rfc9683xml2.original.xml | rfc9683.xml | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> | |||
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?> | ||||
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc2629 version 1.5.26 (Rub | ||||
y 2.6.4) --> | ||||
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [ | ||||
<!DOCTYPE rfc [ | ||||
<!ENTITY nbsp " "> | ||||
<!ENTITY zwsp "​"> | ||||
<!ENTITY nbhy "‑"> | ||||
<!ENTITY wj "⁠"> | ||||
]> | ]> | |||
<?rfc toc="yes"?> | <rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft | |||
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?> | -ietf-rats-tpm-based-network-device-attest-14" number="9683" submissionType="IET | |||
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?> | F" category="info" consensus="true" obsoletes="" updates="" xml:lang="en" tocInc | |||
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?> | lude="true" tocDepth="4" symRefs="true" sortRefs="true" version="3"> | |||
<?rfc compact="yes"?> | ||||
<?rfc subcompact="no"?> | ||||
<rfc ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-rats-tpm-based-network-device-attest- 14" category="info"> | ||||
<front> | <front> | |||
<title abbrev="Network Device RIV">TPM-based Network Device Remote Integrity | <title abbrev="Network Device RIV">Remote Integrity Verification of Network | |||
Verification</title> | Devices Containing Trusted Platform Modules</title> | |||
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9683"/> | ||||
<author initials="G. C." surname="Fedorkow" fullname="Guy Fedorkow" role="ed | <author initials="G. C." surname="Fedorkow" fullname="Guy C. Fedorkow" role= | |||
itor"> | "editor"> | |||
<organization>Juniper Networks, Inc.</organization> | <organization>Juniper Networks, Inc.</organization> | |||
<address> | <address> | |||
<postal> | <postal> | |||
<street>10 Technology Park Drive</street> | <street>10 Technology Park Drive</street> | |||
<city>Westford</city> | <city>Westford</city> | |||
<region>Massachusetts</region> | <region>Massachusetts</region> | |||
<code>01886</code> | <code>01886</code> | |||
<country>US</country> | <country>United States of America</country> | |||
</postal> | </postal> | |||
<phone></phone> | <phone/> | |||
<email>gfedorkow@juniper.net</email> | <email>gfedorkow@juniper.net</email> | |||
</address> | </address> | |||
</author> | </author> | |||
<author initials="E." surname="Voit" fullname="Eric Voit"> | <author initials="E." surname="Voit" fullname="Eric Voit"> | |||
<organization abbrev="Cisco">Cisco Systems</organization> | <organization abbrev="Cisco">Cisco Systems</organization> | |||
<address> | <address> | |||
<email>evoit@cisco.com</email> | <email>evoit@cisco.com</email> | |||
</address> | </address> | |||
</author> | </author> | |||
<author initials="J." surname="Fitzgerald-McKay" fullname="Jessica Fitzgeral d-McKay"> | <author initials="J." surname="Fitzgerald-McKay" fullname="Jessica Fitzgeral d-McKay"> | |||
skipping to change at line 53 ¶ | skipping to change at line 48 ¶ | |||
<postal> | <postal> | |||
<street>9800 Savage Road</street> | <street>9800 Savage Road</street> | |||
<city>Ft. Meade</city> | <city>Ft. Meade</city> | |||
<region>Maryland</region> | <region>Maryland</region> | |||
<code>20755</code> | <code>20755</code> | |||
<country>US</country> | <country>US</country> | |||
</postal> | </postal> | |||
<email>jmfitz2@nsa.gov</email> | <email>jmfitz2@nsa.gov</email> | |||
</address> | </address> | |||
</author> | </author> | |||
<date year="2024" month="November"/> | ||||
<area>sec</area> | ||||
<workgroup>rats</workgroup> | ||||
<date year="2022" month="March" day="22"/> | <keyword>Attestation</keyword> | |||
<keyword>TPM</keyword> | ||||
<area>Security</area> | ||||
<workgroup>RATS Working Group</workgroup> | ||||
<keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword> | ||||
<abstract> | <abstract> | |||
<t>This document describes a workflow for remote attestation of the integr | ||||
<t>This document describes a workflow for remote attestation of the integrity of | ity of firmware and software installed on network devices that contain Trusted P | |||
firmware and software | latform Modules (TPMs), as defined by | |||
installed on network devices that contain Trusted Platform Modules <xref target= | the Trusted Computing Group (TCG), or equivalent hardware implementations that i | |||
"TPM1.2"/>, <xref target="TPM2.0"/>, as defined by | nclude the protected capabilities, as provided by TPMs.</t> | |||
the Trusted Computing Group (TCG)), or equivalent hardware implementations that | ||||
include the protected capabilities, as provided by TPMs.</t> | ||||
</abstract> | </abstract> | |||
</front> | </front> | |||
<middle> | <middle> | |||
<section anchor="introduction" numbered="true" toc="default"> | ||||
<section anchor="introduction" title="Introduction"> | <name>Introduction</name> | |||
<t>There are many aspects to consider in fielding a trusted computing devi | ||||
<t>There are many aspects to consider in fielding a trusted computing device, | ce, | |||
from operating systems to applications. Mechanisms to prove that | from operating systems to applications. Mechanisms to prove that | |||
a device installed at a customer’s site is authentic (i.e., not counterfeit) and | a device installed at a customer's site is authentic (i.e., not counterfeit) and | |||
