Re: [Fud] Charter Text

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Wed, 13 September 2017 14:52 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: fud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: fud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A47C7133055 for <fud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 07:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HdqwnmcewnL8 for <fud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 07:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 447AE132DFB for <fud@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 07:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 830A0300564 for <fud@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:52:06 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id Sysd4lVmt4E9 for <fud@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:52:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [5.5.33.84] (vpn.snozzages.com [204.42.252.17]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BCE630044B; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:52:04 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <4666e022-7b57-29e8-28b9-21a7f193f26f@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:52:08 -0400
Cc: fud@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <991B3FD8-E317-44C0-9A10-44311083B5DD@vigilsec.com>
References: <8f8528da-d1eb-08c7-b3fe-b1f4febed595@gmx.net> <C2FC414A-7DF9-4293-91D4-C050CB591440@vigilsec.com> <4666e022-7b57-29e8-28b9-21a7f193f26f@gmx.net>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/fud/hHAHlMdS1EowZN6Kzic2SFjHONI>
Subject: Re: [Fud] Charter Text
X-BeenThere: fud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: FUD - Firmware Updating Description <fud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/fud>, <mailto:fud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/fud/>
List-Post: <mailto:fud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:fud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fud>, <mailto:fud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:52:09 -0000

Thanks for addressing my comments.

Russ


> On Sep 13, 2017, at 10:46 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Russ,
> 
> thanks for your feedback.
> 
> A few remarks below:
> 
> On 08/14/2017 03:05 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
>> I'm jumping into this conversation after vacation.  I have read the whole thread to date before composing this note.
>> 
>> 
>>> Firmware Updating Description (FUD)
>> 
>> The page that Kathleen set up call this group Firmware UpDate (FUD).
>> 
>> 
>>> Vulnerabilities with Internet of Things (IoT) devices have raised the
>>> need for a secure firmware update mechanism that is also suitable for
>>> constrained devices. Security experts, researchers and regulators
>>> recommend that all IoT devices are equipped with such a mechanism. While
>>> there are many proprietary firmware update mechanisms in use today there
>>> is a lack of an modern interoperable approach of securely updating IoT
>>> devices.
>>> 
>>> A firmware update solution consists of several components, including a
>>> mechanism to transport firmware images to IoT devices and a manifest
>>> that provides meta-data about the firmware image as well as
>>> cryptographic information for protecting the firmware image in an
>>> end-to-end fashion. With RFC 4018 the IETF standardized a manifest
>>> format that uses the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) to protect
>>> firmware packages.
>> 
>> There are some vital pieces of information that need to be conveyed, but from the above text, it is not clear to me whether they are expected to be in the manifest and meta-data.  The vital data includes:
>> 
>>   - a firmware package identifier;
>>   - whether the package is a patch or upgrade;
>>   - the hardware the package needs to run;
>>   - dependencies on other firmware packages; and
>>   - if the package is encrypted to protect intellectual property, the key needed to decrypt it.
>> 
> -----
> 
> The above-listed information is expected to be included in the manifest.
> Maybe the paragraph should be expanded in the following way:
> 
> A firmware update solution consists of several components, including
> * a mechanism to transport firmware images to IoT devices,
> * a manifest that provides meta-data about the firmware image (such as a
> firmware package identifier, the hardware the package needs to run,
> dependencies on other firmware packages, etc.) as well as
> cryptographic information for protecting the firmware image in an
> end-to-end fashion, and
> * the firmware image itself.
> With RFC 4018 the IETF standardized a manifest format that uses the
> Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) to protect firmware packages.
> 
> -----
> Do you think that this is better text?
> 
>> 
>>> Since the publication of RFC 4108 more than 10 years have passed and
>>> more experience with IoT deployments have lead to additional
>>> functionality requiring the work done with RFC 4108 to be revisited. The
>>> purpose of this group is to standardize a version 2 of RFC 4108 that
>>> reflects best current practices. This group will not define any
>>> transport mechanism.
>>> 
>>> In 2016 the Internet Architecture Board organized a workshop on
>>> 'Internet of Things (IoT) Software Update (IOTSU)', which took place at
>>> Trinity College Dublin, Ireland on the 13th and 14th of June, 2016. The
>> 
>> 13-14 June 2016
> OK.
> 
> 
>> 
>>> main goal of the workshop was to foster a discussion on requirements,
>>> challenges and solutions for bringing software and firmware updates to
>>> IoT devices. This workshop also made clear that there are challenges
>>> with lack of regulatory requirements, and misaligned incentives. It is
>>> nevertheless seen as important to standardize the building blocks that
>>> help interested parties to implement and deploy a solid firmware update
>>> mechanism.
>>> 
>>> In particular this group aims to publish two documents, namely
>>> * an IoT firmware update architecture that includes a description of
>>> the involved entities, security threats and assumptions, and
>>> * the manifest format itself.
>> 
>> The text a few paragraphs ago made me think that rfc4108bis was an output.  Why is it not here?
>> 
>>> This group does not aim to standardize a generic software update
>>> mechanism used by rich operating systems, like Linux, but instead
>>> focuses on software development practices in the embedded industry.
>> 
>> This should be expanded to make it clear that JavaScript is not a goal either.
>> 
> 
> Good point.
> 
> -----
> 
> This group does not aim to standardize a generic software update
> mechanism used by rich operating systems, like Linux, but instead
> focuses on software development practices in the embedded industry.
> Software update solutions that aim to take the features of scripting
> languages, such as JavaScript variants like JerryScript, into account
> are also outside the scope of this group.
> 
> -----
> 
>>> This group will aim to develop a close relationship with silicon vendors
>>> and OEMs that develop IoT operating systems.
>>> 
>>> Milestones
>>> 
>>> Dec 2017     Submit "Architecture" document as WG item.
>>> 
>>> Dec 2017     Submit "Manifest Format" specification as WG item.
>>> 
>>> Jul 2018    Submit "Architecture" to the IESG for publication as an
>>> Informational RFC.
>>> 
>>> Nov 2018     Submit "Manifest Format" to the IESG for publication as a
>>> Proposed Standard.
>> 
>> The text a few paragraphs ago made me think that rfc4108bis was an output.  Why is it not here?
> I didn't use the term "rfc4108bis" but instead called it "manifest format".
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
>> Russ
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Fud mailing list
> Fud@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fud