CBOR Web Token
Claims Registry" established by [RFC8392]. Each entry below is an
addition to both registries (except for the nonce claim which is
already registered for JWT, but not registered for CWT).
The "Claim Description", "Change Controller" and "Specification
Documents" are common and equivalent for the JWT and CWT registries.
The "Claim Key" and "Claim Value Types(s)" are for the CWT registry
only. The "Claim Name" is as defined for the CWT registry, not the
JWT registry. The "JWT Claim Name" is equivalent to the "Claim Name"
in the JWT registry.
10.2.1. Claims for Early Assignment
RFC Editor: in the final publication this section should be combined
with the following section as it will no longer be necessary to
distinguish claims with early assignment. Also, the following
paragraph should be removed.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
The claims in this section have been (requested for / given) early
assignment according to [RFC7120]. They have been assigned values
and registered before final publication of this document. While
their semantics is not expected to change in final publication, it is
possible that they will. The JWT Claim Names and CWT Claim Keys are
not expected to change.
In draft -06 an early allocation was described. The processing of
that early allocation was never correctly completed. This early
allocation assigns different numbers for the CBOR claim labels. This
early allocation will presumably complete correctly
o Claim Name: Nonce
o Claim Description: Nonce
o JWT Claim Name: "nonce" (already registered for JWT)
o Claim Key: TBD (requested value 10)
o Claim Value Type(s): byte string
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): [OpenIDConnectCore], *this document*
o Claim Name: UEID
o Claim Description: The Universal Entity ID
o JWT Claim Name: "ueid"
o CWT Claim Key: TBD (requested value 256)
o Claim Value Type(s): byte string
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): *this document*
o Claim Name: SUEIDs
o Claim Description: Semi-permanent UEIDs
o JWT Claim Name: "sueids"
o CWT Claim Key: TBD (requested value 257)
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
o Claim Value Type(s): map
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): *this document*
o Claim Name: Hardware OEMID
o Claim Description: Hardware OEM ID
o JWT Claim Name: "oemid"
o Claim Key: TBD (requeste value 258)
o Claim Value Type(s): byte string or integer
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): *this document*
o Claim Name: Hardware Model
o Claim Description: Model identifier for hardware
o JWT Claim Name: "hwmodel"
o Claim Key: TBD (requested value 259)
o Claim Value Type(s): byte string
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): *this document*
o Claim Name: Hardware Version
o Claim Description: Hardware Version Identifier
o JWT Claim Name: "hwversion"
o Claim Key: TBD (requested value 260)
o Claim Value Type(s): array
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): *this document*
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
o Claim Name: Secure Boot
o Claim Description: Indicate whether the boot was secure
o JWT Claim Name: "secboot"
o Claim Key: 262
o Claim Value Type(s): Boolean
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): *this document*
o Claim Name: Debug Status
o Claim Description: Indicate status of debug facilities
o JWT Claim Name: "dbgstat"
o Claim Key: 263
o Claim Value Type(s): integer or string
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): *this document*
o Claim Name: Location
o Claim Description: The geographic location
o JWT Claim Name: "location"
o Claim Key: TBD (requested value 264)
o Claim Value Type(s): map
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): *this document*
o Claim Name: Profile
o Claim Description: Indicates the EAT profile followed
o JWT Claim Name: "eat_profile"
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
o Claim Key: TBD (requested value 265)
o Claim Value Type(s): URI or OID
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): *this document*
o Claim Name: Submodules Section
o Claim Description: The section containing submodules
o JWT Claim Name: "submods"
o Claim Key: TBD (requested value 266)
o Claim Value Type(s): map
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): *this document*
10.2.2. To be Assigned Claims
(Early assignment is NOT requested for these claims. Implementers
should be aware they may change)
o Claim Name: Security Level
o Claim Description: Characterization of the security of an Attester
or submodule
o JWT Claim Name: "seclevel"
o Claim Key: TBD
o Claim Value Type(s): integer or string
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): *this document*
o Claim Name: Uptime
o Claim Description: Uptime
o JWT Claim Name: "uptime"
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
o Claim Key: TBD
o Claim Value Type(s): unsigned integer
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): *this document*
o Claim Name: Boot Seed
o Claim Description: Identifies a boot cycle
o JWT Claim Name: "bootseed"
o Claim Key: TBD
o Claim Value Type(s): bytes
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): *this document*
o Claim Name: Intended Use
o Claim Description: Indicates intended use of the EAT
o JWT Claim Name: "intuse"
o Claim Key: TBD
o Claim Value Type(s): integer or string
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): *this document*
o Claim Name: DLOAs
o Claim Description: Certifications received as Digital Letters of
Approval
o JWT Claim Name: "dloas"
o Claim Key: TBD
o Claim Value Type(s): array
o Change Controller: IESG
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
o Specification Document(s): *this document*
o Claim Name: SW Name
o Claim Description: The name of the SW running in the entity
o JWT Claim Name: "swname"
o Claim Key: TBD
o Claim Value Type(s): map
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): *this document*
o Claim Name: SW Version
o Claim Description: The version of SW running in the entity
o JWT Claim Name: "swversion"
o Claim Key: TBD
o Claim Value Type(s): map
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): *this document*
o Claim Name: SW Manifests
o Claim Description: Manifests describing the SW installed on the
entity
o JWT Claim Name: "manifests"
o Claim Key: TBD
o Claim Value Type(s): array
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): *this document*
o Claim Name: SW Evidence
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
o Claim Description: Measurements of the SW, memory configuration
and such on the entity
o JWT Claim Name: "swevidence"
o Claim Key: TBD
o Claim Value Type(s): array
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): *this document*
o Claim Name: SW Measurment Results
o Claim Description: The results of comparing SW measurements to
reference values
o JWT Claim Name: "swresults"
o Claim Key: TBD
o Claim Value Type(s): array
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): *this document*
10.2.3. Version Schemes Registered by this Document
IANA is requested to register a new value in the "Software Tag
Version Scheme Values" established by [CoSWID].
The new value is a version scheme a 13-digit European Article Number
[EAN-13]. An EAN-13 is also known as an International Article Number
or most commonly as a bar code. This version scheme is the ASCII
text representation of EAN-13 digits, the same ones often printed
with a bar code. This version scheme must comply with the EAN
allocation and assignment rules. For example, this requires the
manufacturer to obtain a manufacture code from GS1.
+-------+---------------------+---------------+
| Index | Version Scheme Name | Specification |
+-------+---------------------+---------------+
| 5 | ean-13 | This document |
+-------+---------------------+---------------+
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
10.2.4. UEID URN Registered by this Document
IANA is requested to register the following new subtypes in the "DEV
URN Subtypes" registry under "Device Identification". See [RFC9039].
+---------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| Subtype | Description | Reference |
+---------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
| ueid | Universal Entity Identifier | This document |
| sueid | Semi-permanent Universal Entity | This document |
| | Identifier | |
+---------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
10.2.5. Tag for Detached EAT Bundle
In the registry [IANA.cbor-tags], IANA is requested to allocate the
following tag from the FCFS space, with the present document as the
specification reference.
+--------+------------+-------------------------------+
| Tag | Data Items | Semantics |
+--------+------------+-------------------------------+
| TBD602 | array | Detached EAT Bundle Section 5 |
+--------+------------+-------------------------------+
10.2.6. Media Types Registered by this Document
It is requested that the CoAP Content-Format for SPDX and CycloneDX
be been registered in the "CoAP Content-Formats" subregistry within
the "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters" registry
[IANA.core-parameters]:
o Media Type: application/spdx+json
o Encoding: binary
o ID: TBD
o Reference: [SPDX]
o Media Type: vendor/vnd.cyclonedx+xml
o Encoding: binary
o ID: TBD
o Reference: [CycloneDX]
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
o Media Type: vendor/vnd.cyclonedx+json
o Encoding: binary
o ID: TBD
o Reference: [CycloneDX]
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[CoSWID] Birkholz, H., Fitzgerald-McKay, J., Schmidt, C., and D.
Waltermire, "Concise Software Identification Tags", draft-
ietf-sacm-coswid-21 (work in progress), March 2022.