has | has | |||
been configured with authorized software, all as part of a trusted supply chain, | been configured with authorized software, all as part of a trusted supply chain, | |||
are just a few of the many aspects which need to be considered concurrently to | are just a few of the many aspects that need to be considered concurrently to h | |||
have confidence that a device is truly trustworthy.</t> | ave confidence that a device is truly trustworthy.</t> | |||
<t>A generic architecture for remote attestation has been defined in <xref | ||||
<t>A generic architecture for remote attestation has been defined in <xref targe | target="RFC9334" format="default"/>. Additionally, use cases for remotely atte | |||
t="I-D.ietf-rats-architecture"/>. Additionally, use cases for remotely attestin | sting networking devices are discussed within Section 5 of <xref target="I-D.ric | |||
g networking devices are discussed within Section 6 of <xref target="I-D.richard | hardson-rats-usecases" format="default"/>. However, these documents do not prov | |||
son-rats-usecases"/>. However, these documents do not provide sufficient guidan | ide sufficient guidance for network equipment vendors and operators to design, b | |||
ce for network equipment vendors and operators to design, build, and deploy inte | uild, and deploy interoperable devices.</t> | |||
roperable devices.</t> | <t>The intent of this document is to provide such guidance. It does this b | |||
y outlining the Remote Integrity Verification (RIV) problem and then by identify | ||||
<t>The intent of this document is to provide such guidance. It does this by outl | ing the necessary elements to get the complete, scalable attestation procedure w | |||
ining the Remote Integrity Verification (RIV) problem, and then identifies eleme | orking with commercial networking products such as routers, switches, and firewa | |||
nts that are necessary to get the complete, scalable attestation procedure worki | lls. An underlying assumption is the availability within the device of a crypt | |||
ng with commercial networking products such as routers, switches and firewalls. | oprocessor that is compatible with the Trusted Platform Module specifications <x | |||
An underlying assumption will be the availability within the device of a Trust | ref target="TPM-1.2" format="default"/> <xref target="TPM-2.0" format="default"/ | |||
ed Platform Module <xref target="TPM1.2"/>, <xref target="TPM2.0"/> compatible c | > to enable the trustworthy, remote assessment of the device's software and hard | |||
ryptoprocessor to enable the trustworthy remote assessment of the device’s softw | ware.</t> | |||
are and hardware.</t> | <section anchor="requirements-notation" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
<name>Requirements Notation</name> | ||||
<section anchor="requirements-notation" title="Requirements notation"> | <t> | |||
The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", | ||||
<t>The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, | "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL NOT</bcp14> | |||
“SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “NOT RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and | ", | |||
“OPTIONAL” in this document are to be interpreted as described in | "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", | |||
BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, th | "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", | |||
ey appear in all | "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to | |||
capitals, as shown here.</t> | be | |||
interpreted as described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref | ||||
</section> | target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as | |||
<section anchor="terminology" title="Terminology"> | shown here. | |||
</t> | ||||
<t>A number of terms are reused from <xref target="I-D.ietf-rats-architecture"/> | </section> | |||
. These include: Appraisal Policy for Evidence, Attestation Result, Attester, E | <section anchor="terminology" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
vidence, Reference Value, Relying Party, Verifier, and Verifier Owner.</t> | <name>Terminology</name> | |||
<t>A number of terms are reused from <xref target="RFC9334" format="defa | ||||
<t>Additionally, this document defines the following term:</t> | ult"/>. These include Appraisal Policy for Evidence, Attestation Result, Attest | |||
er, Evidence, Reference Value, Relying Party, Verifier, and Verifier Owner.</t> | ||||
<t>Attestation: the process of generating, conveying and appraising | <t>Additionally, this document defines the following term:</t> | |||
<dl> | ||||
<dt>Attestation:</dt> | ||||
<dd>The process of generating, conveying, and appraising | ||||
claims, backed by evidence, about device trustworthiness characteristics, includ ing supply chain trust, | claims, backed by evidence, about device trustworthiness characteristics, includ ing supply chain trust, | |||
identity, device provenance, software configuration, device | identity, device provenance, software configuration, device | |||
composition, compliance to test suites, functional and assurance evaluations, et | composition, compliance to test suites, functional and assurance evaluations, et | |||
c.</t> | c.</dd> | |||
</dl> | ||||
