Re: [Suit] How are firmware and firmware versions expressed in manifest?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 06 June 2020 22:59 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: suit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: suit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E1543A003E for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 15:59:27 -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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 flhGbcz3Pqgs for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 15:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A44893A003C for <suit@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 15:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6481389BB for <suit@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 18:56:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Fqzt6-w7pixz for <suit@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 18:56:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEA5F3899B for <suit@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 18:56:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EF40B0 for <suit@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 18:59:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "suit\@ietf.org" <suit@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR08MB3716939E832E5483CB8575EBFA870@AM0PR08MB3716.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: <AM0PR08MB371631B7C1E6B50DCA29049AFA880@AM0PR08MB3716.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <8b6d01d639d0$62614150$2723c3f0$@reliableenergyanalytics.com> <AM0PR08MB37166AD36B5AA36EA7D7CA9BFA890@AM0PR08MB3716.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <20437.1591317129@localhost> <1076601d63b3a$d53f5d90$7fbe18b0$@reliableenergyanalytics.com> <BF5D5E46-4A7C-44A7-8554-5DE1E03A3F21@cisco.com> <AM0PR08MB3716C555048993639B14D76FFA860@AM0PR08MB3716.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <5820.1591393073@localhost> <AM0PR08MB3716939E832E5483CB8575EBFA870@AM0PR08MB3716.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2020 18:59:18 -0400
Message-ID: <5789.1591484358@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/suit/B1_1-8hMUDMfd4H8_1g3UHS5-x8>
Subject: Re: [Suit] How are firmware and firmware versions expressed in manifest?
X-BeenThere: suit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Software Updates for Internet of Things <suit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/suit>, <mailto:suit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/suit/>
List-Post: <mailto:suit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:suit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/suit>, <mailto:suit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2020 22:59:27 -0000

Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com> wrote:
    > I think the BOM terminology is misleading because hardware is not
    > software. The bill of material to produce an IoT product typically does
    > not change (unless you desolder parts) while the software and
    > configuration will regularly change.

This thinking is really a serious part of the problem that I think SBOM is
trying to address.

We think that the hardware does not change, because it's hardware, but it
does change, because it's a device with an MCU with code baked in by the
manufacturer.
*AND* hardware *DOES* change because there are line cards, expansion slots,
USB connectors that provide PCIe connectivity...

But, a TPM is good example of something one might call hardware, but it's got
a whole SoC in there with software.  That software could have bugs.

    > Leaving that aside, I believe someone active in COSWID needs to clarify
    > what COSWID does. My understanding was that it documents the software

Agreed.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-