[CycloneDX]
"CycloneDX",
<https://cyclonedx.org/specification/overview/>.
[DLOA] "Digital Letter of Approval", November 2015,
<https://globalplatform.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/
GPC_DigitalLetterOfApproval_v1.0.pdf>.
[EAN-13] GS1, "International Article Number - EAN/UPC barcodes",
2019, <https://www.gs1.org/standards/barcodes/ean-upc>.
[FIDO.AROE]
The FIDO Alliance, "FIDO Authenticator Allowed Restricted
Operating Environments List", November 2020,
<https://fidoalliance.org/specs/fido-security-
requirements/fido-authenticator-allowed-restricted-
operating-environments-list-v1.2-fd-20201102.html>.
[IANA.cbor-tags]
"IANA CBOR Tags Registry", n.d.,
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/cbor-tags/cbor-
tags.xhtml>.
[IANA.core-parameters]
"IANA Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters",
n.d.,
<<https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters>>.
[IANA.CWT.Claims]
IANA, "CBOR Web Token (CWT) Claims",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/cwt>.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 68]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
[IANA.JWT.Claims]
IANA, "JSON Web Token (JWT) Claims",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt>.
[OpenIDConnectCore]
Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., Jones, M., Medeiros, B. D., and
C. Mortimore, "OpenID Connect Core 1.0 incorporating
errata set 1", November 2014,
<https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html>.
[PEN] "Private Enterprise Number (PEN) Request", n.d.,
<https://pen.iana.org/pen/PenApplication.page>.
[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>.
[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/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC7159] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
[RFC7515] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web
Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, May
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7515>.
[RFC7516] Jones, M. and J. Hildebrand, "JSON Web Encryption (JWE)",
RFC 7516, DOI 10.17487/RFC7516, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7516>.
[RFC7517] Jones, M., "JSON Web Key (JWK)", RFC 7517,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7517, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7517>.
[RFC7519] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
(JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7519>.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 69]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
[RFC7800] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and H. Tschofenig, "Proof-of-
Possession Key Semantics for JSON Web Tokens (JWTs)",
RFC 7800, DOI 10.17487/RFC7800, April 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7800>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[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/info/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/info/rfc8392>.
[RFC8610] Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data
Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and
JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610,
June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8610>.
[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/info/rfc8747>.
[RFC8949] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949>.
[RFC9052] "*** BROKEN REFERENCE ***".
[RFC9090] Bormann, C., "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)
Tags for Object Identifiers", RFC 9090,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9090, July 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9090>.
[SPDX] "Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX)", 2020,
<https://spdx.dev/wp-content/uploads/sites/41/2020/08/
SPDX-specification-2-2.pdf>.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 70]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
[ThreeGPP.IMEI]
3GPP, "3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical
Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; Numbering,
addressing and identification", 2019,
<https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/
SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=729>.
[WGS84] National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), "WORLD
GEODETIC SYSTEM 1984, NGA.STND.0036_1.0.0_WGS84", July
2014, <https://earth-info.nga.mil/php/
download.php?file=coord-wgs84>.
11.2. Informative References
[BirthdayAttack]
"Birthday attack",
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_attack.>.
[CBOR.Cert.Draft]
Mattsson, J. P., Selander, G., Raza, S., Hoeglund, J., and
M. Furuhed, "CBOR Encoded X.509 Certificates (C509
Certificates)", draft-ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert-04 (work
in progress), July 2022.
[Common.Criteria]
"Common Criteria for Information Technology Security
Evaluation", April 2017,
<https://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/cc/>.
[COSE.X509.Draft]
Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE):
Header parameters for carrying and referencing X.509
certificates", draft-ietf-cose-x509-08 (work in progress),
December 2020.
[FIPS-140]
National Institue of Standards, "Security Requirements for
Cryptographic Modules", May 2001,
<https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/fips/140/2/
final>.
[IEEE.802-2001]
"IEEE Standard For Local And Metropolitan Area Networks
Overview And Architecture", 2007,
<https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/ieee/
ieee8022001r2007>.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 71]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
[IEEE.802.1AR]
"IEEE Standard, "IEEE 802.1AR Secure Device Identifier"",
December 2009, <http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/
standard/802.1AR-2009.html>.
[IEEE.RA] "IEEE Registration Authority",
<https://standards.ieee.org/products-services/regauth/
index.html>.
[OUI.Guide]
"Guidelines for Use of Extended Unique Identifier (EUI),
Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI), and Company ID
(CID)", August 2017,
<https://standards.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee-
standards/standards/web/documents/tutorials/eui.pdf>.
[OUI.Lookup]
"IEEE Registration Authority Assignments",
<https://regauth.standards.ieee.org/standards-ra-web/pub/
view.html#registries>.
[RATS.Architecture]
Birkholz, H., Thaler, D., Richardson, M., Smith, N., and
W. Pan, "Remote Attestation Procedures Architecture",
draft-ietf-rats-architecture-18 (work in progress), June
2022.
[RFC4122] Leach, P., Mealling, M., and R. Salz, "A Universally
Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace", RFC 4122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4122, July 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4122>.
[RFC4422] Melnikov, A., Ed. and K. Zeilenga, Ed., "Simple
Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)", RFC 4422,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4422, June 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4422>.
[RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2",
FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4949>.
[RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code
Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 72]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
[RFC9039] Arkko, J., Jennings, C., and Z. Shelby, "Uniform Resource
Names for Device Identifiers", RFC 9039,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9039, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9039>.
[W3C.GeoLoc]
Worldwide Web Consortium, "Geolocation API Specification
2nd Edition", January 2018, <https://www.w3.org/TR/
geolocation-API/#coordinates_interface>.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 73]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
Appendix A. Examples
Most examples are shown as just a Claims-Set that would be a payload
for a CWT, JWT, DEB or future token types. It is shown this way
because the payload is all the claims, the most interesting part and
showing full tokens makes it harder to show the claims.
Some examples of full tokens are also given.
WARNING: These examples use tag and label numbers not yet assigned by
IANA.
