SUIT B. Moran
Internet-Draft H. Tschofenig
Intended status: Informational Arm Limited
Expires: May 1, 2021 H. Birkholz
Fraunhofer SIT
October 28, 2020
An Information Model for Firmware Updates in IoT Devices
draft-ietf-suit-information-model-08
Abstract
Vulnerabilities with Internet of Things (IoT) devices have raised the
need for a reliable and secure firmware update mechanism that is also
suitable for constrained devices. Ensuring that devices function and
remain secure over their service life requires such an update
mechanism to fix vulnerabilities, to update configuration settings,
as well as adding new functionality.
One component of such a firmware update is a concise and machine-
processable meta-data document, or manifest, that describes the
firmware image(s) and offers appropriate protection. This document
describes the information that must be present in the manifest.
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 May 1, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include 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
2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Manifest Information Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Manifest Element: Version ID of the manifest structure . 6
3.2. Manifest Element: Monotonic Sequence Number . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Manifest Element: Vendor ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.1. Example: Domain Name-based UUIDs . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. Manifest Element: Class ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4.1. Example 1: Different Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4.2. Example 2: Upgrading Class ID . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4.3. Example 3: Shared Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4.4. Example 4: White-labelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5. Manifest Element: Precursor Image Digest Condition . . . 10
3.6. Manifest Element: Required Image Version List . . . . . . 10
3.7. Manifest Element: Expiration Time . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.8. Manifest Element: Payload Format . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.9. Manifest Element: Processing Steps . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.10. Manifest Element: Storage Location . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.10.1. Example 1: Two Storage Locations . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.10.2. Example 2: File System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.10.3. Example 3: Flash Memory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.11. Manifest Element: Component Identifier . . . . . . . . . 12
3.12. Manifest Element: Resource Indicator . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.13. Manifest Element: Payload Digests . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.14. Manifest Element: Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.15. Manifest Envelope Element: Signature . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.16. Manifest Element: Additional installation instructions . 14
3.17. Manifest Element: Aliases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.18. Manifest Element: Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.19. Manifest Element: Encryption Wrapper . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.20. Manifest Element: XIP Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.21. Manifest Element: Load-time metadata . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.22. Manifest Element: Run-time metadata . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.23. Manifest Element: Payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.24. Manifest Envelope Element: Delegation Chain . . . . . . . 16
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1. Threat Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2. Threat Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2.1. THREAT.IMG.EXPIRED: Old Firmware . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2.2. THREAT.IMG.EXPIRED.OFFLINE : Offline device + Old
Firmware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.2.3. THREAT.IMG.INCOMPATIBLE: Mismatched Firmware . . . . 18
4.2.4. THREAT.IMG.FORMAT: The target device misinterprets
the type of payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.2.5. THREAT.IMG.LOCATION: The target device installs the
payload to the wrong location . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.2.6. THREAT.NET.REDIRECT: Redirection to inauthentic
payload hosting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.2.7. THREAT.NET.ONPATH: Traffic interception . . . . . . . 20
4.2.8. THREAT.IMG.REPLACE: Payload Replacement . . . . . . . 20
4.2.9. THREAT.IMG.NON_AUTH: Unauthenticated Images . . . . . 21
4.2.10. THREAT.UPD.WRONG_PRECURSOR: Unexpected Precursor
images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.2.11. THREAT.UPD.UNAPPROVED: Unapproved Firmware . . . . . 21
4.2.12. THREAT.IMG.DISCLOSURE: Reverse Engineering Of
Firmware Image for Vulnerability Analysis . . . . . . 23
4.2.13. THREAT.MFST.OVERRIDE: Overriding Critical Manifest
Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2.14. THREAT.MFST.EXPOSURE: Confidential Manifest Element
Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.2.15. THREAT.IMG.EXTRA: Extra data after image . . . . . . 24
4.2.16. THREAT.KEY.EXPOSURE: Exposure of signing keys . . . . 24
4.2.17. THREAT.MFST.MODIFICATION: Modification of manifest or
payload prior to signing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.2.18. THREAT.MFST.TOCTOU: Modification of manifest between
authentication and use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.3. Security Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.3.1. REQ.SEC.SEQUENCE: Monotonic Sequence Numbers . . . . 25
4.3.2. REQ.SEC.COMPATIBLE: Vendor, Device-type Identifiers . 26
4.3.3. REQ.SEC.EXP: Expiration Time . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.3.4. REQ.SEC.AUTHENTIC: Cryptographic Authenticity . . . . 26
4.3.5. REQ.SEC.AUTH.IMG_TYPE: Authenticated Payload Type . . 27
4.3.6. Security Requirement REQ.SEC.AUTH.IMG_LOC:
Authenticated Storage Location . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.3.7. REQ.SEC.AUTH.REMOTE_LOC: Authenticated Remote
Resource Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.3.8. REQ.SEC.AUTH.EXEC: Secure Execution . . . . . . . . . 27
4.3.9. REQ.SEC.AUTH.PRECURSOR: Authenticated precursor
images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.3.10. REQ.SEC.AUTH.COMPATIBILITY: Authenticated Vendor and
Class IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.3.11. REQ.SEC.RIGHTS: Rights Require Authenticity . . . . . 28
4.3.12. REQ.SEC.IMG.CONFIDENTIALITY: Payload Encryption . . . 28
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
4.3.13. REQ.SEC.ACCESS_CONTROL: Access Control . . . . . . . 29
4.3.14. REQ.SEC.MFST.CONFIDENTIALITY: Encrypted Manifests . . 29
4.3.15. REQ.SEC.IMG.COMPLETE_DIGEST: Whole Image Digest . . . 29
4.3.16. REQ.SEC.REPORTING: Secure Reporting . . . . . . . . . 30
4.3.17. REQ.SEC.KEY.PROTECTION: Protected storage of signing
keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.3.18. REQ.SEC.MFST.CHECK: Validate manifests prior to
deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.3.19. REQ.SEC.MFST.TRUSTED: Construct manifests in a
trusted environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.3.20. REQ.SEC.MFST.CONST: Manifest kept immutable between
check and use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.4. User Stories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.4.1. USER_STORY.INSTALL.INSTRUCTIONS: Installation
Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.4.2. USER_STORY.MFST.FAIL_EARLY: Fail Early . . . . . . . 31
4.4.3. USER_STORY.OVERRIDE: Override Non-Critical Manifest
Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.4.4. USER_STORY.COMPONENT: Component Update . . . . . . . 32
4.4.5. USER_STORY.MULTI_AUTH: Multiple Authorizations . . . 32
4.4.6. USER_STORY.IMG.FORMAT: Multiple Payload Formats . . . 33
4.4.7. USER_STORY.IMG.CONFIDENTIALITY: Prevent Confidential
Information Disclosures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.4.8. USER_STORY.IMG.UNKNOWN_FORMAT: Prevent Devices from
Unpacking Unknown Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.4.9. USER_STORY.IMG.CURRENT_VERSION: Specify Version
Numbers of Target Firmware . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.4.10. USER_STORY.IMG.SELECT: Enable Devices to Choose
Between Images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.4.11. USER_STORY.EXEC.MFST: Secure Execution Using
Manifests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.4.12. USER_STORY.EXEC.DECOMPRESS: Decompress on Load . . . 34
4.4.13. USER_STORY.MFST.IMG: Payload in Manifest . . . . . . 34
4.4.14. USER_STORY.MFST.PARSE: Simple Parsing . . . . . . . . 34
4.4.15. USER_STORY.MFST.DELEGATION: Delegated Authority in
Manifest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.4.16. USER_STORY.MFST.PRE_CHECK: Update Evaluation . . . . 35
4.5. Usability Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.5.1. REQ.USE.MFST.PRE_CHECK: Pre-Installation Checks . . . 35
4.5.2. REQ.USE.MFST.OVERRIDE_REMOTE: Override Remote
Resource Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.5.3. REQ.USE.MFST.COMPONENT: Component Updates . . . . . . 36
4.5.4. REQ.USE.MFST.MULTI_AUTH: Multiple authentications . . 37
4.5.5. REQ.USE.IMG.FORMAT: Format Usability . . . . . . . . 37
4.5.6. REQ.USE.IMG.NESTED: Nested Formats . . . . . . . . . 37
4.5.7. REQ.USE.IMG.VERSIONS: Target Version Matching . . . . 38
4.5.8. REQ.USE.IMG.SELECT: Select Image by Destination . . . 38
4.5.9. REQ.USE.EXEC: Executable Manifest . . . . . . . . . . 38
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
4.5.10. REQ.USE.LOAD: Load-Time Information . . . . . . . . . 38
4.5.11. REQ.USE.PAYLOAD: Payload in Manifest Envelope . . . . 39
4.5.12. REQ.USE.PARSE: Simple Parsing . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.5.13. REQ.USE.DELEGATION: Delegation of Authority in
Manifest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
1. Introduction
The information model describes all the information elements required
to secure firmware updates of IoT devices from the threats described
in Section 4.1 and enables the user stories captured in Section 4.4.