<t>The goal of attestation is simply to assure an administrator or auditor that | <t>The goal of attestation is simply to assure an administrator or audit | |||
the device configuration and software | or that the device's configuration and software | |||
that was launched when the device was last started is authentic and untampered-w | were authentic and unmodified when the device started. | |||
ith. | The determination of software authenticity is not prescribed in this document, b | |||
The determination of software authenticity is not prescribed in this document, b | ut it's typically taken to mean | |||
ut it’s typically taken to mean | ||||
a software image generated by an authority trusted by the administrator, such as the device manufacturer.</t> | a software image generated by an authority trusted by the administrator, such as the device manufacturer.</t> | |||
<t>Within the context of the Trusted Computing Group (TCG), the scope of | ||||
<t>Within the Trusted Computing Group (TCG) context, the scope of attestation is | attestation is typically narrowed to describe the process by | |||
typically narrowed to describe the process by | ||||
which an independent Verifier can obtain cryptographic proof as to the identity | which an independent Verifier can obtain cryptographic proof as to the identity | |||
of the device in question, and evidence of the integrity of software loaded on | of the device in question, evidence of the integrity of the device's software th | |||
that device when it started up, and then verify that what’s there matches the | at was loaded upon | |||
startup, and verification that the current configuration matches the | ||||
intended configuration. For network equipment, a Verifier capability can | intended configuration. For network equipment, a Verifier capability can | |||
be embedded in a Network Management Station (NMS), a posture collection server, | be embedded in a Network Management Station, a posture collection server, | |||
or other network analytics tool (such as a software asset management solution, | or other network analytics tool (such as a software asset management solution, | |||
or a threat detection and mitigation tool, etc.). While informally referred | or a threat detection and mitigation tool, etc.). | |||
to as attestation, this document focuses on a specific subset of attestation tas | This document focuses on a specific subset of attestation tasks, defined here as | |||
ks, defined here as Remote | Remote | |||
Integrity Verification (RIV). RIV in this document takes a network-equipment-ce | Integrity Verification (RIV), and informally referred to as attestation. RIV in | |||
ntric perspective | this document takes a network-equipment-centric perspective | |||
that includes a set of protocols and procedures for determining whether a | that includes a set of protocols and procedures for determining whether a | |||
particular device was launched with authentic software, starting from Roots | particular device was launched with authentic software, starting from Roots | |||
of Trust. While there are many ways to accomplish attestation, RIV sets | of Trust. While there are many ways to accomplish attestation, RIV sets | |||
out a specific set of protocols and tools that work in environments commonly | out a specific set of protocols and tools that work in environments commonly | |||
found in network equipment. RIV does not cover other device characteristics | found in network equipment. RIV does not cover other device characteristics | |||
that could be attested (e.g., geographic location, connectivity; | that could be attested (e.g., geographic location or connectivity; | |||
see <xref target="I-D.richardson-rats-usecases"/>), although it does provide evi | see <xref target="I-D.richardson-rats-usecases" format="default"/>), although it | |||
dence of a secure infrastructure | does provide evidence of a secure infrastructure | |||
to increase the level of trust in other device characteristics attested | to increase the level of trust in other device characteristics attested | |||
by other means (e.g., by Entity Attestation Tokens <xref target="I-D.ietf-rats-e | by other means (e.g., by Entity Attestation Tokens <xref target="I-D.ietf-rats-e | |||
at"/>).</t> | at" format="default"/>).</t> | |||
<t>In line with definitions found in <xref target="RFC9334" format="defa | ||||
<t>In line with <xref target="I-D.ietf-rats-architecture"/> definitions, this do | ult"/>, this document uses the term Endorser to refer to the | |||
cument uses the term Endorser to refer to the | ||||
role that signs identity and attestation certificates used by the Attester, whil e Reference Values are signed | role that signs identity and attestation certificates used by the Attester, whil e Reference Values are signed | |||
by a Reference Value Provider. Typically, the manufacturer of a network device would be accepted as | by a Reference Value Provider. Typically, the manufacturer of a network device would be accepted as | |||
both the Endorser and Reference Value Provider, although the choice is ultimatel y up to the Verifier Owner.</t> | both the Endorser and Reference Value Provider, although the choice is ultimatel y up to the Verifier Owner.</t> | |||
</section> | ||||
</section> | <section anchor="document-organization" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