A.1. Payload Examples
A.1.1. Simple TEE Attestation
This is a simple attestation of a TEE that includes a manifest that
is a payload CoSWID to describe the TEE's software.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 74]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
/ This is an EAT payload that describes a simple TEE. /
{
/ nonce / 10: h'948f8860d13a463e',
/ security-level / 261: 2, / restricted /
/ secure-boot / 262: true,
/ debug-status / 263: 2, / disabled-since-boot /
/ manfests / 273: [
[
121, / CoAP Content ID. A /
/ made up one until one /
/ is assigned for CoSWID /
/ This is byte-string wrapped /
/ payload CoSWID. It gives the TEE /
/ software name, the version and /
/ the name of the file it is in. /
/ {0: "3a24", /
/ 12: 1, /
/ 1: "Acme TEE OS", /
/ 13: "3.1.4", /
/ 2: [{31: "Acme TEE OS", 33: 1}, /
/ {31: "Acme TEE OS", 33: 2}], /
/ 6: { /
/ 17: { /
/ 24: "acme_tee_3.exe" /
/ } /
/ } /
/ } /
h' a60064336132340c01016b
41636d6520544545204f530d65332e31
2e340282a2181f6b41636d6520544545
204f53182101a2181f6b41636d652054
4545204f5318210206a111a118186e61
636d655f7465655f332e657865'
]
]
}
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 75]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
/ A payload CoSWID created by the SW vendor. All this really does /
/ is name the TEE SW, its version and lists the one file that /
/ makes up the TEE. /
1398229316({
/ Unique CoSWID ID / 0: "3a24",
/ tag-version / 12: 1,
/ software-name / 1: "Acme TEE OS",
/ software-version / 13: "3.1.4",
/ entity / 2: [
{
/ entity-name / 31: "Acme TEE OS",
/ role / 33: 1 / tag-creator /
},
{
/ entity-name / 31: "Acme TEE OS",
/ role / 33: 2 / software-creator /
}
],
/ payload / 6: {
/ ...file / 17: {
/ ...fs-name / 24: "acme_tee_3.exe"
}
}
})
A.1.2. Submodules for Board and Device
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 76]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
/ This example shows use of submodules to give information /
/ about the chip, board and overall device. /
/ /
/ The main attestation is associated with the chip with the /
/ CPU and running the main OS. It is what has the keys and /
/ produces the token. /
/ /
/ The board is made by a different vendor than the chip. /
/ Perhaps it is some generic IoT board. /
/ /
/ The device is some specific appliance that is made by a /
/ different vendor than either the chip or the board. /
/ /
/ Here the board and device submodules aren't the typical /
/ target environments as described by the RATS architecture /
/ document, but they are a valid use of submodules. /
{
/ nonce / 10: h'948f8860d13a463e8e',
/ UEID / 256: h'0198f50a4ff6c05861c8860d13a638ea',
/ HW OEM ID / 258: h'894823', / IEEE OUI format OEM ID /
/ HW Model ID / 259: h'549dcecc8b987c737b44e40f7c635ce8'
/ Hash of chip model name /,
/ HW Version / 260: ["1.3.4", 1], / Multipartnumeric version /
/ SW Name / 271: "Acme OS",
/ SW Version / 272: ["3.5.5", 1],
/ secure-boot / 262: true,
/ debug-status / 263: 3, / permanent-disable /
/ timestamp (iat) / 6: 1526542894,
/ security-level / 261: 2, / restricted OS /
/ submods / 266: {
/ A submodule to hold some claims about the circuit board /
"board" : {
/ HW OEM ID / 258: h'9bef8787eba13e2c8f6e7cb4b1f4619a',
/ HW Model ID / 259: h'ee80f5a66c1fb9742999a8fdab930893'
/ Hash of board module name /,
/ HW Version / 260: ["2.0a", 2] / multipartnumeric+suffix /
},
/ A submodule to hold claims about the overall device /
"device" : {
/ HW OEM ID / 258: 61234, / PEN Format OEM ID /
/ HW Version / 260: ["4012345123456", 5] / EAN-13 format (barcode) /
}
}
}
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 77]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
A.1.3. EAT Produced by Attestation Hardware Block
/ This is an example of a token produced by a HW block /
/ purpose-built for attestation. Only the nonce claim changes /
/ from one attestation to the next as the rest either come /
/ directly from the hardware or from one-time-programmable memory /
/ (e.g. a fuse). 47 bytes encoded in CBOR (8 byte nonce, 16 byte /
/ UEID). /
{
/ nonce / 10: h'948f8860d13a463e',
/ UEID / 256: h'0198f50a4ff6c05861c8860d13a638ea',
/ OEMID / 258: 64242, / Private Enterprise Number /
/ security-level / 261: 3, / hardware level security /
/ secure-boot / 262: true,
/ debug-status / 263: 3, / disabled-permanently /
/ HW version / 260: [ "3.1", 1 ] / Type is multipartnumeric /
}
A.1.4. Key / Key Store Attestation
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 78]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
/ This is an EAT payload that describes a simple TEE. /
{
/ nonce / 10: h'948f8860d13a463e',
/ security-level / 261: 2, / restricted /
/ secure-boot / 262: true,
/ debug-status / 263: 2, / disabled-since-boot /
/ manfests / 273: [
[
121, / CoAP Content ID. A /
/ made up one until one /
/ is assigned for CoSWID /
/ This is byte-string wrapped /
/ payload CoSWID. It gives the TEE /
/ software name, the version and /
/ the name of the file it is in. /
/ {0: "3a24", /
/ 12: 1, /
/ 1: "Acme TEE OS", /
/ 13: "3.1.4", /
/ 2: [{31: "Acme TEE OS", 33: 1}, /
/ {31: "Acme TEE OS", 33: 2}], /
/ 6: { /
/ 17: { /
/ 24: "acme_tee_3.exe" /
/ } /
/ } /
/ } /
h' a60064336132340c01016b
41636d6520544545204f530d65332e31
2e340282a2181f6b41636d6520544545
204f53182101a2181f6b41636d652054
4545204f5318210206a111a118186e61
636d655f7465655f332e657865'
]
]
}
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 79]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
/ A payload CoSWID created by the SW vendor. All this really does /
/ is name the TEE SW, its version and lists the one file that /
/ makes up the TEE. /
1398229316({
/ Unique CoSWID ID / 0: "3a24",
/ tag-version / 12: 1,
/ software-name / 1: "Acme TEE OS",
/ software-version / 13: "3.1.4",
/ entity / 2: [
{
/ entity-name / 31: "Acme TEE OS",
/ role / 33: 1 / tag-creator /
},
{
/ entity-name / 31: "Acme TEE OS",
/ role / 33: 2 / software-creator /
}
],
/ payload / 6: {
/ ...file / 17: {
/ ...fs-name / 24: "acme_tee_3.exe"
}
}
})
A.1.5. Submodules for Board and Device
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 80]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
/ This example shows use of submodules to give information /
/ about the chip, board and overall device. /
/ /
/ The main attestation is associated with the chip with the /
/ CPU and running the main OS. It is what has the keys and /
/ produces the token. /
/ /
/ The board is made by a different vendor than the chip. /
/ Perhaps it is some generic IoT board. /
/ /
/ The device is some specific appliance that is made by a /
/ different vendor than either the chip or the board. /
/ /
/ Here the board and device submodules aren't the typical /
/ target environments as described by the RATS architecture /
/ document, but they are a valid use of submodules. /
{
/ nonce / 10: h'948f8860d13a463e8e',
/ UEID / 256: h'0198f50a4ff6c05861c8860d13a638ea',
/ HW OEM ID / 258: h'894823', / IEEE OUI format OEM ID /
/ HW Model ID / 259: h'549dcecc8b987c737b44e40f7c635ce8'
/ Hash of chip model name /,
/ HW Version / 260: ["1.3.4", 1], / Multipartnumeric version /
/ SW Name / 271: "Acme OS",
/ SW Version / 272: ["3.5.5", 1],
/ secure-boot / 262: true,
/ debug-status / 263: 3, / permanent-disable /
/ timestamp (iat) / 6: 1526542894,
/ security-level / 261: 2, / restricted OS /
/ submods / 266: {
/ A submodule to hold some claims about the circuit board /
"board" : {
/ HW OEM ID / 258: h'9bef8787eba13e2c8f6e7cb4b1f4619a',
/ HW Model ID / 259: h'ee80f5a66c1fb9742999a8fdab930893'
/ Hash of board module name /,
/ HW Version / 260: ["2.0a", 2] / multipartnumeric+suffix /
},
/ A submodule to hold claims about the overall device /
"device" : {
/ HW OEM ID / 258: 61234, / PEN Format OEM ID /
/ HW Version / 260: ["4012345123456", 5] / EAN-13 format (barcode) /
}
}
}
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 81]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
A.1.6. EAT Produced by Attestation Hardware Block
/ This is an example of a token produced by a HW block /
/ purpose-built for attestation. Only the nonce claim changes /
/ from one attestation to the next as the rest either come /