These threats and user stories are not intended to be an exhaustive
list of the threats against IoT devices, nor of the possible user
stories that describe how to conduct a firmware update. Instead they
are intended to describe the threats against firmware updates in
isolation and provide sufficient motivation to specify the
information elements that cover a wide range of user stories. The
information model does not define the serialization, encoding,
ordering, or structure of information elements, only their semantics.
Because the information model covers a wide range of user stories and
a wide range of threats, not all information elements apply to all
scenarios. As a result, various information elements could be
considered optional to implement and optional to use, depending on
which threats exist in a particular domain of application and which
user stories are required. Elements marked as REQUIRED provide
baseline security and usability properties that are expected to be
required for most applications. Those elements are required to be
implemented and used. Elements marked as RECOMMENDED provide
important security or usability properties that are needed on most
devices. Elements marked as OPTIONAL enable security or usability
properties that are useful in some applications.
The definition of some of the information elements include examples
that illustrate their semantics and how they are intended to be used.
2. Conventions and Terminology
This document uses terms defined in [I-D.ietf-suit-architecture].
The term 'Operator' refers to both Device and Network Operator.
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
Secure time and secure clock refer to a set of requirements on time
sources. For local time sources, this primarily means that the clock
must be monotonically increasing, including across power cycles,
firmware updates, etc. For remote time sources, the provided time
must be guaranteed to be correct to within some predetermined bounds,
whenever the time source is accessible.
The term Envelope is used to describe an encoding that allows the
bundling of a manifest with related information elements that are not
directly contained within the manifest.
The term Payload is used to describe the data that is delivered to a
device during an update. This is distinct from a "firmware image" as
described in [I-D.ietf-suit-architecture] because the payload is
often in an intermediate state, such as being encrypted, compressed
and/or encoded as a differential update. The payload, taken in
isolation, is often not the final firmware image.
2.1. Requirements Notation
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.
3. Manifest Information Elements
Each manifest information element is anchored in a security
requirement or a usability requirement. The manifest elements are
described below, justified by their requirements.
3.1. Manifest Element: Version ID of the manifest structure
An identifier that describes which iteration of the manifest format
is contained in the structure.
This element is REQUIRED in order to allow devices to identify the
version of the manifest data model that is in use.
3.2. Manifest Element: Monotonic Sequence Number
A monotonically increasing sequence number. For convenience, the
monotonic sequence number MAY be a UTC timestamp. This allows global
synchronisation of sequence numbers without any additional
management. This number MUST be possible to extract with a simple,
minimal parser so that code choosing one out of several manifests can
choose which is the latest without fully parsing a complex structure.
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
This element is REQUIRED and is necessary to prevent malicious actors
from reverting a firmware update against the policies of the relevant
authority.
Implements: REQ.SEC.SEQUENCE (Section 4.3.1)
3.3. Manifest Element: Vendor ID
Vendor IDs must be unique. This is to prevent similarly, or
identically named entities from different geographic regions from
colliding in their customer's infrastructure. Recommended practice
is to use [RFC4122] version 5 UUIDs with the vendor's domain name and
the DNS name space ID. Other options include type 1 and type 4
UUIDs.
Vendor ID is not intended to be a human-readable element. It is
intended for binary match/mismatch comparison only.
The use of a Vendor ID is RECOMMENDED. It helps to distinguish
between identically named products from different vendors.
Implements: REQ.SEC.COMPATIBLE (Section 4.3.2),
REQ.SEC.AUTH.COMPATIBILITY (Section 4.3.10).
3.3.1. Example: Domain Name-based UUIDs
Vendor A creates a UUID based on their domain name:
vendorId = UUID5(DNS, "vendor-a.com")
Because the DNS infrastructure prevents multiple registrations of the
same domain name, this UUID is (with very high probability)
guaranteed to be unique. Because the domain name is known, this UUID
is reproducible. Type 1 and type 4 UUIDs produce similar guarantees
of uniqueness, but not reproducibility.
This approach creates a contention when a vendor changes its name or
relinquishes control of a domain name. In this scenario, it is
possible that another vendor would start using that same domain name.
However, this UUID is not proof of identity; a device's trust in a
vendor must be anchored in a cryptographic key, not a UUID.
3.4. Manifest Element: Class ID
A device "Class" is a set of different device types that can accept
the same firmware update without modification. Class IDs MUST be
unique within the scope of a Vendor ID. This is to prevent
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
similarly, or identically named devices colliding in their customer's
infrastructure.
Recommended practice is to use [RFC4122] version 5 UUIDs with as much
information as necessary to define firmware compatibility. Possible
information used to derive the class UUID includes:
o model name or number
o hardware revision
o runtime library version
o bootloader version
o ROM revision
o silicon batch number
The Class Identifier UUID SHOULD use the Vendor ID as the name space
ID. Other options include version 1 and 4 UUIDs. Classes MAY be
more granular than is required to identify firmware compatibility.
Classes MUST NOT be less granular than is required to identify
firmware compatibility. Devices MAY have multiple Class IDs.
Class ID is not intended to be a human-readable element. It is
intended for binary match/mismatch comparison only.
The use of Class ID is RECOMMENDED. It allows devices to determine
applicability of a firmware in an unambiguous way.
If Class ID is not implemented, then each logical device class MUST
use a unique trust anchor for authorization.
Implements: Security Requirement REQ.SEC.COMPATIBLE (Section 4.3.2),
REQ.SEC.AUTH.COMPATIBILITY (Section 4.3.10).
3.4.1. Example 1: Different Classes
Vendor A creates product Z and product Y. The firmware images of
products Z and Y are not interchangeable. Vendor A creates UUIDs as
follows:
o vendorId = UUID5(DNS, "vendor-a.com")
o ZclassId = UUID5(vendorId, "Product Z")
o YclassId = UUID5(vendorId, "Product Y")
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
This ensures that Vendor A's Product Z cannot install firmware for
Product Y and Product Y cannot install firmware for Product Z.
3.4.2. Example 2: Upgrading Class ID
Vendor A creates product X. Later, Vendor A adds a new feature to
product X, creating product X v2. Product X requires a firmware
update to work with firmware intended for product X v2.
Vendor A creates UUIDs as follows:
o vendorId = UUID5(DNS, "vendor-a.com")
o XclassId = UUID5(vendorId, "Product X")
o Xv2classId = UUID5(vendorId, "Product X v2")
When product X receives the firmware update necessary to be
compatible with product X v2, part of the firmware update changes the
class ID to Xv2classId.
3.4.3. Example 3: Shared Functionality
Vendor A produces two products, product X and product Y. These
components share a common core (such as an operating system), but
have different applications. The common core and the applications
can be updated independently. To enable X and Y to receive the same
common core update, they require the same class ID. To ensure that
only product X receives application X and only product Y receives
application Y, product X and product Y must have different class IDs.
The vendor creates Class IDs as follows:
o vendorId = UUID5(DNS, "vendor-a.com")
o XclassId = UUID5(vendorId, "Product X")
o YclassId = UUID5(vendorId, "Product Y")
o CommonClassId = UUID5(vendorId, "common core")
Product X matches against both XclassId and CommonClassId. Product Y
matches against both YclassId and CommonClassId.
3.4.4. Example 4: White-labelling
Vendor A creates a product A and its firmware. Vendor B sells the
product under its own name as Product B with some customised
configuration. The vendors create the Class IDs as follows:
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
o vendorIdA = UUID5(DNS, "vendor-a.com")
o classIdA = UUID5(vendorIdA, "Product A-Unlabelled")
o vendorIdB = UUID5(DNS, "vendor-b.com")
o classIdB = UUID5(vendorIdB, "Product B")
The product will match against each of these class IDs. If Vendor A
and Vendor B provide different components for the device, the
implementor MAY choose to make ID matching scoped to each component.
Then, the vendorIdA, classIdA match the component ID supplied by
Vendor A, and the vendorIdB, classIdB match the component ID supplied
by Vendor B.
3.5. Manifest Element: Precursor Image Digest Condition
When a precursor image is required by the payload format (for
example, differential updates), a precursor image digest condition
MUST be present. The precursor image MAY be installed or stored as a
candidate.