<section anchor="document-organization" title="Document Organization"> | <name>Document Organization</name> | |||
<t>The remainder of this document is organized into several sections:</t | ||||
<t>The remainder of this document is organized into several sections:</t> | > | |||
<ul spacing="normal"> | ||||
<t><list style="symbols"> | <li>The remainder of this section covers goals and requirements, plus | |||
<t>The remainder of this section covers goals and requirements, plus a top-lev | a top-level description of RIV.</li> | |||
el description of RIV.</t> | <li>The Solution Overview section (<xref target="solution-overview" fo | |||
<t>The Solution Overview section outlines how Remote Integrity Verification wo | rmat="default"/>) outlines how RIV works.</li> | |||
rks.</t> | <li>The Standards Components section (<xref target="standards-componen | |||
<t>The Standards Components section links components of RIV to normative stand | ts" format="default"/>) links components of RIV to normative standards.</li> | |||
ards.</t> | <li>The Privacy and Security Considerations sections (Sections <xref t | |||
<t>Privacy and Security shows how specific features of RIV contribute to the t | arget="privacy-considerations" format="counter"/> and <xref target="security-con | |||
rustworthiness of the Attestation Result.</t> | s" format="counter"/>) shows how specific features of RIV contribute to the trus | |||
<t>Supporting material is in an appendix at the end.</t> | tworthiness of the Attestation Result.</li> | |||
</list></t> | <li>Supporting material is in an appendix (<xref target="appendix" for | |||
mat="default"/>).</li> | ||||
</section> | </ul> | |||
<section anchor="goals" title="Goals"> | </section> | |||
<section anchor="goals" numbered="true" toc="default"> | ||||
<t>Network operators benefit from a trustworthy attestation mechanism that provi | <name>Goals</name> | |||
des | <t>Network operators benefit from a trustworthy attestation mechanism th | |||
assurance that their network comprises authentic equipment, and has loaded softw | at provides | |||
are | assurance that their network comprises authentic equipment and has loaded softwa | |||
re | ||||
free of known vulnerabilities and unauthorized tampering. In line with the over all goal of assuring integrity, attestation can be used to assist in asset manag ement, vulnerability and compliance | free of known vulnerabilities and unauthorized tampering. In line with the over all goal of assuring integrity, attestation can be used to assist in asset manag ement, vulnerability and compliance | |||
assessment, plus configuration management.</t> | assessment, plus configuration management.</t> | |||
<t>The RIV attestation workflow outlined in this document is intended to | ||||
<t>The RIV attestation workflow outlined in this document is intended to meet th | meet the following high-level goals:</t> | |||
e following high-level goals:</t> | <ul spacing="normal"> | |||
<li>Provable Device Identity - This specification requires that an Att | ||||
<t><list style="symbols"> | ester (i.e., the attesting device) includes | |||
<t>Provable Device Identity - This specification requires that an Attester (i. | a cryptographic identifier unique to each device. Effectively, this means that | |||
e., the attesting device) includes | the device's TPM | |||
a cryptographic identifier unique to each device. Effectively this means that t | must be provisioned with this during the manufacturing cycle.</li> | |||
he device’s TPM | <li>Software Inventory - Key goals are to identify the software releas | |||
must be so provisioned during the manufacturing cycle.</t> | e(s) installed | |||
<t>Software Inventory - A key goal is to identify the software release(s) inst | on the Attester and to provide evidence that the software stored within hasn't | |||
alled | been altered without authorization.</li> | |||
on the Attester, and to provide evidence that the software stored within hasn’t | <li>Verifiability - Verification of the device's software and configur | |||
been altered without authorization.</t> | ation shows | |||
<t>Verifiability - Verification of software and configuration of the device sh | that the software that the administrator authorized for use was actually launche | |||
ows | d.</li> | |||
that the software that the administrator authorized for use was actually launche | </ul> | |||
d.</t> | <t>In addition, RIV is designed to operate either in a centralized envir | |||
</list></t> | onment, such as with a central authority that manages and configures a number of | |||
network devices, or "peer-to-peer", where network devices independently verify | ||||
<t>In addition, RIV is designed to operate either in a centralized environment, | one another to establish a trust relationship. (See <xref target="peer-to-peer" | |||
such as with a central authority that manages and configures a number of network | format="default"/>.)</t> | |||
devices, or ‘peer-to-peer’, where network devices independently verify one anot | </section> | |||
her to establish a trust relationship. (See <xref target="peer-to-peer"/> below | <section anchor="RIV-desc" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
)</t> | <name>Description of Remote Integrity Verification (RIV)</name> | |||
<t>Attestation requires two interlocking mechanisms between the Attester | ||||