/ directly from the hardware or from one-time-programmable memory /
/ (e.g. a fuse). 47 bytes encoded in CBOR (8 byte nonce, 16 byte /
/ UEID). /
{
/ nonce / 10: h'948f8860d13a463e',
/ UEID / 256: h'0198f50a4ff6c05861c8860d13a638ea',
/ OEMID / 258: 64242, / Private Enterprise Number /
/ security-level / 261: 3, / hardware level security /
/ secure-boot / 262: true,
/ debug-status / 263: 3, / disabled-permanently /
/ HW version / 260: [ "3.1", 1 ] / Type is multipartnumeric /
}
A.1.7. Key / Key Store Attestation
/ This is an attestation of a public key and the key store /
/ implementation that protects and manages it. The key store /
/ implementation is in a security-oriented execution /
/ environment separate from the high-level OS, for example a /
/ TEE. The key store is the Attester. /
/ /
/ There is some attestation of the high-level OS, just version /
/ and boot & debug status. It is a Claims-Set submodule because/
/ it has lower security level than the key store. The key /
/ store's implementation has access to info about the HLOS, so /
/ it is able to include it. /
/ /
/ A key and an indication of the user authentication given to /
/ allow access to the key is given. The labels for these are /
/ in the private space since this is just a hypothetical /
/ example, not part of a standard protocol. /
/ /
/ This is similar to Android Key Attestation. /
{
/ nonce / 10: h'948f8860d13a463e',
/ security-level / 261: 2, / restricted /
/ secure-boot / 262: true,
/ debug-status / 263: 2, / disabled-since-boot /
/ manifests / 273: [
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 82]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
[ 121, / CoAP Content ID. A /
/ made up one until one /
/ is assigned for CoSWID /
h'a600683762623334383766
0c000169436172626f6e6974650d6331
2e320e0102a2181f75496e6475737472
69616c204175746f6d6174696f6e1821
02'
]
/ Above is an encoded CoSWID /
/ with the following data /
/ SW Name: "Carbonite" /
/ SW Vers: "1.2" /
/ SW Creator: /
/ "Industrial Automation" /
],
/ expiration / 4: 1634324274, / 2021-10-15T18:57:54Z /
/ creation time / 6: 1634317080, / 2021-10-15T16:58:00Z /
-80000 : "fingerprint",
-80001 : { / The key -- A COSE_Key /
/ kty / 1: 2, / EC2, eliptic curve with x & y /
/ kid / 2: h'36675c206f96236c3f51f54637b94ced',
/ curve / -1: 2, / curve is P-256 /
/ x-coord / -2: h'65eda5a12577c2bae829437fe338701a
10aaa375e1bb5b5de108de439c08551d',
/ y-coord / -3: h'1e52ed75701163f7f9e40ddf9f341b3d
c9ba860af7e0ca7ca7e9eecd0084d19c'
},
/ submods / 266 : {
"HLOS" : { / submod for high-level OS /
/ nonce / 10: h'948f8860d13a463e',
/ security-level / 261: 1, / unrestricted /
/ secure-boot / 262: true,
/ manifests / 273: [
[ 121, / CoAP Content ID. A /
/ made up one until one /
/ is assigned for CoSWID /
h'a600687337
6537346b78380c000168
44726f6964204f530d65
52322e44320e0302a218
1F75496E647573747269
616c204175746f6d6174
696f6e182102'
]
/ Above is an encoded CoSWID /
/ with the following data: /
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 83]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
/ SW Name: "Droid OS" /
/ SW Vers: "R2.D2" /
/ SW Creator: /
/ "Industrial Automation"/
]
}
}
}
A.1.8. SW Measurements of an IoT Device
This is a simple token that might be for and IoT device. It includes
CoSWID format measurments of the SW. The CoSWID is in byte-string
wrapped in the token and also shown in diagnostic form.
/ This EAT payload is for an IoT device with a TEE. The attestation /
/ is produced by the TEE. There is a submodule for the IoT OS (the /
/ main OS of the IoT device that is not as secure as the TEE). The /
/ submodule contains claims for the IoT OS. The TEE also measures /
/ the IoT OS and puts the measurements in the submodule. /
{
/ nonce / 10: h'948f8860d13a463e',
/ security-level / 261: 2, / restricted /
/ secure-boot / 262: true,
/ debug-status / 263: 2, / disabled-since-boot /
/ OEMID / 258: h'8945ad', / IEEE CID based /
/ UEID / 256: h'0198f50a4ff6c05861c8860d13a638ea',
/ sumods / 266: {
"OS" : {
/ security-level / 261: 2, / restricted /
/ secure-boot / 262: true,
/ debug-status / 263: 2, / disabled-since-boot /
/ swevidence / 274: [
[
121, / CoAP Content ID. A /
/ made up one until one /
/ is assigned for CoSWID /
/ This is a byte-string wrapped /
/ evidence CoSWID. It has /
/ hashes of the main files of /
/ the IoT OS. /
h'a600663463613234350c
17016d41636d6520522d496f542d4f
530d65332e312e3402a2181f724163
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 84]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
6d6520426173652041747465737465
7218210103a11183a318187161636d
655f725f696f745f6f732e65786514
1a0044b349078201582005f6b327c1
73b4192bd2c3ec248a292215eab456
611bf7a783e25c1782479905a31818
6d7265736f75726365732e72736314
1a000c38b10782015820c142b9aba4
280c4bb8c75f716a43c99526694caa
be529571f5569bb7dc542f98a31818
6a636f6d6d6f6e2e6c6962141a0023
3d3b0782015820a6a9dcdfb3884da5
f884e4e1e8e8629958c2dbc7027414
43a913e34de9333be6'
]
]
}
}
}
/ An evidence CoSWID created for the "Acme R-IoT-OS" created by /
/ the "Acme Base Attester" (both fictious names). It provides /
/ measurements of the SW (other than the attester SW) on the /
/ device. /
1398229316({
/ Unique CoSWID ID / 0: "4ca245",
/ tag-version / 12: 23, / Attester-maintained counter /
/ software-name / 1: "Acme R-IoT-OS",
/ software-version / 13: "3.1.4",
/ entity / 2: {
/ entity-name / 31: "Acme Base Attester",
/ role / 33: 1 / tag-creator /
},
/ evidence / 3: {
/ ...file / 17: [
{
/ ...fs-name / 24: "acme_r_iot_os.exe",
/ ...size / 20: 4502345,
/ ...hash / 7: [
1, / SHA-256 /
h'05f6b327c173b419
2bd2c3ec248a2922
15eab456611bf7a7
83e25c1782479905'
]
},
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 85]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
{
/ ...fs-name / 24: "resources.rsc",
/ ...size / 20: 800945,
/ ...hash / 7: [
1, / SHA-256 /
h'c142b9aba4280c4b
b8c75f716a43c995
26694caabe529571
f5569bb7dc542f98'
]
},
{
/ ...fs-name / 24: "common.lib",
/ ...size / 20: 2309435,
/ ...hash / 7: [
1, / SHA-256 /
h'a6a9dcdfb3884da5
f884e4e1e8e86299
58c2dbc702741443
a913e34de9333be6'
]
}
]
}
})
A.1.9. Attestation Results in JSON format
This is a JSON-format payload that might be the output of a Verifier
that evaluated the IoT Attestation example immediately above.
This particular Verifier knows enough about the TEE Attester to be
able to pass claims like security level directly through to the
Relying Party. The Verifier also knows the Reference Values for the
measured SW components and is able to check them. It informs the
Relying Party that they were correct in the swresults claim.
"Trustus Verifications" is the name of the services that verifies the
SW component measurements.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 86]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
{
"eat_nonce" : "jkd8KL-8=Qlzg4",
"seclevel" : "restricted",
"secboot" : true,
"dbgstat" : "disabled-since-boot",
"oemid" : "iUWt",
"ueid" : "AZj1Ck_2wFhhyIYNE6Y4",
"swname" : "Acme R-IoT-OS",
"swversion" : [
"3.1.4"
],
"measres" : [
[
"Trustus Measurements",
[
[ "all" , "success" ]
]
]
]
}
A.1.10. JSON-encoded Token with Sumodules
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 87]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
{
"eat_nonce": "lI-IYNE6Rj6O",
"ueid": "AJj1Ck_2wFhhyIYNE6Y46g==",
"secboot": true,
"dbgstat": "disabled-permanently",
"iat": 1526542894,
"seclevel": "restricted",
"submods": {
"Android App Foo" : {
"seclevel": "unrestricted"
},
"Secure Element Eat" : [
"CBOR",
"2D3ShEOhASagWGaoCkiUj4hg0TpGPhkBAFABmPUKT_bAWGHIhg0TpjjqGQECGfryGQEFBBkBBvUZAQcDGQEEgmMzLjEBGQEKoWNURUWCL1gg5c-V_ST6txRGdC3VjUPa4XjlX-K5QpGpKRCC_8JjWgtYQPaQywOIZ3-mJKN3X9fLxOhAnsmBa-MvpHRzOw-Ywn-67bvJljuctezAPD41s6_At7NbSV3qwJlxIuqGfwe41es="
],
"Linux Android": {
"seclevel": "unrestricted"
},
"Subsystem J": [
"JWT",
"eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJpc3MiOiJKLUF0dGVzdGVyIiwiaWF0IjoxNjUxNzc0ODY4LCJleHAiOm51bGwsImF1ZCI6IiIsInN1YiI6IiJ9.gjw4nFMhLpJUuPXvMPzK1GMjhyJq2vWXg1416XKszwQ"
]
}
}
A.2. Full Token Examples
A.2.1. Basic CWT Example
This is a simple ECDSA signed CWT-format token.