This element is OPTIONAL to implement.
Implements: REQ.SEC.AUTH.PRECURSOR (Section 4.3.9)
3.6. Manifest Element: Required Image Version List
When a payload applies to multiple versions of a firmware, the
required image version list specifies which versions must be present
for the update to be applied. This allows the update author to
target specific versions of firmware for an update, while excluding
those to which it should not be applied.
Where an update can only be applied over specific predecessor
versions, that version MUST be specified by the Required Image
Version List.
This element is OPTIONAL to implement.
Implements: REQ.USE.IMG.VERSIONS (Section 4.5.7)
3.7. Manifest Element: Expiration Time
This element tells a device the time at which the manifest expires
and should no longer be used. This element SHOULD be used where a
secure source of time is provided and firmware is intended to expire
predictably. This element may also be displayed (e.g. via an app)
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
for user confirmation since users typically have a reliable knowledge
of the date.
Special consideration is required for end-of-life: if a firmware will
not be updated again, for example if a business stops issuing updates
to a device. The last valid firmware should not have an expiration
time.
This element is OPTIONAL to implement.
Implements: REQ.SEC.EXP (Section 4.3.3)
3.8. Manifest Element: Payload Format
The format of the payload MUST be indicated to devices in an
unambiguous way. This element provides a mechanism to describe the
payload format, within the signed metadata.
This element is REQUIRED and MUST be present to enable devices to
decode payloads correctly.
Implements: REQ.SEC.AUTH.IMG_TYPE (Section 4.3.5), REQ.USE.IMG.FORMAT
(Section 4.5.5)
3.9. Manifest Element: Processing Steps
A representation of the Processing Steps required to decode a
payload, in particular those that are compressed, packed, or
encrypted. The representation MUST describe which algorithm(s) is
used and any additional parameters required by the algorithm(s). The
representation MAY group Processing Steps together in predefined
combinations.
A Processing Step MAY indicate the expected digest of the payload
after the processing is complete.
Processing steps are RECOMMENDED to implement.
Implements: REQ.USE.IMG.NESTED (Section 4.5.6)
3.10. Manifest Element: Storage Location
This element tells the device where to store a payload within a given
component. The device can use this to establish which permissions
are necessary and the physical storage location to use.
This element is REQUIRED and MUST be present to enable devices to
store payloads to the correct location.
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
Implements: REQ.SEC.AUTH.IMG_LOC (Section 4.3.6)
3.10.1. Example 1: Two Storage Locations
A device supports two components: an OS and an application. These
components can be updated independently, expressing dependencies to
ensure compatibility between the components. The Author chooses two
storage identifiers:
o "OS"
o "APP"
3.10.2. Example 2: File System
A device supports a full filesystem. The Author chooses to use the
storage identifier as the path at which to install the payload. The
payload may be a tarball, in which case, it unpacks the tarball into
the specified path.
3.10.3. Example 3: Flash Memory
A device supports flash memory. The Author chooses to make the
storage identifier the offset where the image should be written.
3.11. Manifest Element: Component Identifier
In a device with more than one storage subsystem, a storage
identifier is insufficient to identify where and how to store a
payload. To resolve this, a component identifier indicates which
part of the storage architecture is targeted by the payload.
This element is OPTIONAL and only necessary in devices with multiple
storage subsystems.
N.B. A serialization MAY choose to combine Component Identifier and
Storage Location (Section 3.10)
Implements: REQ.USE.MFST.COMPONENT (Section 4.5.3)
3.12. Manifest Element: Resource Indicator
This element provides the information required for the device to
acquire the resource. This can be encoded in several ways:
o One URI
o A list of URIs
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
o A prioritised list of URIs
o A list of signed URIs
This element is OPTIONAL and only needed when the target device does
not intrinsically know where to find the payload.
N.B. Devices will typically require URIs.
Implements: REQ.SEC.AUTH.REMOTE_LOC (Section 4.3.7)
3.13. Manifest Element: Payload Digests
This element contains one or more digests of one or more payloads.
This allows the target device to ensure authenticity of the
payload(s). A manifest format MUST provide a mechanism to select one
payload from a list based on system parameters, such as Execute-In-
Place Installation Address.
This element is REQUIRED to implement and fundamentally necessary to
ensure the authenticity and integrity of the payload. Support for
more than one digest is OPTIONAL to implement in a recipient device.
Implements: REQ.SEC.AUTHENTIC (Section 4.3.4), REQ.USE.IMG.SELECT
(Section 4.5.8)
3.14. Manifest Element: Size
The size of the payload in bytes.
Variable-size storage locations MUST be set to exactly the size
listed in this element.
This element is REQUIRED and informs the target device how big of a
payload to expect. Without it, devices are exposed to some classes
of denial of service attack.
Implements: REQ.SEC.AUTH.EXEC (Section 4.3.8)
3.15. Manifest Envelope Element: Signature
The Signature element MUST contain all the information necessary to
cryptographically verify the contents of the manifest against a root
of trust. Because the Signature element authenticates the manifest,
it cannot be contained within the manifest. Instead, the manifest is
either contained within the signature element, or the signature
element is a member of the Manifest Envelope and bundled with the
manifest.
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
This element MAY be provided either by the manifest envelope
serialization or by another serialization of authentication objects,
such as a COSE ([RFC8152]) or CMS ([RFC5652]) signature object. The
Signature element MUST support multiple actors and multiple
authentication methods. It is NOT REQUIRED for a serialization to
authenticate multiple manifests with a single Signature element.
This element is REQUIRED in non-dependency manifests and represents
the foundation of all security properties of the manifest. Manifests
which are included as dependencies by another manifest SHOULD include
a signature so that the recipient can distinguish between different
actors with different permissions.
A manifest MUST NOT be considered authenticated by channel security
even if it contains only channel information (such as URIs). If the
authenticated remote or channel were compromised, the threat actor
could induce recipients to execute queries over any accessible
network. Where public key operations require too many resources, the
recommended authentication mechanism is MAC with a per-device pre-
shared key.
Implements: REQ.SEC.AUTHENTIC (Section 4.3.4), REQ.SEC.RIGHTS
(Section 4.3.11), REQ.USE.MFST.MULTI_AUTH (Section 4.5.4)
3.16. Manifest Element: Additional installation instructions
Instructions that the device should execute when processing the
manifest. This information is distinct from the information
necessary to process a payload. Additional installation instructions
include information such as update timing (for example, install only
on Sunday, at 0200), procedural considerations (for example, shut
down the equipment under control before executing the update), pre-
and post-installation steps (for example, run a script). Other
installation instructions could include requesting user confirmation
before installing.
This element is OPTIONAL.
Implements: REQ.USE.MFST.PRE_CHECK (Section 4.5.1)
3.17. Manifest Element: Aliases
A mechanism for a manifest to augment or replace URIs or URI lists
defined by one or more of its dependencies.
This element is OPTIONAL and enables some user stories.
Implements: REQ.USE.MFST.OVERRIDE_REMOTE (Section 4.5.2)
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
3.18. Manifest Element: Dependencies
A list of other manifests that are required by the current manifest.
Manifests are identified an unambiguous way, such as a digest.
This element is REQUIRED to use in deployments that include both
multiple authorities and multiple payloads.
Implements: REQ.USE.MFST.COMPONENT (Section 4.5.3)
3.19. Manifest Element: Encryption Wrapper
Encrypting firmware images requires symmetric content encryption
keys. The encryption wrapper provides the information needed for a
device to obtain or locate a key that it uses to decrypt the
firmware. This MAY be included in a decryption step contained in
Processing Steps (Section 3.9).
This element is REQUIRED to use for encrypted payloads,
Implements: REQ.SEC.IMG.CONFIDENTIALITY (Section 4.3.12)
3.20. Manifest Element: XIP Address
In order to support XIP systems with multiple possible base
addresses, it is necessary to specify which address the payload is
linked for.
For example a microcontroller may have a simple bootloader that
chooses one of two images to boot. That microcontroller then needs
to choose one of two firmware images to install, based on which of
its two images is older.
This element is OPTIONAL to implement.
Implements: REQ.USE.IMG.SELECT (Section 4.5.8)
3.21. Manifest Element: Load-time metadata
Load-time metadata provides the device with information that it needs
in order to load one or more images. This metadata MAY include any
of:
o the source
o the destination
o the destination address
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
o cryptographic information
o decompression information
o unpacking information
Typically, loading is done by copying an image from its permanent
storage location into its active use location. The metadata allows
operations such as decryption, decompression, and unpacking to be
performed during that copy.