</section> | network device and the Verifier:</t> | |||
<section anchor="RIV-desc" title="Description of Remote Integrity Verification ( | <ul spacing="normal"> | |||
RIV)"> | <li>Device Identity is the mechanism that provides trusted identity, w | |||
hich can reassure network | ||||
<t>Attestation requires two interlocking mechanisms between the Attester network | ||||
device and the Verifier:</t> | ||||
<t><list style="symbols"> | ||||
<t>Device Identity, the mechanism providing trusted identity, can reassure net | ||||
work | ||||
managers that the specific devices they ordered from authorized manufacturers fo r | managers that the specific devices they ordered from authorized manufacturers fo r | |||
attachment to their network are those that were installed, and that they continu e to | attachment to their network are those that were installed and that they continue to | |||
be present in their network. As part of the mechanism for Device Identity, | be present in their network. As part of the mechanism for Device Identity, | |||
cryptographic proof of the identity of the manufacturer is also provided.</t> | cryptographic proof of the manufacturer's identity is also provided.</li> | |||
<t>Software Measurement is the mechanism that reports the state of mutable sof | <li>Software Measurement is the mechanism that reports the state of mu | |||
tware components | table software components | |||
on the device, and can assure administrators that they have known, authentic | on the device and that can assure administrators that they have known, authentic | |||
software configured to run in their network.</t> | software configured to run in their network.</li> | |||
</list></t> | </ul> | |||
<t>By using these two interlocking mechanisms, RIV, which is a component | ||||
<t>Using these two interlocking mechanisms, RIV is a component in a chain of pro | in a chain of procedures, can assure a network operator that the equipment in | |||
cedures that can assure a network operator that the equipment in | their network can be reliably identified and that authentic software of | |||
their network can be reliably identified, and that authentic software of | ||||
a known version is installed on each device. Equipment in the network includes | a known version is installed on each device. Equipment in the network includes | |||
devices that make up the network itself, such as routers, switches and firewalls | devices that make up the network itself, such as routers, switches, and firewall | |||
.</t> | s.</t> | |||
<t>Software used to boot a device can be identified by a chain | ||||
<t>Software used to boot a device can be identified by a chain | of measurements, anchored at the start by a Root of Trust for Measurement (RTM) | |||
of measurements, anchored at the start by a Root of Trust for Measurement (see < | (see <xref target="root-of-trust" format="default"/>). An attestation function e | |||
xref target="root-of-trust"/>), each measuring the next stage and recording the | mbedded in each stage, verified by the previous stage, measures the next stage | |||
result in tamper-resistant storage, | and records the result in tamper-resistant storage. | |||
normally ending when the system software is fully loaded. | A measurement signifies the identity, integrity, and version of each | |||
A measurement signifies the identity, integrity and version of each | software component registered with an Attester's TPM <xref target="TPM-1.2" form | |||
software component registered with an Attester’s TPM <xref target="TPM1.2"/>, <x | at="default"/> <xref target="TPM-2.0" format="default"/> so that a | |||
ref target="TPM2.0"/>, so that a | ||||
subsequent verification stage can determine if the software | subsequent verification stage can determine if the software | |||
installed is authentic, up-to-date, and free of tampering.</t> | installed is authentic, up-to-date, and free of tampering.</t> | |||
<t>RIV includes several major processes, which are split between the Att | ||||
<t>RIV includes several major processes, split between the Attester and Verifier | ester and Verifier:</t> | |||
:</t> | <ol spacing="normal" type="1"><li>Generation of Evidence is the process | |||
whereby an Attester generates cryptographic | ||||
<t><list style="numbers"> | ||||
<t>Generation of Evidence is the process whereby an Attester generates cryptog | ||||
raphic | ||||
proof (Evidence) of claims about device properties. In particular, the | proof (Evidence) of claims about device properties. In particular, the | |||
device identity and its software configuration are both of critical importance.< | device identity and its software configuration are both of critical importance.< | |||
/t> | /li> | |||
<t>Device Identification refers to the mechanism assuring the | <li>Device Identification refers to the mechanism assuring the | |||
Relying Party (ultimately, a network administrator) of the identity of devices t | Relying Party (ultimately, a network administrator) of the identities of devices | |||
hat make up their network, | , and the identities of their manufacturers, that make up their network.</li> | |||
and that their manufacturers are known.</t> | <li>Conveyance of Evidence | |||
<t>Conveyance of Evidence | reliably transports the collected Evidence from the Attester to a Verifier to a | |||