/ This is a full CWT-format token with a very simple payloal. /
/ The main structure visible here is that of the COSE_Sign1. /
61( 18( [
h'A10126', / protected headers /
{}, / empty unprotected headers /
h'A20B46024A6B0978DE0A49000102030405060708', / payload /
h'9B9B2F5E470000F6A20C8A4157B5763FC45BE759
9A5334028517768C21AFFB845A56AB557E0C8973
A07417391243A79C478562D285612E292C622162
AB233787' / signature /
] ) )
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 88]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
A.2.2. Detached EAT Bundle
In this DEB main token is produced by a HW attestation block. The
detached Claims-Set is produced by a TEE and is largely identical to
the Simple TEE examples above. The TEE digests its Claims-Set and
feeds that digest to the HW block.
In a better example the attestation produced by the HW block would be
a CWT and thus signed and secured by the HW block. Since the
signature covers the digest from the TEE that Claims-Set is also
secured.
The DEB itself can be assembled by untrusted SW.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 89]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
/ This is a detached EAT bundle (DEB) tag. /
/ Note that 602, the tag identifying a DEB is not yet registered with IANA /
602([
/ First part is a full EAT token with claims like nonce and /
/ UEID. Most importantly, it includes a submodule that is a /
/ detached digest which is the hash of the "TEE" claims set /
/ in the next section. The COSE payload follows: /
/ { /
/ 10: h'948F8860D13A463E', /
/ 256: h'0198F50A4FF6C05861C8860D13A638EA', /
/ 258: 64242, /
/ 261: 4, /
/ 262: true, /
/ 263: 3, /
/ 260: ["3.1", 1], /
/ 266: { /
/ "TEE": [ /
/ -16, /
/ h'E5CF95FD24FAB71446742DD58D43DAE1 /
/ 78E55FE2B94291A9291082FFC2635A0B' /
/ ] /
/ } /
/ } /
h'D83DD28443A10126A05866A80A48948F8860D13A463E1901
00500198F50A4FF6C05861C8860D13A638EA19010219FAF2
19010504190106F5190107031901048263332E310119010A
A163544545822F5820E5CF95FD24FAB71446742DD58D43DA
E178E55FE2B94291A9291082FFC2635A0B5840F690CB0388
677FA624A3775FD7CBC4E8409EC9816BE32FA474733B0F98
C27FBAEDBBC9963B9CB5ECC03C3E35B3AFC0B7B35B495DEA
C0997122EA867F07B8D5EB',
{
/ A CBOR-encoded byte-string wrapped EAT claims-set. It /
/ contains claims suitable for a TEE /
"TEE" : h'a50a48948f8860d13a463e19010503190106
f519010702190111818218795858a6006433
6132340c01016b41636d6520544545204f53
0d65332e312e340282a2181f6b41636d6520
544545204f53182101a2181f6b41636d6520
544545204f5318210206a111a118186e6163
6d655f7465655f332e657865'
}
])
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 90]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
/ This example contains submodule that is a detached digest, /
/ which is the hash of a Claims-Set convey outside this token. /
/ Other than that is is the other example of a token from an /
/ attestation HW block /
{
/ nonce / 10: h'948f8860d13a463e',
/ UEID / 256: h'0198f50a4ff6c05861c8860d13a638ea',
/ OEMID / 258: 64242, / Private Enterprise Number /
/ security-level / 261: 3, / hardware level security /
/ secure-boot / 262: true,
/ debug-status / 263: 3, / disabled-permanently /
/ hw version / 260: [ "3.1", 1 ], / multipartnumeric /
/ submods/ 266: {
"TEE": [ / detached digest submod /
-16, / SHA-256 /
h'e5cf95fd24fab7144674
2dd58d43dae178e55fe2
b94291a9291082ffc2635
a0b'
]
}
}
A.2.3. JSON-encoded Detached EAT Bundle
In this bundle there are two detached Claims-Sets, "CS1" and "CS2".
The JWT at the start of the bundle has detached signature submodules
with hashes of "CS1" and "CS2". TODO: make the JWT actually be
correct verifiable JWT.
[
[ "JWT",
"eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJpc3MiOiJKLUF0dGVzdGVyIiwiaWF0IjoxNjUxNzc0ODY4LCJleHAiOm51bGwsImF1ZCI6IiIsInN1YiI6IiJ9.gjw4nFMhLpJUuPXvMPzK1GMjhyJq2vWXg1416XKszwQ"
],
{
"Audio Subsystem Claims": "ewogICAgICAgICAgICAibm9uY2UiOiAgICAgImxJK0lZTkU2Umo2TyIsCiAgICAgICAgICAgICJpYXQiOiAgICAgIDE1MjY1NDI4OTQKICAgICAgICAgfQo=",
"Graphics Subsystem Claims": "ewogICAgICAgICAgICAibm9uY2UiOiAgICJsSStJWU5FNlJqNk8iLAogICAgICAgICAgICAiaWF0IjogICAgIDE1MjY1NDI4OTQKICAgICAgICB9"
}
]
Appendix B. UEID Design Rationale
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 91]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
B.1. Collision Probability
This calculation is to determine the probability of a collision of
UEIDs given the total possible entity population and the number of
entities in a particular entity management database.
Three different sized databases are considered. The number of
devices per person roughly models non-personal devices such as
traffic lights, devices in stores they shop in, facilities they work
in and so on, even considering individual light bulbs. A device may
have individually attested subsystems, for example parts of a car or
a mobile phone. It is assumed that the largest database will have at
most 10% of the world's population of devices. Note that databases
that handle more than a trillion records exist today.
The trillion-record database size models an easy-to-imagine reality
over the next decades. The quadrillion-record database is roughly at
the limit of what is imaginable and should probably be accommodated.
The 100 quadrillion datadbase is highly speculative perhaps involving
nanorobots for every person, livestock animal and domesticated bird.
It is included to round out the analysis.
Note that the items counted here certainly do not have IP address and
are not individually connected to the network. They may be connected
to internal buses, via serial links, Bluetooth and so on. This is
not the same problem as sizing IP addresses.
+---------+------------+--------------+------------+----------------+
| People | Devices / | Subsystems / | Database | Database Size |
| | Person | Device | Portion | |
+---------+------------+--------------+------------+----------------+
| 10 | 100 | 10 | 10% | trillion |
| billion | | | | (10^12) |
| 10 | 100,000 | 10 | 10% | quadrillion |
| billion | | | | (10^15) |
| 100 | 1,000,000 | 10 | 10% | 100 |
| billion | | | | quadrillion |
| | | | | (10^17) |
+---------+------------+--------------+------------+----------------+
This is conceptually similar to the Birthday Problem where m is the
number of possible birthdays, always 365, and k is the number of
people. It is also conceptually similar to the Birthday Attack where
collisions of the output of hash functions are considered.
The proper formula for the collision calculation is
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 92]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
p = 1 - e^{-k^2/(2n)}
p Collision Probability
n Total possible population
k Actual population
However, for the very large values involved here, this formula
requires floating point precision higher than commonly available in
calculators and SW so this simple approximation is used. See
[BirthdayAttack].
p = k^2 / 2n
For this calculation:
p Collision Probability
n Total population based on number of bits in UEID
k Population in a database
+----------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| Database Size | 128-bit UEID | 192-bit UEID | 256-bit UEID |
+----------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| trillion (10^12) | 2 * 10^-15 | 8 * 10^-35 | 5 * 10^-55 |
| quadrillion (10^15) | 2 * 10^-09 | 8 * 10^-29 | 5 * 10^-49 |
| 100 quadrillion | 2 * 10^-05 | 8 * 10^-25 | 5 * 10^-45 |
| (10^17) | | | |
+----------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
Next, to calculate the probability of a collision occurring in one
year's operation of a database, it is assumed that the database size
is in a steady state and that 10% of the database changes per year.
For example, a trillion record database would have 100 billion states
per year. Each of those states has the above calculated probability
of a collision.