This element is OPTIONAL to implement.
Implements: REQ.USE.LOAD (Section 4.5.10)
3.22. Manifest Element: Run-time metadata
Run-time metadata provides the device with any extra information
needed to boot the device. This may include information such as the
entry-point of an XIP image or the kernel command-line of a Linux
image.
This element is OPTIONAL to implement.
Implements: REQ.USE.EXEC (Section 4.5.9)
3.23. Manifest Element: Payload
The Payload element is contained within the manifest or manifest
envelope. This enables the manifest and payload to be delivered
simultaneously. Typically this is used for delivering small payloads
such as cryptographic keys, or configuration data.
This element is OPTIONAL to implement.
Implements: REQ.USE.PAYLOAD (Section 4.5.11)
3.24. Manifest Envelope Element: Delegation Chain
The Signature (Section 3.15) is NOT REQUIRED to cover the delegation
chain. The delegation chain offers enhanced authorization
functionality via authorization tokens. Each token itself is
protected and does not require another layer of protection and
because the delegation chain is needed to verify the signature, it
must be placed in the Manifest Envelope, rather than the Manifest.
This element is OPTIONAL to implement.
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
Implements: REQ.USE.DELEGATION (Section 4.5.13)
4. Security Considerations
The following sub-sections describe the threat model, user stories,
security requirements, and usability requirements. This section also
provides the motivations for each of the manifest information
elements.
4.1. Threat Model
The following sub-sections aim to provide information about the
threats that were considered, the security requirements that are
derived from those threats and the fields that permit implementation
of the security requirements. This model uses the S.T.R.I.D.E.
[STRIDE] approach. Each threat is classified according to:
o Spoofing identity
o Tampering with data
o Repudiation
o Information disclosure
o Denial of service
o Elevation of privilege
This threat model only covers elements related to the transport of
firmware updates. It explicitly does not cover threats outside of
the transport of firmware updates. For example, threats to an IoT
device due to physical access are out of scope.
4.2. Threat Descriptions
4.2.1. THREAT.IMG.EXPIRED: Old Firmware
Classification: Elevation of Privilege
An attacker sends an old, but valid manifest with an old, but valid
firmware image to a device. If there is a known vulnerability in the
provided firmware image, this may allow an attacker to exploit the
vulnerability and gain control of the device.
Threat Escalation: If the attacker is able to exploit the known
vulnerability, then this threat can be escalated to ALL TYPES.
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
Mitigated by: REQ.SEC.SEQUENCE (Section 4.3.1)
4.2.2. THREAT.IMG.EXPIRED.OFFLINE : Offline device + Old Firmware
Classification: Elevation of Privilege
An attacker targets a device that has been offline for a long time
and runs an old firmware version. The attacker sends an old, but
valid manifest to a device with an old, but valid firmware image.
The attacker-provided firmware is newer than the installed one but
older than the most recently available firmware. If there is a known
vulnerability in the provided firmware image then this may allow an
attacker to gain control of a device. Because the device has been
offline for a long time, it is unaware of any new updates. As such
it will treat the old manifest as the most current.
The exact mitigation for this threat depends on where the threat
comes from. This requires careful consideration by the implementor.
If the threat is from a network actor, including an on-path attacker,
or an intruder into a management system, then a user confirmation can
mitigate this attack, simply by displaying an expiration date and
requesting confirmation. On the other hand, if the user is the
attacker, then an online confirmation system (for example a trusted
timestamp server) can be used as a mitigation system.
Threat Escalation: If the attacker is able to exploit the known
vulnerability, then this threat can be escalated to ALL TYPES.
Mitigated by: REQ.SEC.EXP (Section 4.3.3), REQ.USE.MFST.PRE_CHECK
(Section 4.5.1),
4.2.3. THREAT.IMG.INCOMPATIBLE: Mismatched Firmware
Classification: Denial of Service
An attacker sends a valid firmware image, for the wrong type of
device, signed by an actor with firmware installation permission on
both types of device. The firmware is verified by the device
positively because it is signed by an actor with the appropriate
permission. This could have wide-ranging consequences. For devices
that are similar, it could cause minor breakage, or expose security
vulnerabilities. For devices that are very different, it is likely
to render devices inoperable.
Mitigated by: REQ.SEC.COMPATIBLE (Section 4.3.2)
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
4.2.3.1. Example:
Suppose that two vendors, Vendor A and Vendor B, adopt the same trade
name in different geographic regions, and they both make products
with the same names, or product name matching is not used. This
causes firmware from Vendor A to match devices from Vendor B.
If the vendors are the firmware authorities, then devices from Vendor
A will reject images signed by Vendor B since they use different
credentials. However, if both devices trust the same Author, then,
devices from Vendor A could install firmware intended for devices
from Vendor B.
4.2.4. THREAT.IMG.FORMAT: The target device misinterprets the type of
payload
Classification: Denial of Service
If a device misinterprets the format of the firmware image, it may
cause a device to install a firmware image incorrectly. An
incorrectly installed firmware image would likely cause the device to
stop functioning.
Threat Escalation: An attacker that can cause a device to
misinterpret the received firmware image may gain elevation of
privilege and potentially expand this to all types of threat.
Mitigated by: REQ.SEC.AUTH.IMG_TYPE (Section 4.3.5)
4.2.5. THREAT.IMG.LOCATION: The target device installs the payload to
the wrong location
Classification: Denial of Service
If a device installs a firmware image to the wrong location on the
device, then it is likely to break. For example, a firmware image
installed as an application could cause a device and/or an
application to stop functioning.
Threat Escalation: An attacker that can cause a device to
misinterpret the received code may gain elevation of privilege and
potentially expand this to all types of threat.
Mitigated by: REQ.SEC.AUTH.IMG_LOC (Section 4.3.6)
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
4.2.6. THREAT.NET.REDIRECT: Redirection to inauthentic payload hosting
Classification: Denial of Service
If a device does not know where to obtain the payload for an update,
it may be redirected to an attacker's server. This would allow an
attacker to provide broken payloads to devices.
Mitigated by: REQ.SEC.AUTH.REMOTE_LOC (Section 4.3.7)
4.2.7. THREAT.NET.ONPATH: Traffic interception
Classification: Spoofing Identity, Tampering with Data
An attacker intercepts all traffic to and from a device. The
attacker can monitor or modify any data sent to or received from the
device. This can take the form of: manifests, payloads, status
reports, and capability reports being modified or not delivered to
the intended recipient. It can also take the form of analysis of
data sent to or from the device, either in content, size, or
frequency.
Mitigated by: REQ.SEC.AUTHENTIC (Section 4.3.4),
REQ.SEC.IMG.CONFIDENTIALITY (Section 4.3.12), REQ.SEC.AUTH.REMOTE_LOC
(Section 4.3.7), REQ.SEC.MFST.CONFIDENTIALITY (Section 4.3.14),
REQ.SEC.REPORTING (Section 4.3.16)
4.2.8. THREAT.IMG.REPLACE: Payload Replacement
Classification: Elevation of Privilege
An attacker replaces a newly downloaded firmware after a device
finishes verifying a manifest. This could cause the device to
execute the attacker's code. This attack likely requires physical
access to the device. However, it is possible that this attack is
carried out in combination with another threat that allows remote
execution. This is a typical Time Of Check/Time Of Use threat.
Threat Escalation: If the attacker is able to exploit a known
vulnerability, or if the attacker can supply their own firmware, then
this threat can be escalated to ALL TYPES.
Mitigated by: REQ.SEC.AUTH.EXEC (Section 4.3.8)
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
4.2.9. THREAT.IMG.NON_AUTH: Unauthenticated Images
Classification: Elevation of Privilege / All Types
If an attacker can install their firmware on a device, by
manipulating either payload or metadata, then they have complete
control of the device.
Mitigated by: REQ.SEC.AUTHENTIC (Section 4.3.4)
4.2.10. THREAT.UPD.WRONG_PRECURSOR: Unexpected Precursor images
Classification: Denial of Service / All Types
An attacker sends a valid, current manifest to a device that has an
unexpected precursor image. If a payload format requires a precursor
image (for example, delta updates) and that precursor image is not
available on the target device, it could cause the update to break.
An attacker that can cause a device to install a payload against the
wrong precursor image could gain elevation of privilege and
potentially expand this to all types of threat. However, it is
unlikely that a valid differential update applied to an incorrect
precursor would result in a functional, but vulnerable firmware.
