Internet DRAFT - draft-nandakumar-suit-secfu-requirements
draft-nandakumar-suit-secfu-requirements
Network Working Group S. Nandakumar
Internet-Draft C. Jennings
Intended status: Standards Track S. Cooley
Expires: May 3, 2018 Cisco
October 30, 2017
Solution Requirements - Secure Firmware Upgrade (SecFU)
draft-nandakumar-suit-secfu-requirements-00
Abstract
The IETF SUIT effort has been forming to define a secure firmware
upgrade solution for Internet of Things (IOT). Recent
vulnerabilities and the need to upgrade firmware on the IoT devices
for security updates in a standardized, secure, and automated fashion
has been the driving force behind this work.
This specification is a requirements document to aid in developing a
solution for Secure Firmware upgrade of the IoT devices.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
Nandakumar, et al. Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SecFU October 2017
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Solution Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. IANA Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Introduction
This draft outlines a set of requirements around firmware download
for IoT devices. A sketch of a proposed solution can be found in .
2. Solution Requirements
Informally, a secure firmware upgrade solution might need to address
following components:
o Secure firmware description container format, in the form of
Manifest
o Locating a server to download the firmware from
o Downloading the manifest and the firmware image(s)
o Cryptographic validation of the manifest and signed code images
o Complete the installation
Given above tasks, this specification breaks down the secure firmware
upgrade solution into following requirements:
1. Solution must allow devices that delete the old firmware before
installing the new firmware. Thus implying a solution that can
easily be implementable on a minimal boot-loader
2. Solution must enable devices that have enough memory to have the
new firmware image of the firmware simultaneously loaded with
the existing image.
3. The manifest format should be self describing.
Nandakumar, et al. Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SecFU October 2017
4. Allow a given device to decide which manifest format is
appropriate for it choosing from JSON, CBOR, or perhaps ASN.1 if
there is a a device vendor that plans to use this
5. Manifest must allow metadata about the firmware sourced by a
single manufacturer
6. Optionally, the solution may allow the manifest to describe
metadata about firmwares from different providers
7. The solution should enable firmware that is delivered as a
single image
8. Optionally, the solution may enable firmware to be split into
multiple images.
9. The charter should recommend a solution agnostic to the format
of the firmware image and inter dependencies. Dependency
management is complicated and is by nature proprietary and
should not be in the initial scope.
10. The proposed solution must provide mechanism to discover where
to download the firmware where that mechanism includes the
ability for a local cache.
11. The proposed solution should allow flexibility to choose the
underlying transport protocol as defined by the deployment
scenarios. The WG should define a MTI set of protocols that
firmware servers need to implement and clients can choose which
one to use
12. The proposed solution must require a device to validate
signatures on the manifest and firmware image(s)
13. Optionally, the solution might want to support encrypted
manifest and firmware
14. The proposed solution should enable crypto agility and prevent
roll-back attacks.
15. Solution should allow for secure transition between the
generations of the keying material
16. Charter should not invent new crypto or transports and use
existing techniques
Nandakumar, et al. Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SecFU October 2017
3. IANA Consideration
Not Applicable
4. Security Considerations
Not Applicable
5. Acknowledgements
Thanks IOTSU workshop.
Authors' Addresses
Suhas Nandakumar
Cisco
Email: snandaku@cisco.com
Cullen Jennings
Cisco
Email: fluffy@iii.ca
Shaun Cooley
Cisco
Email: scooley@cisco.com
Nandakumar, et al. Expires May 3, 2018 [Page 4]