This assumption is a worst-case since it assumes that each state of
the database is completely independent from the previous state. In
reality this is unlikely as state changes will be the addition or
deletion of a few records.
The following tables gives the time interval until there is a
probability of a collision based on there being one tenth the number
of states per year as the number of records in the database.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 93]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
t = 1 / ((k / 10) * p)
t Time until a collision
p Collision probability for UEID size
k Database size
+---------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------+
| Database Size | 128-bit UEID | 192-bit UEID | 256-bit UEID |
+---------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------+
| trillion (10^12) | 60,000 years | 10^24 years | 10^44 years |
| quadrillion (10^15) | 8 seconds | 10^14 years | 10^34 years |
| 100 quadrillion | 8 | 10^11 years | 10^31 years |
| (10^17) | microseconds | | |
+---------------------+---------------+--------------+--------------+
Clearly, 128 bits is enough for the near future thus the requirement
that UEIDs be a minimum of 128 bits.
There is no requirement for 256 bits today as quadrillion-record
databases are not expected in the near future and because this time-
to-collision calculation is a very worst case. A future update of
the standard may increase the requirement to 256 bits, so there is a
requirement that implementations be able to receive 256-bit UEIDs.
B.2. No Use of UUID
A UEID is not a UUID [RFC4122] by conscious choice for the following
reasons.
UUIDs are limited to 128 bits which may not be enough for some future
use cases.
Today, cryptographic-quality random numbers are available from common
CPUs and hardware. This hardware was introduced between 2010 and
2015. Operating systems and cryptographic libraries give access to
this hardware. Consequently, there is little need for
implementations to construct such random values from multiple sources
on their own.
Version 4 UUIDs do allow for use of such cryptographic-quality random
numbers, but do so by mapping into the overall UUID structure of time
and clock values. This structure is of no value here yet adds
complexity. It also slightly reduces the number of actual bits with
entropy.
The design of UUID accommodates the construction of a unique
identifier by combination of several identifiers that separately do
not provide sufficient uniqueness. UEID takes the view that this
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 94]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
construction is no longer needed, in particular because
cryptographic-quality random number generators are readily available.
It takes the view that hardware, software and/or manufacturing
process implement UEID in a simple and direct way.
Appendix C. EAT Relation to IEEE.802.1AR Secure Device Identity (DevID)
This section describes several distinct ways in which an IEEE IDevID
[IEEE.802.1AR] relates to EAT, particularly to UEID and SUEID.
[IEEE.802.1AR] orients around the definition of an implementation
called a "DevID Module." It describes how IDevIDs and LDevIDs are
stored, protected and accessed using a DevID Module. A particular
level of defense against attack that should be achieved to be a DevID
is defined. The intent is that IDevIDs and LDevIDs can be used with
any network protocol or message format. In these protocols and
message formats the DevID secret is used to sign a nonce or similar
to prove the association of the DevID certificates with the device.
By contrast, EAT defines a message format for proving trustworthiness
to a Relying Party, the very thing that is not defined in
[IEEE.802.1AR]. Nor does EAT give details on how keys, data and such
are stored protected and accessed. EAT is intended to work with a
variety of different on-device implementations ranging from minimal
protection of assets to the highest levels of asset protection. It
does not define any particular level of defense against attack,
instead providing a set of security considerations.
EAT and DevID can be viewed as complimentary when used together or as
competing to provide a device identity service.
C.1. DevID Used With EAT
As just described, EAT defines a network protocol and [IEEE.802.1AR]
doesn't. Vice versa, EAT doesn't define a an device implementation
and DevID does.
Hence, EAT can be the network protocol that a DevID is used with.
The DevID secret becomes the attestation key used to sign EATs. The
DevID and its certificate chain become the Endorsement sent to the
Verifier.
In this case the EAT and the DevID are likely to both provide a
device identifier (e.g. a serial number). In the EAT it is the UEID
(or SUEID). In the DevID (used as an endorsement), it is a device
serial number included in the subject field of the DevID certificate.
It is probably a good idea in this use for them to be the same serial
number or for the UEID to be a hash of the DevID serial number.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 95]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
C.2. How EAT Provides an Equivalent Secure Device Identity
The UEID, SUEID and other claims like OEM ID are equivalent to the
secure device identity put into the subject field of a DevID
certificate. These EAT claims can represent all the same fields and
values that can be put in a DevID certificate subject. EAT
explicitly and carefully defines a variety of useful claims.
EAT secures the conveyance of these claims by having them signed on
the device by the attestation key when the EAT is generated. EAT
also signs the nonce that gives freshness at this time. Since these
claims are signed for every EAT generated, they can include things
that vary over time like GPS location.
DevID secures the device identity fields by having them signed by the
manufacturer of the device sign them into a certificate. That
certificate is created once during the manufacturing of the device
and never changes so the fields cannot change.
So in one case the signing of the identity happens on the device and
the other in a manufacturing facility, but in both cases the signing
of the nonce that proves the binding to the actual device happens on
the device.
While EAT does not specify how the signing keys, signature process
and storage of the identity values should be secured against attack,
an EAT implementation may have equal defenses against attack. One
reason EAT uses CBOR is because it is simple enough that a basic EAT
implementation can be constructed entirely in hardware. This allows
EAT to be implemented with the strongest defenses possible.
C.3. An X.509 Format EAT
It is possible to define a way to encode EAT claims in an X.509
certificate. For example, the EAT claims might be mapped to X.509 v3
extensions. It is even possible to stuff a whole CBOR-encoded
unsigned EAT token into a X.509 certificate.
If that X.509 certificate is an IDevID or LDevID, this becomes
another way to use EAT and DevID together.
Note that the DevID must still be used with an authentication
protocol that has a nonce or equivalent. The EAT here is not being
used as the protocol to interact with the rely party.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 96]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
C.4. Device Identifier Permanence
In terms of permanence, an IDevID is similar to a UEID in that they
do not change over the life of the device. They cease to exist only
when the device is destroyed.
An SUEID is similar to an LDevID. They change on device life-cycle
events.
[IEEE.802.1AR] describes much of this permanence as resistant to
attacks that seek to change the ID. IDevID permanence can be
described this way because [IEEE.802.1AR] is oriented around the
definition of an implementation with a particular level of defense
against attack.
EAT is not defined around a particular implementation and must work
on a range of devices that have a range of defenses against attack.
EAT thus can't be defined permanence in terms of defense against
attack. EAT's definition of permanence is in terms of operations and
device lifecycle.
Appendix D. CDDL for CWT and JWT
[RFC8392] was published before CDDL was available and thus is
specified in prose, not CDDL. Following is CDDL specifying CWT as it
is needed to complete this specification. This CDDL also covers the
Claims-Set for JWT.
The COSE-related types in this CDDL are defined in [RFC9052].
This however is NOT a normative or standard definition of CWT or JWT
in CDDL. The prose in CWT and JWT remain the normative definition.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 97]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
; This is replicated from draft-ietf-rats-uccs
Claims-Set = {
* $$Claims-Set-Claims
* Claim-Label .feature "extended-claims-label" => any
}
Claim-Label = int / text
string-or-uri = text
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= ( iss-claim-label => string-or-uri )
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= ( sub-claim-label => string-or-uri )
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= ( aud-claim-label => string-or-uri )
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= ( exp-claim-label => ~time )
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= ( nbf-claim-label => ~time )
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= ( iat-claim-label => ~time )
$$Claims-Set-Claims //= ( cti-claim-label => bytes )
iss-claim-label = JC<"iss", 1>
sub-claim-label = JC<"sub", 2>
aud-claim-label = JC<"aud", 3>
exp-claim-label = JC<"exp", 4>
nbf-claim-label = JC<"nbf", 5>
iat-claim-label = JC<"iat", 6>
cti-claim-label = CBOR-ONLY<7> ; jti in JWT: different name and text
JSON-ONLY<J> = J .feature "json"
CBOR-ONLY<C> = C .feature "cbor"
; Be sure to have cddl 0.8.29 or higher for this to work
JC<J,C> = JSON-ONLY<J> / CBOR-ONLY<C>
; A JWT message is either a JWS or JWE in compact serialization form
; with the payload a Claims-Set. Compact serialization is the
; protected headers, payload and signature, each b64url encoded and
; separated by a ".". This CDDL simply matches top-level syntax of of
; a JWS or JWE since it is not possible to do more in CDDL.