Mitigated by: REQ.SEC.AUTH.PRECURSOR (Section 4.3.9)
4.2.11. THREAT.UPD.UNAPPROVED: Unapproved Firmware
Classification: Denial of Service, Elevation of Privilege
This threat can appear in several ways, however it is ultimately
about ensuring that devices retain the behaviour required by their
Owner, Device Operator, or Network Operator. The owner or operator
of a device typically requires that the device maintain certain
features, functions, capabilities, behaviours, or interoperability
constraints (more generally, behaviour). If these requirements are
broken, then a device will not fulfill its purpose. Therefore, if
any party other than the device's Owner or the Owner's contracted
Device Operator has the ability to modify device behaviour without
approval, then this constitutes an elevation of privilege.
Similarly, a network operator may require that devices behave in a
particular way in order to maintain the integrity of the network. If
devices behaviour on a network can be modified without the approval
of the network operator, then this constitutes an elevation of
privilege with respect to the network.
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
For example, if the owner of a device has purchased that device
because of Features A, B, and C, and a firmware update is issued by
the manufacturer, which removes Feature A, then the device may not
fulfill the owner's requirements any more. In certain circumstances,
this can cause significantly greater threats. Suppose that Feature A
is used to implement a safety-critical system, whether the
manufacturer intended this behaviour or not. When unapproved
firmware is installed, the system may become unsafe.
In a second example, the owner or operator of a system of two or more
interoperating devices needs to approve firmware for their system in
order to ensure interoperability with other devices in the system.
If the firmware is not qualified, the system as a whole may not work.
Therefore, if a device installs firmware without the approval of the
device owner or operator, this is a threat to devices or the system
as a whole.
Similarly, the operator of a network may need to approve firmware for
devices attached to the network in order to ensure favourable
operating conditions within the network. If the firmware is not
qualified, it may degrade the performance of the network. Therefore,
if a device installs firmware without the approval of the network
operator, this is a threat to the network itself.
Threat Escalation: If the firmware expects configuration that is
present in devices deployed in Network A, but not in devices deployed
in Network B, then the device may experience degraded security,
leading to threats of All Types.
Mitigated by: REQ.SEC.RIGHTS (Section 4.3.11), REQ.SEC.ACCESS_CONTROL
(Section 4.3.13)
4.2.11.1. Example 1: Multiple Network Operators with a Single Device
Operator
In this example, assume that Device Operators expect the rights to
create firmware but that Network Operators expect the rights to
qualify firmware as fit-for-purpose on their networks. Additionally,
assume that Device Operators manage devices that can be deployed on
any network, including Network A and B in our example.
An attacker may obtain a manifest for a device on Network A. Then,
this attacker sends that manifest to a device on Network B. Because
Network A and Network B are under control of different Operators, and
the firmware for a device on Network A has not been qualified to be
deployed on Network B, the target device on Network B is now in
violation of the Operator B's policy and may be disabled by this
unqualified, but signed firmware.
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
This is a denial of service because it can render devices inoperable.
This is an elevation of privilege because it allows the attacker to
make installation decisions that should be made by the Operator.
4.2.11.2. Example 2: Single Network Operator with Multiple Device
Operators
Multiple devices that interoperate are used on the same network and
communicate with each other. Some devices are manufactured and
managed by Device Operator A and other devices by Device Operator B.
A new firmware is released by Device Operator A that breaks
compatibility with devices from Device Operator B. An attacker sends
the new firmware to the devices managed by Device Operator A without
approval of the Network Operator. This breaks the behaviour of the
larger system causing denial of service and possibly other threats.
Where the network is a distributed SCADA system, this could cause
misbehaviour of the process that is under control.
4.2.12. THREAT.IMG.DISCLOSURE: Reverse Engineering Of Firmware Image
for Vulnerability Analysis
Classification: All Types
An attacker wants to mount an attack on an IoT device. To prepare
the attack he or she retrieves the provided firmware image and
performs reverse engineering of the firmware image to analyze it for
specific vulnerabilities.
Mitigated by: REQ.SEC.IMG.CONFIDENTIALITY (Section 4.3.12)
4.2.13. THREAT.MFST.OVERRIDE: Overriding Critical Manifest Elements
Classification: Elevation of Privilege
An authorized actor, but not the Author, uses an override mechanism
(USER_STORY.OVERRIDE (Section 4.4.3)) to change an information
element in a manifest signed by the Author. For example, if the
authorized actor overrides the digest and URI of the payload, the
actor can replace the entire payload with a payload of their choice.
Threat Escalation: By overriding elements such as payload
installation instructions or firmware digest, this threat can be
escalated to all types.
Mitigated by: REQ.SEC.ACCESS_CONTROL (Section 4.3.13)
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
4.2.14. THREAT.MFST.EXPOSURE: Confidential Manifest Element Exposure
Classification: Information Disclosure
A third party may be able to extract sensitive information from the
manifest.
Mitigated by: REQ.SEC.MFST.CONFIDENTIALITY (Section 4.3.14)
4.2.15. THREAT.IMG.EXTRA: Extra data after image
Classification: All Types
If a third party modifies the image so that it contains extra code
after a valid, authentic image, that third party can then use their
own code in order to make better use of an existing vulnerability.
Mitigated by: REQ.SEC.IMG.COMPLETE_DIGEST (Section 4.3.15)
4.2.16. THREAT.KEY.EXPOSURE: Exposure of signing keys
Classification: All Types
If a third party obtains a key or even indirect access to a key, for
example in an HSM, then they can perform the same actions as the
legitimate owner of the key. If the key is trusted for firmware
update, then the third party can perform firmware updates as though
they were the legitimate owner of the key.
For example, if manifest signing is performed on a server connected
to the internet, an attacker may compromise the server and then be
able to sign manifests, even if the keys for manifest signing are
held in an HSM that is accessed by the server.
Mitigated by: REQ.SEC.KEY.PROTECTION (Section 4.3.17)
4.2.17. THREAT.MFST.MODIFICATION: Modification of manifest or payload
prior to signing
Classification: All Types
If an attacker can alter a manifest or payload before it is signed,
they can perform all the same actions as the manifest author. This
allows the attacker to deploy firmware updates to any devices that
trust the manifest author. If an attacker can modify the code of a
payload before the corresponding manifest is created, they can insert
their own code. If an attacker can modify the manifest before it is
signed, they can redirect the manifest to their own payload.
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
For example, the attacker deploys malware to the developer's computer
or signing service that watches manifest creation activities and
inserts code into any binary that is referenced by a manifest.
For example, the attacker deploys malware to the developer's computer
or signing service that replaces the referenced binary (digest) and
URI with the attacker's binary (digest) and URI.
Mitigated by: REQ.SEC.MFST.CHECK (Section 4.3.18),
REQ.SEC.MFST.TRUSTED (Section 4.3.19)
4.2.18. THREAT.MFST.TOCTOU: Modification of manifest between
authentication and use
Classification: All Types
If an attacker can modify a manifest after it is authenticated (Time
Of Check) but before it is used (Time Of Use), then the attacker can
place any content whatsoever in the manifest.
Mitigated by: REQ.SEC.MFST.CONST (Section 4.3.20)
4.3. Security Requirements
The security requirements here are a set of policies that mitigate
the threats described in Section 4.1.
4.3.1. REQ.SEC.SEQUENCE: Monotonic Sequence Numbers
Only an actor with firmware installation authority is permitted to
decide when device firmware can be installed. To enforce this rule,
manifests MUST contain monotonically increasing sequence numbers.
Manifests MAY use UTC epoch timestamps to coordinate monotonically
increasing sequence numbers across many actors in many locations. If
UTC epoch timestamps are used, they MUST NOT be treated as times,
they MUST be treated only as sequence numbers. Devices MUST reject
manifests with sequence numbers smaller than any onboard sequence
number.
Note: This is not a firmware version. It is a manifest sequence
number. A firmware version may be rolled back by creating a new
manifest for the old firmware version with a later sequence number.
Mitigates: THREAT.IMG.EXPIRED (Section 4.2.1)
Implemented by: Monotonic Sequence Number (Section 3.2)
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
4.3.2. REQ.SEC.COMPATIBLE: Vendor, Device-type Identifiers
Devices MUST only apply firmware that is intended for them. Devices
MUST know with fine granularity that a given update applies to their
vendor, model, hardware revision, software revision. Human-readable
identifiers are often error-prone in this regard, so unique
identifiers SHOULD be used.
Mitigates: THREAT.IMG.INCOMPATIBLE (Section 4.2.3)
Implemented by: Vendor ID Condition (Section 3.3), Class ID Condition
(Section 3.4)
4.3.3. REQ.SEC.EXP: Expiration Time
A firmware manifest MAY expire after a given time. Devices MAY
provide a secure clock (local or remote). If a secure clock is
provided and the Firmware manifest has an expiration timestamp, the
device MUST reject the manifest if current time is later than the
expiration time.