reliably transports the collected Evidence from Attester to a Verifier to allow | llow a management station to perform | |||
a management station to perform | ||||
a meaningful appraisal in Step 4. The transport | a meaningful appraisal in Step 4. The transport | |||
is typically carried out via a management network. | is typically carried out via a management network. | |||
While not required for reliable attestation, an encrypted channel may be used t o | Although not required for reliable attestation, an encrypted channel may be use d to | |||
provide integrity, authenticity, or confidentiality once attestation is complet e. | provide integrity, authenticity, or confidentiality once attestation is complet e. | |||
It should be noted that critical attestation evidence from the TPM is signed by a key known only to TPM, and is not | It should be noted that critical attestation evidence from the TPM is signed by a key known only to TPM, and is not | |||
dependent on encyption carried out as part of a reliable transport.</t> | dependent on encryption carried out as part of a reliable transport.</li> | |||
<t>Finally, Appraisal of Evidence occurs. This is the process of verifying th | <li>Finally, appraisal of evidence occurs. This is the process of ver | |||
e Evidence received by | ifying the Evidence received by | |||
a Verifier from the Attester, and using an Appraisal Policy to develop an | a Verifier from the Attester and using an Appraisal Policy to develop an | |||
Attestation Result, used to inform decision-making. In practice, this means c | Attestation Result, which is used to inform decision-making. In practice, thi | |||
omparing | s means comparing | |||
the Attester’s measurements reported as Evidence with the device configuration | the Attester's measurements reported as Evidence with the device configuration | |||
expected | expected | |||
by the Verifier. Subsequently, the Appraisal Policy for Evidence might | by the Verifier. Subsequently, the Appraisal Policy for Evidence might | |||
match Evidence found against Reference Values (aka Golden Measurements), which represent | match Evidence found against Reference Values (aka Golden Measurements), which represent | |||
the intended configured state of the connected device.</t> | the intended configured state of the connected device.</li> | |||
</list></t> | </ol> | |||
<t>All implementations supporting this RIV specification require the sup | ||||
<t>All implementations supporting this RIV specification require the support of | port of the following three technologies:</t> | |||
the following three technologies:</t> | <ol spacing="normal" type="1"><li>Identity: Device identity in RIV is ba | |||
sed on Device Identity (DevID) defined by IEEE Std 802.1AR <xref target="IEEE-80 | ||||
<t><list style="numbers"> | 2-1AR" format="default"/>, | |||
<t>Identity: Device identity in RIV is based on IEEE 802.1AR Device Identity ( | ||||
DevID) <xref target="IEEE-802-1AR"/>, | ||||
coupled with careful supply-chain management by the manufacturer. The | coupled with careful supply-chain management by the manufacturer. The | |||
Initial DevID (IDevID) certificate contains a statement by the manufacturer that establishes | Initial DevID (IDevID) certificate contains a statement by the manufacturer that establishes | |||
the identity of the device as it left the factory. Some applications with | the identity of the device as it left the factory. Some applications with | |||
a more-complex post-manufacture supply chain (e.g., Value Added Resellers), | a more complex post-manufacture supply chain (e.g., value added resellers), | |||
or with different privacy concerns, may want to use alternative mechanisms for p latform | or with different privacy concerns, may want to use alternative mechanisms for p latform | |||
authentication (for example, TCG Platform Certificates <xref target="Platform-Ce | authentication (for example, TCG Platform Certificates <xref target="PLATFORM-CE | |||
rtificates"/>, or | RTS" format="default"/> or | |||
post-manufacture installation of Local Device ID (LDevID)).</t> | post-manufacture installation of Local DevID (LDevID)).</li> | |||
<t>Platform Attestation provides evidence of configuration of software element | <li>Platform attestation provides evidence of configuration of softwar | |||
s | e elements | |||
present in the device. This form of attestation can be implemented | present in the device. This form of attestation can be implemented | |||
with TPM Platform Configuration Registers (PCRs), Quote and Log mechanisms, whic h provide cryptographically authenticated evidence | with TPM Platform Configuration Registers (PCRs) and Quote and Log mechanisms, which provide cryptographically authenticated evidence | |||
to report what software was started on the device through the boot cycle. Succe ssful attestation requires an | to report what software was started on the device through the boot cycle. Succe ssful attestation requires an | |||
unbroken chain from a boot-time root of trust through all layers of software nee ded to bring the device to an | unbroken chain from a boot-time Root of Trust through all layers of software nee ded to bring the device to an | |||
operational state, in which each stage computes the hash of components of the ne xt stage, then updates the attestation log and | operational state, in which each stage computes the hash of components of the ne xt stage, then updates the attestation log and | |||