JWT-Message = text .regexp "[A-Za-z0-9_=-]+\.[A-Za-z0-9_=-]+\.[A-Za-z0-9_=-]+"
; Note that the payload of a JWT is defined in claims-set.cddl. That
; definition is common to CBOR and JSON.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 98]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
; This is some CDDL describing a CWT at the top level This is
; not normative. RFC 8392 is the normative definition of CWT.
CWT-Messages = CWT-Tagged-Message / CWT-Untagged-Message
; The payload of the COSE_Message is always a Claims-Set
; The contents of a CWT Tag must always be a COSE tag
CWT-Tagged-Message = #6.61(COSE_Tagged_Message)
; An untagged CWT may be a COSE tag or not
CWT-Untagged-Message = COSE_Messages
Appendix E. Claim Characteristics
The following is design guidance for creating new EAT claims,
particularly those to be registered with IANA.
Much of this guidance is generic and could also be considered when
designing new CWT or JWT claims.
E.1. Interoperability and Relying Party Orientation
It is a broad goal that EATs can be processed by Relying Parties in a
general way regardless of the type, manufacturer or technology of the
device from which they originate. It is a goal that there be
general-purpose verification implementations that can verify tokens
for large numbers of use cases with special cases and configurations
for different device types. This is a goal of interoperability of
the semantics of claims themselves, not just of the signing, encoding
and serialization formats.
This is a lofty goal and difficult to achieve broadly requiring
careful definition of claims in a technology neutral way. Sometimes
it will be difficult to design a claim that can represent the
semantics of data from very different device types. However, the
goal remains even when difficult.
E.2. Operating System and Technology Neutral
Claims should be defined such that they are not specific to an
operating system. They should be applicable to multiple large high-
level operating systems from different vendors. They should also be
applicable to multiple small embedded operating systems from multiple
vendors and everything in between.
Claims should not be defined such that they are specific to a SW
environment or programming language.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 99]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
Claims should not be defined such that they are specific to a chip or
particular hardware. For example, they should not just be the
contents of some HW status register as it is unlikely that the same
HW status register with the same bits exists on a chip of a different
manufacturer.
The boot and debug state claims in this document are an example of a
claim that has been defined in this neutral way.
E.3. Security Level Neutral
Many use cases will have EATs generated by some of the most secure
hardware and software that exists. Secure Elements and smart cards
are examples of this. However, EAT is intended for use in low-
security use cases the same as high-security use case. For example,
an app on a mobile device may generate EATs on its own.
Claims should be defined and registered on the basis of whether they
are useful and interoperable, not based on security level. In
particular, there should be no exclusion of claims because they are
just used only in low-security environments.
E.4. Reuse of Extant Data Formats
Where possible, claims should use already standardized data items,
identifiers and formats. This takes advantage of the expertise put
into creating those formats and improves interoperability.
Often extant claims will not be defined in an encoding or
serialization format used by EAT. It is preferred to define a CBOR
and JSON format for them so that EAT implementations do not require a
plethora of encoders and decoders for serialization formats.
In some cases, it may be better to use the encoding and serialization
as is. For example, signed X.509 certificates and CRLs can be
carried as-is in a byte string. This retains interoperability with
the extensive infrastructure for creating and processing X.509
certificates and CRLs.
E.5. Proprietary Claims
EAT allows the definition and use of proprietary claims.
For example, a device manufacturer may generate a token with
proprietary claims intended only for verification by a service
offered by that device manufacturer. This is a supported use case.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 100]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
In many cases proprietary claims will be the easiest and most obvious
way to proceed, however for better interoperability, use of general
standardized claims is preferred.
Appendix F. Endorsements and Verification Keys
The Verifier must possess the correct key when it performs the
cryptographic part of an EAT verification (e.g., verifying the COSE/
JOSE signature). This section describes several ways to identify the
verification key. There is not one standard method.
The verification key itself may be a public key, a symmetric key or
something complicated in the case of a scheme like Direct Anonymous
Attestation (DAA).
RATS Architecture [RATS.Architecture] describes what is called an
Endorsement. This is an input to the Verifier that is usually the
basis of the trust placed in an EAT and the Attester that generated
it. It may contain the public key for verification of the signature
on the EAT. It may contain Reference Values to which EAT claims are
compared as part of the verification process. It may contain implied
claims, those that are passed on to the Relying Party in Attestation
Results.
There is not yet any standard format(s) for an Endorsement. One
format that may be used for an Endorsement is an X.509 certificate.
Endorsement data like Reference Values and implied claims can be
carried in X.509 v3 extensions. In this use, the public key in the
X.509 certificate becomes the verification key, so identification of
the Endorsement is also identification of the verification key.
The verification key identification and establishment of trust in the
EAT and the attester may also be by some other means than an
Endorsement.
For the components (Attester, Verifier, Relying Party,...) of a
particular end-end attestation system to reliably interoperate, its
definition should specify how the verification key is identified.
Usually, this will be in the profile document for a particular
attestation system.
F.1. Identification Methods
Following is a list of possible methods of key identification. A
specific attestation system may employ any one of these or one not
listed here.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 101]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
The following assumes Endorsements are X.509 certificates or
equivalent and thus does not mention or define any identifier for
Endorsements in other formats. If such an Endorsement format is
created, new identifiers for them will also need to be created.
F.1.1. COSE/JWS Key ID
The COSE standard header parameter for Key ID (kid) may be used. See
[RFC9052] and [RFC7515]
COSE leaves the semantics of the key ID open-ended. It could be a
record locator in a database, a hash of a public key, an input to a
KDF, an authority key identifier (AKI) for an X.509 certificate or
other. The profile document should specify what the key ID's
semantics are.
F.1.2. JWS and COSE X.509 Header Parameters
COSE X.509 [COSE.X509.Draft] and JSON Web Siganture [RFC7515] define
several header parameters (x5t, x5u,...) for referencing or carrying
X.509 certificates any of which may be used.
The X.509 certificate may be an Endorsement and thus carrying
additional input to the Verifier. It may be just an X.509
certificate, not an Endorsement. The same header parameters are used
in both cases. It is up to the attestation system design and the
Verifier to determine which.
F.1.3. CBOR Certificate COSE Header Parameters
Compressed X.509 and CBOR Native certificates are defined by CBOR
Certificates [CBOR.Cert.Draft]. These are semantically compatible
with X.509 and therefore can be used as an equivalent to X.509 as
described above.
These are identified by their own header parameters (c5t, c5u,...).
F.1.4. Claim-Based Key Identification
For some attestation systems, a claim may be re-used as a key
identifier. For example, the UEID uniquely identifies the entity and
therefore can work well as a key identifier or Endorsement
identifier.
This has the advantage that key identification requires no additional
bytes in the EAT and makes the EAT smaller.
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 102]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
This has the disadvantage that the unverified EAT must be
substantially decoded to obtain the identifier since the identifier
is in the COSE/JOSE payload, not in the headers.
F.2. Other Considerations
In all cases there must be some way that the verification key is
itself verified or determined to be trustworthy. The key
identification itself is never enough. This will always be by some
out-of-band mechanism that is not described here. For example, the
Verifier may be configured with a root certificate or a master key by
the Verifier system administrator.
Often an X.509 certificate or an Endorsement carries more than just
the verification key. For example, an X.509 certificate might have
key usage constraints and an Endorsement might have Reference Values.
When this is the case, the key identifier must be either a protected
header or in the payload such that it is cryptographically bound to
the EAT. This is in line with the requirements in section 6 on Key
Identification in JSON Web Signature [RFC7515].
Appendix G. Changes from Previous Drafts
The following is a list of known changes from the previous drafts.
This list is non-authoritative. It is meant to help reviewers see
the significant differences.