Special consideration is required for end-of-life: if a firmware will
not be updated again, for example if a business stops issuing updates
to a device. The last valid firmware should not have an expiration
time.
Mitigates: THREAT.IMG.EXPIRED.OFFLINE (Section 4.2.2)
Implemented by: Expiration Time (Section 3.7)
4.3.4. REQ.SEC.AUTHENTIC: Cryptographic Authenticity
The authenticity of an update MUST be demonstrable. Typically, this
means that updates must be digitally authenticated. Because the
manifest contains information about how to install the update, the
manifest's authenticity MUST also be demonstrable. To reduce the
overhead required for validation, the manifest contains the digest of
the firmware image, rather than a second digital signature. The
authenticity of the manifest can be verified with a digital signature
or Message Authentication Code. The authenticity of the firmware
image is tied to the manifest by the use of a digest of the firmware
image.
Mitigates: THREAT.IMG.NON_AUTH (Section 4.2.9), THREAT.NET.ONPATH
(Section 4.2.7)
Implemented by: Signature (Section 3.15), Payload Digest
(Section 3.13)
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
4.3.5. REQ.SEC.AUTH.IMG_TYPE: Authenticated Payload Type
The type of payload (which may be independent of format) MUST be
authenticated. For example, the target must know whether the payload
is XIP firmware, a loadable module, or configuration data.
Mitigates: THREAT.IMG.FORMAT (Section 4.2.4)
Implemented by: Payload Format (Section 3.8), Storage Location
(Section 3.10)
4.3.6. Security Requirement REQ.SEC.AUTH.IMG_LOC: Authenticated Storage
Location
The location on the target where the payload is to be stored MUST be
authenticated.
Mitigates: THREAT.IMG.LOCATION (Section 4.2.5)
Implemented by: Storage Location (Section 3.10)
4.3.7. REQ.SEC.AUTH.REMOTE_LOC: Authenticated Remote Resource Location
The location where a target should find a payload MUST be
authenticated.
Mitigates: THREAT.NET.REDIRECT (Section 4.2.6), THREAT.NET.ONPATH
(Section 4.2.7)
Implemented by: Resource Indicator (Section 3.12)
4.3.8. REQ.SEC.AUTH.EXEC: Secure Execution
The target SHOULD verify firmware at time of boot. This requires
authenticated payload size, and digest.
Mitigates: THREAT.IMG.REPLACE (Section 4.2.8)
Implemented by: Payload Digest (Section 3.13), Size (Section 3.14)
4.3.9. REQ.SEC.AUTH.PRECURSOR: Authenticated precursor images
If an update uses a differential compression method, it MUST specify
the digest of the precursor image and that digest MUST be
authenticated.
Mitigates: THREAT.UPD.WRONG_PRECURSOR (Section 4.2.10)
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
Implemented by: Precursor Image Digest (Section 3.5)
4.3.10. REQ.SEC.AUTH.COMPATIBILITY: Authenticated Vendor and Class IDs
The identifiers that specify firmware compatibility MUST be
authenticated to ensure that only compatible firmware is installed on
a target device.
Mitigates: THREAT.IMG.INCOMPATIBLE (Section 4.2.3)
Implemented By: Vendor ID Condition (Section 3.3), Class ID Condition
(Section 3.4)
4.3.11. REQ.SEC.RIGHTS: Rights Require Authenticity
If a device grants different rights to different actors, exercising
those rights MUST be accompanied by proof of those rights, in the
form of proof of authenticity. Authenticity mechanisms such as those
required in REQ.SEC.AUTHENTIC (Section 4.3.4) can be used to prove
authenticity.
For example, if a device has a policy that requires that firmware
have both an Authorship right and a Qualification right and if that
device grants Authorship and Qualification rights to different
parties, such as a Device Operator and a Network Operator,
respectively, then the firmware cannot be installed without proof of
rights from both the Device Operator and the Network Operator.
Mitigates: THREAT.UPD.UNAPPROVED (Section 4.2.11)
Implemented by: Signature (Section 3.15)
4.3.12. REQ.SEC.IMG.CONFIDENTIALITY: Payload Encryption
The manifest information model MUST enable encrypted payloads.
Encryption helps to prevent third parties, including attackers, from
reading the content of the firmware image. This can protect against
confidential information disclosures and discovery of vulnerabilities
through reverse engineering. Therefore the manifest must convey the
information required to allow an intended recipient to decrypt an
encrypted payload.
Mitigates: THREAT.IMG.DISCLOSURE (Section 4.2.12), THREAT.NET.ONPATH
(Section 4.2.7)
Implemented by: Encryption Wrapper (Section 3.19)
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
4.3.13. REQ.SEC.ACCESS_CONTROL: Access Control
If a device grants different rights to different actors, then an
exercise of those rights MUST be validated against a list of rights
for the actor. This typically takes the form of an Access Control
List (ACL). ACLs are applied to two scenarios:
1. An ACL decides which elements of the manifest may be overridden
and by which actors.
2. An ACL decides which component identifier/storage identifier
pairs can be written by which actors.
Mitigates: THREAT.MFST.OVERRIDE (Section 4.2.13),
THREAT.UPD.UNAPPROVED (Section 4.2.11)
Implemented by: Client-side code, not specified in manifest.
4.3.14. REQ.SEC.MFST.CONFIDENTIALITY: Encrypted Manifests
It MUST be possible to encrypt part or all of the manifest. This may
be accomplished with either transport encryption or with at-rest
encryption.
Mitigates: THREAT.MFST.EXPOSURE (Section 4.2.14), THREAT.NET.ONPATH
(Section 4.2.7)
Implemented by: External Encryption Wrapper / Transport Security
4.3.15. REQ.SEC.IMG.COMPLETE_DIGEST: Whole Image Digest
The digest SHOULD cover all available space in a fixed-size storage
location. Variable-size storage locations MUST be restricted to
exactly the size of deployed payload. This prevents any data from
being distributed without being covered by the digest. For example,
XIP microcontrollers typically have fixed-size storage. These
devices should deploy a digest that covers the deployed firmware
image, concatenated with the default erased value of any remaining
space.
Mitigates: THREAT.IMG.EXTRA (Section 4.2.15)
Implemented by: Payload Digests (Section 3.13)
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
4.3.16. REQ.SEC.REPORTING: Secure Reporting
Status reports from the device to any remote system SHOULD be
performed over an authenticated, confidential channel in order to
prevent modification or spoofing of the reports.
Mitigates: THREAT.NET.ONPATH (Section 4.2.7)
4.3.17. REQ.SEC.KEY.PROTECTION: Protected storage of signing keys
Cryptographic keys for signing/authenticating manifests SHOULD be
stored in a manner that is inaccessible to networked devices, for
example in an HSM, or an air-gapped computer. This protects against
an attacker obtaining the keys.
Keys SHOULD be stored in a way that limits the risk of a legitimate,
but compromised, entity (such as a server or developer computer)
issuing signing requests.
Mitigates: THREAT.KEY.EXPOSURE (Section 4.2.16)
4.3.18. REQ.SEC.MFST.CHECK: Validate manifests prior to deployment
Manifests SHOULD be parsed and examined prior to deployment to
validate that their contents have not been modified during creation
and signing.
Mitigates: THREAT.MFST.MODIFICATION (Section 4.2.17)
4.3.19. REQ.SEC.MFST.TRUSTED: Construct manifests in a trusted
environment
For high risk deployments, such as large numbers of devices or
critical function devices, manifests SHOULD be constructed in an
environment that is protected from interference, such as an air-
gapped computer. Note that a networked computer connected to an HSM
does not fulfill this requirement (see THREAT.MFST.MODIFICATION
(Section 4.2.17)).
Mitigates: THREAT.MFST.MODIFICATION (Section 4.2.17)
4.3.20. REQ.SEC.MFST.CONST: Manifest kept immutable between check and
use
Both the manifest and any data extracted from it MUST be held
immutable between its authenticity verification (time of check) and
its use (time of use). To make this guarantee, the manifest MUST fit
within an internal memory or a secure memory, such as encrypted
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
memory. The recipient SHOULD defend the manifest from tampering by
code or hardware resident in the recipient, for example other
processes or debuggers.
If an application requires that the manifest is verified before
storing it, then this means the manifest MUST fit in RAM.