the TPM. The TPM can then report the hashes of all the measured hashes as signe d evidence called a | the TPM. The TPM can then report the hashes of all the measured hashes as signe d evidence called a | |||
Quote (see <xref target="using-tpm"/> for an overview of TPM operation, or <xref | Quote (see <xref target="using-tpm" format="default"/> for an overview of TPM op | |||
target="TPM1.2"/> and <xref target="TPM2.0"/> for many more details).</t> | eration or <xref target="TPM-1.2" format="default"/> and <xref target="TPM-2.0" | |||
<t>Signed Reference Values (aka Reference Integrity Measurements) must be conv | format="default"/> for many more details).</li> | |||
eyed from the Reference Value Provider (the entity accepted as the software auth | <li>Signed Reference Values (aka reference integrity measurements) mus | |||
ority, | t be conveyed from the Reference Value Provider (the entity accepted as the soft | |||
often the manufacturer of the network device) to the Verifier.</t> | ware authority, | |||
</list></t> | often the manufacturer of the network device) to the Verifier.</li> | |||
</ol> | ||||
</section> | </section> | |||
<section anchor="solution-requirements" title="Solution Requirements"> | <section anchor="solution-requirements" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
<name>Solution Requirements</name> | ||||
<t>Remote Integrity Verification must address the “Lying Endpoint” | <t>RIV must address the "Lying Endpoint" | |||
problem, in which malicious software on an endpoint may subvert the | problem, in which malicious software on an endpoint may subvert the | |||
intended function, and also prevent the endpoint from reporting its compromised | intended function and also prevent the endpoint from reporting its compromised | |||
status. (See <xref target="security-cons"/> for further Security Considerations | status. (See <xref target="security-cons" format="default"/> for further Securi | |||
.)</t> | ty Considerations.)</t> | |||
<t>RIV attestation is designed to be simple | ||||
<t>RIV attestation is designed to be simple | to deploy at scale. RIV should work "out of the box" as far as possible, | |||
to deploy at scale. RIV should work “out of the box” as far as possible, | ||||
that is, with the fewest possible provisioning steps or configuration databases | that is, with the fewest possible provisioning steps or configuration databases | |||
needed at the end-user’s site. Network equipment is often required to “self-con figure”, | needed at the end user's site. Network equipment is often required to "self-con figure", | |||
to reliably reach out without manual intervention to prove its identity and | to reliably reach out without manual intervention to prove its identity and | |||
operating posture, then download its own configuration, a process which preclude | operating posture, then download its own configuration, a process which preclude | |||
s pre-installation configuration. See <xref target="RFC8572"/> for an | s pre-installation configuration. See <xref target="RFC8572" format="default"/> | |||
example of Secure Zero Touch Provisioning.</t> | for an | |||
example of Secure Zero Touch Provisioning (SZTP).</t> | ||||
</section> | </section> | |||
<section anchor="scope" title="Scope"> | <section anchor="scope" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
<name>Scope</name> | ||||
<t>The need for assurance of software integrity, addressed by Remote Attestation | <t>The need for assurance of software integrity, addressed by Remote Att | |||
, is a very general problem that could apply to most network-connected computing | estation, is a very general problem that could apply to most network-connected c | |||
devices. However, this document includes several assumptions that limit the sc | omputing devices. However, this document includes several assumptions that limi | |||
ope to network equipment (e.g., routers, switches and firewalls):</t> | t the scope to network equipment (e.g., routers, switches, and firewalls):</t> | |||
<ul spacing="normal"> | ||||
<t><list style="symbols"> | <li>This solution is for use in non-privacy-preserving applications (f | |||
<t>This solution is for use in non-privacy-preserving applications (for exampl | or example, | |||
e, | networking or industrial Internet of Things (IoT) applications), which avoids th | |||
networking, Industrial IoT), avoiding the need for a Privacy Certificate | e need for a Privacy Certification | |||
Authority (also called an Attestation CA) for attestation keys <xref target="AK- | Authority (also called an Attestation CA) for Attestation Keys (AKs) <xref targe | |||
Enrollment"/> or TCG Platform | t="AIK-ENROLL" format="default"/> or TCG Platform | |||
Certificates <xref target="Platform-Certificates"/>.</t> | Certificates <xref target="PLATFORM-CERTS" format="default"/>.</li> | |||
<t>This document assumes network protocols that are common in network equipmen | <li>This document assumes network protocols that are common in network | |||
t such as YANG <xref target="RFC7950"/> and NETCONF <xref target="RFC6241"/>, | equipment such as YANG <xref target="RFC7950" format="default"/> and Network Co | |||