G.1. From draft-rats-eat-01
o Added UEID design rationale appendix
G.2. From draft-mandyam-rats-eat-00
This is a fairly large change in the orientation of the document, but
no new claims have been added.
o Separate information and data model using CDDL.
o Say an EAT is a CWT or JWT
o Use a map to structure the boot_state and location claims
G.3. From draft-ietf-rats-eat-01
o Clarifications and corrections for OEMID claim
o Minor spelling and other fixes
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 103]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
o Add the nonce claim, clarify jti claim
G.4. From draft-ietf-rats-eat-02
o Roll all EUIs back into one UEID type
o UEIDs can be one of three lengths, 128, 192 and 256.
o Added appendix justifying UEID design and size.
o Submods part now includes nested eat tokens so they can be named
and there can be more tha one of them
o Lots of fixes to the CDDL
o Added security considerations
G.5. From draft-ietf-rats-eat-03
o Split boot_state into secure-boot and debug-disable claims
o Debug disable is an enumerated type rather than Booleans
G.6. From draft-ietf-rats-eat-04
o Change IMEI-based UEIDs to be encoded as a 14-byte string
o CDDL cleaned up some more
o CDDL allows for JWTs and UCCSs
o CWT format submodules are byte string wrapped
o Allows for JWT nested in CWT and vice versa
o Allows UCCS (unsigned CWTs) and JWT unsecured tokens
o Clarify tag usage when nesting tokens
o Add section on key inclusion
o Add hardware version claims
o Collected CDDL is now filled in. Other CDDL corrections.
o Rename debug-disable to debug-status; clarify that it is not
extensible
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 104]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
o Security level claim is not extensible
o Improve specification of location claim and added a location
privacy section
o Add intended use claim
G.7. From draft-ietf-rats-eat-05
o CDDL format issues resolved
o Corrected reference to Location Privacy section
G.8. From draft-ietf-rats-eat-06
o Added boot-seed claim
o Rework CBOR interoperability section
o Added profiles claim and section
G.9. From draft-ietf-rats-eat-07
o Filled in IANA and other sections for possible preassignment of
Claim Keys for well understood claims
G.10. From draft-ietf-rats-eat-08
o Change profile claim to be either a URL or an OID rather than a
test string
G.11. From draft-ietf-rats-eat-09
o Add SUEIDs
o Add appendix comparing IDevID to EAT
o Added section on use for Evidence and Attestation Results
o Fill in the key ID and endorsements identificaiton section
o Remove origination claim as it is replaced by key IDs and
endorsements
o Added manifests and software evidence claims
o Add string labels non-claim labels for use with JSON (e.g. labels
for members of location claim)
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 105]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
o EAN-13 HW versions are no longer a separate claim. Now they are
folded in as a CoSWID version scheme.
G.12. From draft-ietf-rats-eat-10
o Hardware version is made into an array of two rather than two
claims
o Corrections and wording improvements for security levels claim
o Add swresults claim
o Add dloas claim - Digitial Letter of Approvals, a list of
certifications
o CDDL for each claim no longer in a separate sub section
o Consistent use of terminology from RATS architecture document
o Consistent use of terminology from CWT and JWT documents
o Remove operating model and procedures; refer to CWT, JWT and RATS
architecture instead
o Some reorganization of Section 1
o Moved a few references, including RATS Architecture, to
informative.
o Add detached submodule digests and detached eat bundles (DEBs)
o New simpler and more universal scheme for identifying the encoding
of a nested token
o Made clear that CBOR and JSON are only mixed when nesting a token
in another token
o Clearly separate CDDL for JSON and CBOR-specific data items
o Define UJCS (unsigned JWTs)
o Add CDDL for a general Claims-Set used by UCCS, UJCS, CWT, JWT and
EAT
o Top level CDDL for CWT correctly refers to COSE
o OEM ID is specifically for HW, not for SW
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 106]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
o HW OEM ID can now be a PEN
o HW OEM ID can now be a 128-bit random number
o Expand the examples section
o Add software and version claims as easy / JSON alternative to
CoSWID
G.13. From draft-ietf-rats-eat-11
o Add HW model claim
o Change reference for CBOR OID draft to RFC 9090
o Correct the iat claim in some examples
o Make HW Version just one claim rather than 3 (device, board and
chip)
o Remove CDDL comments from CDDL blocks
o More clearly define "entity" and use it more broadly, particularly
instead of "device"
o Re do early allocation of CBOR labels since last one didn't
complete correctly
o Lots of rewording and tightening up of section 1
o Lots of wording improvements in section 3, particularly better use
of normative language
o Improve wording in submodules section, particularly how to
distinguish types when decoding
o Remove security-level from early allocation
o Add boot odometer claim
o Add privacy considerations for replay protection
G.14. From draft-ietf-rats-eat-12
o Make use of the JC<> generic to express CDDL for both JSON and
CBOR
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 107]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
o Reorganize claims into 4 sections, particularly claims about the
entity and about the token
o Nonce wording - say nonce is required and other improvements
o Clarify relationship of claims in evidence to results when
forwarding
o Clarify manufacturer switching UEID types
o Add new section on the top-level token type that has CBOR-specific
and JSON-specific CDDL since the top-level can't be handled with
JC<>
o Remove definition of UCCS and UJCS, replacing it with a CDDL
socket and mention of future token types
o Split the examples into payload and top level tokens since UCCS
can't be used for examples any more (It was nice because you could
see the payload claims in it easily, where you can't with CWT)
o DEB tag number is TBD rather than hard coded
o Add appendix with non-normative CDDL for a Claims-Set, CWT and JWT
o (Large reorganization of the document build and example
verification makefile)
o Use CoAP content format ID to distinguish manifest and evidence
formats instead of CBOR tag
o Added more examples, both CBOR and JSON
o All CDDL is validating against all examples
o Unassigned IANA requests are clearly TBD in the document (and have
real values as is necessary in the example validation process)
o Improve security-level claim
o swresults claim is now measurement results claim
o substantial redesign of measurement results claim
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 108]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
G.15. From draft-ietf-rats-eat-13
o UEID length and type clarifications
o Address comments on SUEIDs
o "Attestation Evidence" -> "Evidence"
o Wording clarification for "entity"
o Wording clarifications for DLOAs claim
o CDDL type for CoAP Content Format
o Move Claim Characteristics to an Appendix
o Rename odometer to boot-count
o Correct/clarify section on JSON/CBOR labels (Carl's comment)
o Wording clarifications in Appendix C (Carl's comment)
o xxx encoded -> xxx-encoded
o Clarifications for cti and jti claims
o The 8th bit in a 7 bit text string doesn't contribute to entro
o Improve SW Name Claim description
o Update commentary on UUID vs UEID
o Remove most of section 8.3 on CBOR Serialization, redundant with
profiles
o The 8th bit in a 7 bit text string doesn't contribute to entropy
o Improve SW Name description
o Don't capitalize composite device
o Reword encoding exception sentence
o Wording improvements in section 1 related to Attestation Results
o Lots of rewording to make profile issues more prescriptive
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 109]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
o Sync terminology definitions with RATS Architecture, include
Endorsement definition
o Plug-ins to the EAT format socket must be an IETF standard
o Link to RFC 9052 instead of 8152
o Improve introduction to profiles
o Improve CDDL for OID in JSON
o Move Endorsements and Verification Keys to a new Appendix
o Move privacy and security considerations to before IANA section
o Clarify that security-level is only the intended design
o Clarify that security-level only references section four of FIDO
AROE
o Remove requirement that manifests be a byte string in CBOR-encoded
tokens
o Add manifests for SPDX and CycloneDX
o Add a standard constrained device profile
o Added DEB security considerations
Authors' Addresses
Laurence Lundblade
Security Theory LLC
EMail: lgl@securitytheory.com
Giridhar Mandyam
Qualcomm Technologies Inc.
5775 Morehouse Drive
San Diego, California
USA
Phone: +1 858 651 7200
EMail: mandyam@qti.qualcomm.com
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 110]
Internet-Draft EAT July 2022
Jeremy O'Donoghue
Qualcomm Technologies Inc.
279 Farnborough Road
Farnborough GU14 7LS
United Kingdom
Phone: +44 1252 363189
EMail: jodonogh@qti.qualcomm.com
Lundblade, et al. Expires January 11, 2023 [Page 111]