Mitigates: THREAT.MFST.TOCTOU (Section 4.2.18)
4.4. User Stories
User stories provide expected use cases. These are used to feed into
usability requirements.
4.4.1. USER_STORY.INSTALL.INSTRUCTIONS: Installation Instructions
As a Device Operator, I want to provide my devices with additional
installation instructions so that I can keep process details out of
my payload data.
Some installation instructions might be:
o Use a table of hashes to ensure that each block of the payload is
validate before writing.
o Do not report progress.
o Pre-cache the update, but do not install.
o Install the pre-cached update matching this manifest.
o Install this update immediately, overriding any long-running
tasks.
Satisfied by: REQ.USE.MFST.PRE_CHECK (Section 4.5.1)
4.4.2. USER_STORY.MFST.FAIL_EARLY: Fail Early
As a designer of a resource-constrained IoT device, I want bad
updates to fail as early as possible to preserve battery life and
limit consumed bandwidth.
Satisfied by: REQ.USE.MFST.PRE_CHECK (Section 4.5.1)
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
4.4.3. USER_STORY.OVERRIDE: Override Non-Critical Manifest Elements
As a Device Operator, I would like to be able to override the non-
critical information in the manifest so that I can control my devices
more precisely. The authority to override this information is
provided via the installation of a limited trust anchor by another
authority.
Some examples of potentially overridable information:
o URIs (Section 3.12): this allows the Device Operator to direct
devices to their own infrastructure in order to reduce network
load.
o Conditions: this allows the Device Operator to pose additional
constraints on the installation of the manifest.
o Directives (Section 3.16): this allows the Device Operator to add
more instructions such as time of installation.
o Processing Steps (Section 3.9): If an intermediary performs an
action on behalf of a device, it may need to override the
processing steps. It is still possible for a device to verify the
final content and the result of any processing step that specifies
a digest. Some processing steps should be non-overridable.
Satisfied by: USER_STORY.OVERRIDE (Section 4.4.3),
REQ.USE.MFST.COMPONENT (Section 4.5.3)
4.4.4. USER_STORY.COMPONENT: Component Update
As a Device Operator, I want to divide my firmware into components,
so that I can reduce the size of updates, make different parties
responsible for different components, and divide my firmware into
frequently updated and infrequently updated components.
Satisfied by: REQ.USE.MFST.COMPONENT (Section 4.5.3)
4.4.5. USER_STORY.MULTI_AUTH: Multiple Authorizations
As a Device Operator, I want to ensure the quality of a firmware
update before installing it, so that I can ensure interoperability of
all devices in my product family. I want to restrict the ability to
make changes to my devices to require my express approval.
Satisfied by: REQ.USE.MFST.MULTI_AUTH (Section 4.5.4),
REQ.SEC.ACCESS_CONTROL (Section 4.3.13)
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
4.4.6. USER_STORY.IMG.FORMAT: Multiple Payload Formats
As a Device Operator, I want to be able to send multiple payload
formats to suit the needs of my update, so that I can optimise the
bandwidth used by my devices.
Satisfied by: REQ.USE.IMG.FORMAT (Section 4.5.5)
4.4.7. USER_STORY.IMG.CONFIDENTIALITY: Prevent Confidential Information
Disclosures
As a firmware author, I want to prevent confidential information from
being disclosed during firmware updates. It is assumed that channel
security or at-rest encryption is adequate to protect the manifest
itself against information disclosure.
Satisfied by: REQ.SEC.IMG.CONFIDENTIALITY (Section 4.3.12)
4.4.8. USER_STORY.IMG.UNKNOWN_FORMAT: Prevent Devices from Unpacking
Unknown Formats
As a Device Operator, I want devices to determine whether they can
process a payload prior to downloading it.
In some cases, it may be desirable for a third party to perform some
processing on behalf of a target. For this to occur, the third party
MUST indicate what processing occurred and how to verify it against
the Trust Provisioning Authority's intent.
This amounts to overriding Processing Steps (Section 3.9) and
Resource Indicator (Section 3.12).
Satisfied by: REQ.USE.IMG.FORMAT (Section 4.5.5), REQ.USE.IMG.NESTED
(Section 4.5.6), REQ.USE.MFST.OVERRIDE_REMOTE (Section 4.5.2)
4.4.9. USER_STORY.IMG.CURRENT_VERSION: Specify Version Numbers of
Target Firmware
As a Device Operator, I want to be able to target devices for updates
based on their current firmware version, so that I can control which
versions are replaced with a single manifest.
Satisfied by: REQ.USE.IMG.VERSIONS (Section 4.5.7)
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
4.4.10. USER_STORY.IMG.SELECT: Enable Devices to Choose Between Images
As a developer, I want to be able to sign two or more versions of my
firmware in a single manifest so that I can use a very simple
bootloader that chooses between two or more images that are executed
in-place.
Satisfied by: REQ.USE.IMG.SELECT (Section 4.5.8)
4.4.11. USER_STORY.EXEC.MFST: Secure Execution Using Manifests
As a signer for both secure execution/boot and firmware deployment, I
would like to use the same signed document for both tasks so that my
data size is smaller, I can share common code, and I can reduce
signature verifications.
Satisfied by: REQ.USE.EXEC (Section 4.5.9)
4.4.12. USER_STORY.EXEC.DECOMPRESS: Decompress on Load
As a developer of firmware for a run-from-RAM device, I would like to
use compressed images and to indicate to the bootloader that I am
using a compressed image in the manifest so that it can be used with
secure execution/boot.
Satisfied by: REQ.USE.LOAD (Section 4.5.10)
4.4.13. USER_STORY.MFST.IMG: Payload in Manifest
As an operator of devices on a constrained network, I would like the
manifest to be able to include a small payload in the same packet so
that I can reduce network traffic.
Small payloads may include, for example, wrapped encryption keys,
configuration information, public keys, authorization tokens, or
X.509 certificates.
Satisfied by: REQ.USE.PAYLOAD (Section 4.5.11)
4.4.14. USER_STORY.MFST.PARSE: Simple Parsing
As a developer for constrained devices, I want a low complexity
library for processing updates so that I can fit more application
code on my device.
Satisfied by: REQ.USE.PARSE (Section 4.5.12)
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
4.4.15. USER_STORY.MFST.DELEGATION: Delegated Authority in Manifest
As a Device Operator that rotates delegated authority more often than
delivering firmware updates, I would like to delegate a new authority
when I deliver a firmware update so that I can accomplish both tasks
in a single transmission.
Satisfied by: REQ.USE.DELEGATION (Section 4.5.13)
4.4.16. USER_STORY.MFST.PRE_CHECK: Update Evaluation
As an operator of a constrained network, I would like devices on my
network to be able to evaluate the suitability of an update prior to
initiating any large download so that I can prevent unnecessary
consumption of bandwidth.
Satisfied by: REQ.USE.MFST.PRE_CHECK (Section 4.5.1)
4.5. Usability Requirements
The following usability requirements satisfy the user stories listed
above.
4.5.1. REQ.USE.MFST.PRE_CHECK: Pre-Installation Checks
It MUST be possible for a manifest author to place ALL information
required to process an update in the manifest.
For example: Information about which precursor image is required for
a differential update MUST be placed in the manifest, not in the
differential compression header.
For example: Information about an installation-time confirmation
system that must be used to allow the installation to proceed.
Satisfies: [USER_STORY.MFST.PRE_CHECK(#user-story-mfst-pre-check),
USER_STORY.INSTALL.INSTRUCTIONS (Section 4.4.1)
Implemented by: Additional installation instructions (Section 3.16)
4.5.2. REQ.USE.MFST.OVERRIDE_REMOTE: Override Remote Resource Location
It MUST be possible to redirect payload fetches. This applies where
two manifests are used in conjunction. For example, a Device
Operator creates a manifest specifying a payload and signs it, and
provides a URI for that payload. A Network Operator creates a second
manifest, with a dependency on the first. They use this second
manifest to override the URIs provided by the Device Operator,
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
directing them into their own infrastructure instead. Some devices
may provide this capability, while others may only look at canonical
sources of firmware. For this to be possible, the device must fetch
the payload, whereas a device that accepts payload pushes will ignore
this feature.
Satisfies: USER_STORY.OVERRIDE (Section 4.4.3)
Implemented by: Aliases (Section 3.17)
4.5.3. REQ.USE.MFST.COMPONENT: Component Updates
It MUST be possible to express the requirement to install one or more
payloads from one or more authorities so that a multi-payload update
can be described. This allows multiple parties with different
permissions to collaborate in creating a single update for the IoT
device, across multiple components.
