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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 05 June 2020 17:36 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 7C38C3A0B1A for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 10:36:33 -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 210VKGtoniS5 for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 10:36:31 -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 F401C3A0B14 for <suit@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 10:36:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92F9A38A26; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 13:34:04 -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 GSexhvItkTIR; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 13:34:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE98138A18; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 13:34:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ED942B3; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 13:36:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Dick Brooks" <dick@reliableenergyanalytics.com>
cc: "'Hannes Tschofenig'" <Hannes.Tschofenig@arm.com>, suit@ietf.org, "'Saad EL JAOUHARI'" <saadeljaou@gmail.com>, "'Eliot Lear'" <lear@cisco.com>, "'Henk Birkholz'" <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>
In-Reply-To: <1076601d63b3a$d53f5d90$7fbe18b0$@reliableenergyanalytics.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>
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: Fri, 05 Jun 2020 13:36:28 -0400
Message-ID: <11051.1591378588@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/suit/s3SB30zFXwbtxMiSNktKkz71eTs>
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: Fri, 05 Jun 2020 17:36:33 -0000

Dick Brooks <dick@reliableenergyanalytics.com> wrote:
    > Thanks, Michael Richardson. I'm uncertain that MUD has exactly what I'm
    > looking for to meet NERC CIP-010-3 R1, Part 1.6 expectations, after a
    > cursory look at the standard. I don't see where the MUD process would
    > support deep introspection and corroborating evidence within a risk
    > assessment control prior to deployment, which is what I need for NERC
    > CIP-010-3.

It does not offer any of those things.

It offers an attribute/value mechanism signed by the manufacturer, possibly
specific to a given firmware revision, in which you can put a pointer to
some kind of SBOM that would provide you the right information.

We can also do this from the SUIT Manifest, but I suspect that the extra
layer of indirection will benefit the ecosystems.

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