[Search] [pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02                                                      
SUIT                                                            B. Moran
Internet-Draft                                             H. Tschofenig
Intended status: Standards Track                             Arm Limited
Expires: September 10, 2020                               March 09, 2020


          Strong Assertions of IoT Network Access Requirements
                        draft-moran-suit-mud-00

Abstract

   The Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) specification describes the
   access and network functionality required a device to properly
   function.  The MUD description has to reflect the software running on
   the device and its configuration.  Because of this, the most
   appropriate entity for describing device network access requirements
   is the same as the entity developing the software and its
   configuration.

   A network presented with a MUD file by a device allows detection of
   misbehavior by the device software and configuration of access
   control.

   This document defines a way to link a SUIT manifest to a MUD file
   offering a stronger binding between the two.

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 September 10, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.




Moran & Tschofenig     Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             SUIT CBOR Manifest                 March 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.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Architecture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Extensions to SUIT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   Under [RFC8520], devices report a URL to a MUD manager in the
   network.  RFC 8520 envisions different approaches for conveying the
   information from the device to the network such as:

   -  DHCP,

   -  IEEE802.1AB Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP), and

   -  IEEE 802.1X whereby the URL to the MUD file would be contained in
      the certificate used in an EAP method.






Moran & Tschofenig     Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             SUIT CBOR Manifest                 March 2020


   The MUD manager then uses the the URL to fetch the MUD file, which
   contains access and network functionality required a device to
   properly function.

   The MUD manager must trust the service from which the URL is fetched
   and to return an authentic copy of the MUD file.  This concern may be
   mitigated using the optional signature reference in the MUD file.
   The MUD manager must also trust the device to report a correct URL.
   In case of DHCP and LLDP the URL is unprotected.  When the URL to the
   MUD file is included in a certificate then it is authenticated and
   integrity protected.  A certificate created for use with network
   access authentication is typically not signed by the entity that
   wrote the software and configured the device, which leads to
   conflation of local network access rights with rights to assert all
   network access requirements.

   There is a need to bind the entity that creates the software and
   configuration to the MUD file because only that entity can attest the
   network access requirements of the device.  This specification
   defines an extension to the SUIT manifest to include a MUD file (per
   reference or by value).  When combining a manufacturer usage
   description with a manifest used for software/firmware updates
   (potentially augmented with attestation) then a network operator can
   get more confidence in the description of the access and network
   functionality required a device to properly function.

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.

3.  Architecture

   The intended workflow is as follows:

   -  At the time of onboarding, devices report their manifest in use to
      the MUD manager.

   -  If the SUIT_MUD_container has been severed, the suit-reference-uri
      can be used to retrieve the complete manifest.

   -  The manifest authenticity is verified by the MUD manager, which
      enforces that the MUD file presented is also authentic and as
      intended by the device software vendor.




Moran & Tschofenig     Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             SUIT CBOR Manifest                 March 2020


   -  Each time a device is updated, rebooted, or otherwise
      substantially changed, it will execute an attestation.

      o  Among other claims in the Entity Attestation Token (EAT)
         [I-D.ietf-rats-eat], the device will report its software
         digest(s), configuration digest(s), primary manifest URI, and
         primary manifest digest to the MUD manager.

      o  The MUD manager can then validate these attestation reports in
         order to check that the device is operating with the expected
         version of software and configuration.

      o  Since the manifest digest is reported, the MUD manager can look
         up the corresponding manifest.

   -  If the MUD manager does not already have a full copy of the
      manifest, it can be acquired using the reference URI.

   -  Once a full copy of the manifest is provided, the MUD manager can
      verify the device attestation report and apply any appropriate
      policy as described by the MUD file.

4.  Extensions to SUIT

   To enable strong assertions about the network access requirements
   that a device should have for a particular software/configuration
   pair, we include the ability to add MUD files to the SUIT manifest.
   However, there are also circumstances in which a device should allow
   the MUD to be changed without a firmware update.  To enable this, we
   add a MUD url to SUIT along with a subject-key identifier, according
   to [RFC7093], mechanism 4 (the keyIdentifier is composed of the hash
   of the DER encoding of the SubjectPublicKeyInfo value).

   The following CDDL describes the extension to the SUIT_Manifest
   structure:

   ? suit-manifest-mud => SUIT_Digest

   The SUIT_Envelope is also amended:

   ? suit-manifest-mud => bstr .cbor SUIT_MUD_container

   SUIT_MUD_container = {
       ? suit-mud-url => #6.32(tstr),
       ? suit-mud-ski => SUIT_Digest,
       ? suit-mud-file => bstr
   }




Moran & Tschofenig     Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             SUIT CBOR Manifest                 March 2020


   The MUD file is included verbatim within the bstr.  No limits are
   placed on the MUD file: it may be any RFC8520-compliant file.

5.  Security Considerations

   This specification links MUD files to other IETF technologies,
   particularly to SUIT manifests, for improving security protection and
   ease of use.  By including MUD files (per reference or by value) in
   SUIT manifests an extra layer of protection has been created and
   synchronization risks can be minimized.  If the MUD file and the
   software/firmware loaded onto the device gets out-of-sync a device
   may be firewalled and, with firewalling by networks in place, the
   device may stop functioning.

6.  IANA Considerations

   suit-manifest-mud must be added as an extension point to the SUIT
   manifest registry.

7.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-rats-eat]
              Mandyam, G., Lundblade, L., Ballesteros, M., and J.
              O'Donoghue, "The Entity Attestation Token (EAT)", draft-
              ietf-rats-eat-03 (work in progress), February 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]
              Moran, B., Tschofenig, H., and H. Birkholz, "A Concise
              Binary Object Representation (CBOR)-based Serialization
              Format for the Software Updates for Internet of Things
              (SUIT) Manifest", draft-ietf-suit-manifest-03 (work in
              progress), February 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>.

   [RFC7093]  Turner, S., Kent, S., and J. Manger, "Additional Methods
              for Generating Key Identifiers Values", RFC 7093,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7093, December 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7093>.

   [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>.





Moran & Tschofenig     Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             SUIT CBOR Manifest                 March 2020


   [RFC8520]  Lear, E., Droms, R., and D. Romascanu, "Manufacturer Usage
              Description Specification", RFC 8520,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8520, March 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8520>.

Authors' Addresses

   Brendan Moran
   Arm Limited

   EMail: Brendan.Moran@arm.com


   Hannes Tschofenig
   Arm Limited

   EMail: hannes.tschofenig@arm.com


































Moran & Tschofenig     Expires September 10, 2020               [Page 6]