This requirement effectively means that it must be possible to
construct a tree of manifests on a multi-image target.
In order to enable devices with a heterogeneous storage architecture,
the manifest must enable specification of both storage system and the
storage location within that storage system.
Satisfies: USER_STORY.OVERRIDE (Section 4.4.3), USER_STORY.COMPONENT
(Section 4.4.4)
Implemented by Manifest Element: Dependencies, StorageIdentifier,
ComponentIdentifier
4.5.3.1. Example 1: Multiple Microcontrollers
An IoT device with multiple microcontrollers in the same physical
device (HeSA) will likely require multiple payloads with different
component identifiers.
4.5.3.2. Example 2: Code and Configuration
A firmware image can be divided into two payloads: code and
configuration. These payloads may require authorizations from
different actors in order to install (see REQ.SEC.RIGHTS
(Section 4.3.11) and REQ.SEC.ACCESS_CONTROL (Section 4.3.13)). This
structure means that multiple manifests may be required, with a
dependency structure between them.
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
4.5.3.3. Example 3: Multiple Software Modules
A firmware image can be divided into multiple functional blocks for
separate testing and distribution. This means that code would need
to be distributed in multiple payloads. For example, this might be
desirable in order to ensure that common code between devices is
identical in order to reduce distribution bandwidth.
4.5.4. REQ.USE.MFST.MULTI_AUTH: Multiple authentications
It MUST be possible to authenticate a manifest multiple times so that
authorizations from multiple parties with different permissions can
be required in order to authorize installation of a manifest.
Satisfies: USER_STORY.MULTI_AUTH (Section 4.4.5)
Implemented by: Signature (Section 3.15)
4.5.5. REQ.USE.IMG.FORMAT: Format Usability
The manifest format MUST accommodate any payload format that an
Operator wishes to use. This enables the recipient to detect which
format the Operator has chosen. Some examples of payload format are:
o Binary
o Executable and Linkable Format (ELF)
o Differential
o Compressed
o Packed configuration
o Intel HEX
o Motorola S-Record
Satisfies: USER_STORY.IMG.FORMAT (Section 4.4.6)
USER_STORY.IMG.UNKNOWN_FORMAT (Section 4.4.8)
Implemented by: Payload Format (Section 3.8)
4.5.6. REQ.USE.IMG.NESTED: Nested Formats
The manifest format MUST accommodate nested formats, announcing to
the target device all the nesting steps and any parameters used by
those steps.
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
Satisfies: USER_STORY.IMG.CONFIDENTIALITY (Section 4.4.7)
Implemented by: Processing Steps (Section 3.9)
4.5.7. REQ.USE.IMG.VERSIONS: Target Version Matching
The manifest format MUST provide a method to specify multiple version
numbers of firmware to which the manifest applies, either with a list
or with range matching.
Satisfies: USER_STORY.IMG.CURRENT_VERSION (Section 4.4.9)
Implemented by: Required Image Version List (Section 3.6)
4.5.8. REQ.USE.IMG.SELECT: Select Image by Destination
The manifest format MUST provide a mechanism to list multiple
equivalent payloads by Execute-In-Place Installation Address,
including the payload digest and, optionally, payload URIs.
Satisfies: USER_STORY.IMG.SELECT (Section 4.4.10)
Implemented by: XIP Address (Section 3.20)
4.5.9. REQ.USE.EXEC: Executable Manifest
It MUST be possible to describe an executable system with a manifest
on both Execute-In-Place microcontrollers and on complex operating
systems. This requires the manifest to specify the digest of each
statically linked dependency. In addition, the manifest format MUST
be able to express metadata, such as a kernel command-line, used by
any loader or bootloader.
Satisfies: USER_STORY.EXEC.MFST (Section 4.4.11)
Implemented by: Run-time metadata (Section 3.22)
4.5.10. REQ.USE.LOAD: Load-Time Information
It MUST be possible to specify additional metadata for load time
processing of a payload, such as cryptographic information, load-
address, and compression algorithm.
N.B. load comes before exec/boot.
Satisfies: USER_STORY.EXEC.DECOMPRESS (Section 4.4.12)
Implemented by: Load-time metadata (Section 3.21)
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
4.5.11. REQ.USE.PAYLOAD: Payload in Manifest Envelope
It MUST be possible to place a payload in the same structure as the
manifest. This MAY place the payload in the same packet as the
manifest.
Integrated payloads may include, for example, wrapped encryption
keys, configuration information, public keys, authorization tokens,
or X.509 certificates.
When an integrated payload is provided, this increases the size of
the manifest. Manifest size can cause several processing and storage
concerns that require careful consideration. The payload can prevent
the whole manifest from being contained in a single network packet,
which can cause fragmentation and the loss of portions of the
manifest in lossy networks. This causes the need for reassembly and
retransmission logic. The manifest MUST be held immutable between
verification and processing (see REQ.SEC.MFST.CONST
(Section 4.3.20)), so a larger manifest will consume more memory with
immutability guarantees, for example internal RAM or NVRAM, or
external secure memory. If the manifest exceeds the available
immutable memory, then it MUST be processed modularly, evaluating
each of: delegation chains, the security container, and the actual
manifest, which includes verifying the integrated payload. If the
security model calls for downloading the manifest and validating it
before storing to NVRAM in order to prevent wear to NVRAM and energy
expenditure in NVRAM, then either increasing memory allocated to
manifest storage or modular processing of the received manifest may
be required. While the manifest has been organised to enable this
type of processing, it creates additional complexity in the parser.
If the manifest is stored in NVRAM prior to processing, the
integrated payload may cause the manifest to exceed the available
storage. Because the manifest is received prior to validation of
applicability, authority, or correctness, integrated payloads cause
the recipient to expend network bandwidth and energy that may not be
required if the manifest is discarded and these costs vary with the
size of the integrated payload.
See also: REQ.SEC.MFST.CONST (Section 4.3.20).
Satisfies: USER_STORY.MFST.IMG (Section 4.4.13)
Implemented by: Payload (Section 3.23)
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
4.5.12. REQ.USE.PARSE: Simple Parsing
The structure of the manifest MUST be simple to parse, without need
for a general-purpose parser.
Satisfies: USER_STORY.MFST.PARSE (Section 4.4.14)
Implemented by: N/A
4.5.13. REQ.USE.DELEGATION: Delegation of Authority in Manifest
Any manifest format MUST enable the delivery of a key claim with, but
not authenticated by, a manifest. This key claim delivers a new key
with which the recipient can verify the manifest.
Satisfies: USER_STORY.MFST.DELEGATION (Section 4.4.15)
Implemented by: Delegation Chain (Section 3.24)
5. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any actions by IANA.
6. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank our working group chairs, Dave Thaler, Russ
Housley and David Waltermire, for their review comments and their
support.
We would like to thank the participants of the 2018 Berlin SUIT
Hackathon and the June 2018 virtual design team meetings for their
discussion input. In particular, we would like to thank Koen
Zandberg, Emmanuel Baccelli, Carsten Bormann, David Brown, Markus
Gueller, Frank Audun Kvamtro, Oyvind Ronningstad, Michael Richardson,
Jan-Frederik Rieckers, Francisco Acosta, Anton Gerasimov, Matthias
Waehlisch, Max Groening, Daniel Petry, Gaetan Harter, Ralph Hamm,
Steve Patrick, Fabio Utzig, Paul Lambert, Benjamin Kaduk, Said
Gharout, and Milen Stoychev.
We would like to thank those who contributed to the development of
this information model. In particular, we would like to thank
Milosch Meriac, Jean-Luc Giraud, Dan Ros, Amyas Philips, and Gary
Thomson.
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-suit-architecture]
Moran, B., Tschofenig, H., Brown, D., and M. Meriac, "A
Firmware Update Architecture for Internet of Things",
draft-ietf-suit-architecture-14 (work in progress),
October 2020.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC5652] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD 70,
RFC 5652, DOI 10.17487/RFC5652, September 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5652>.
[RFC8152] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)",
RFC 8152, DOI 10.17487/RFC8152, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8152>.
[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>.
7.2. Informative References
[STRIDE] Microsoft, "The STRIDE Threat Model", May 2018,
<https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/
ee823878(v=cs.20).aspx>.
Authors' Addresses
Brendan Moran
Arm Limited
EMail: Brendan.Moran@arm.com
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft A Firmware Manifest Information Model October 2020
Hannes Tschofenig
Arm Limited
EMail: hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net
Henk Birkholz
Fraunhofer SIT
EMail: henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de
Moran, et al. Expires May 1, 2021 [Page 42]