but not generally used in other applications.</t> | nfiguration Protocol (NETCONF) <xref target="RFC6241" format="default"/>, | |||
<t>The approach outlined in this document mandates the use of a TPM <xref targ | but not generally used in other applications.</li> | |||
et="TPM1.2"/>, <xref target="TPM2.0"/>, or a compatible cryptoprocessor.</t> | <li>The approach outlined in this document mandates the use of a TPM < | |||
</list></t> | xref target="TPM-1.2" format="default"/> <xref target="TPM-2.0" format="default" | |||
/> or a compatible cryptoprocessor.</li> | ||||
<section anchor="out-of-scope" title="Out of Scope"> | </ul> | |||
<section anchor="out-of-scope" numbered="true" toc="default"> | ||||
<t><list style="symbols"> | <name>Out of Scope</name> | |||
<t>Run-Time Attestation: The Linux Integrity Measurement Architecture <xref ta | <dl spacing="normal"> | |||
rget="IMA"/> attests each process launched | <dt>Run-Time Attestation:</dt><dd>The Linux Integrity Measurement Ar | |||
chitecture <xref target="IMA" format="default"/> attests each process launched | ||||
after a device is started (and is in scope for RIV in general), but continuous r un-time attestation of Linux or | after a device is started (and is in scope for RIV in general), but continuous r un-time attestation of Linux or | |||
other multi-threaded operating system processes after the OS has started conside rably expands the scope of the problem. | other multi-threaded operating system processes after the OS has started conside rably expands the scope of the problem. | |||
Many researchers are working on that problem, but this document defers the probl em of continuous, in-memory | Many researchers are working on that problem, but this document defers the probl em of continuous, in-memory | |||
run-time attestation.</t> | run-time attestation.</dd> | |||
<t>Multi-Vendor Embedded Systems: Additional coordination would be needed for | <dt>Multi-Vendor Embedded Systems:</dt><dd> Additional coordination | |||
devices that themselves comprise hardware and software from multiple vendors, | would be needed for | |||
devices that themselves comprise hardware and software from multiple vendors and | ||||
are | ||||
integrated by the end user. Although out of scope for this document, these | integrated by the end user. Although out of scope for this document, these | |||
issues are accommodated in <xref target="I-D.ietf-rats-architecture"/>.</t> | issues are accommodated in <xref target="RFC9334" format="default"/>.</dd> | |||
<t>Processor Sleep Modes: Network equipment typically does not “sleep”, so | <dt>Processor Sleep Modes:</dt><dd>Network equipment typically does | |||
not "sleep", so | ||||
sleep and hibernate modes are not considered. Although out of scope | sleep and hibernate modes are not considered. Although out of scope | |||
for RIV in this document, Trusted Computing Group specifications do encompass sl | for RIV in this document, TCG specifications do encompass sleep and hibernate | |||
eep and hibernate | states, which could be incorporated into remote attestation for network equipmen | |||
states, which could be incorporated into remote attestation for network equipmen | t in the future, given a compelling need.</dd> | |||
t in the future, given a compelling need.</t> | <dt>Virtualization and Containerization:</dt><dd> In a non-virtualiz | |||
<t>Virtualization and Containerization: In a non-virtualized system, the host | ed system, the host OS is | |||
OS is | responsible for measuring each user-space file or process throughout the operati | |||
responsible for measuring each User Space file or process throughout the operati | onal lifetime | |||
onal lifetime | ||||
of the system. For virtualized systems, the host OS must verify the hypervisor, | of the system. For virtualized systems, the host OS must verify the hypervisor, | |||
but then the hypervisor must manage its own chain of trust through the virtual m achine. Virtualization | but then the hypervisor must manage its own chain of trust through the virtual m achine. Virtualization | |||
and containerization technologies are increasingly used in network equipment, bu t | and containerization technologies are increasingly used in network equipment, bu t | |||
are not considered in this document.</t> | are not considered in this document.</dd> | |||
</list></t> | </dl> | |||
</section> | ||||
</section> | </section> | |||
</section> | </section> | |||
</section> | <section anchor="solution-overview" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
<section anchor="solution-overview" title="Solution Overview"> | <name>Solution Overview</name> | |||
<section anchor="riv-software-configuration-attestation-using-tpm" numbere | ||||
<section anchor="riv-software-configuration-attestation-using-tpm" title="RIV So | d="true" toc="default"> | |||
ftware Configuration Attestation using TPM"> | <name>RIV Software Configuration Attestation Using TPM</name> | |||
<t>RIV Attestation is a process that can be used to determine the identi | ||||
<t>RIV Attestation is a process which can be used to determine the identity of s | ty of software running | |||
oftware running | on a specifically identified device. The Remote Attestation steps of <xref targ | |||
on a specifically-identified device. The Remote Attestation steps of <xref targ | et="RIV-desc" format="default"/> are split into two | |||
et="RIV-desc"/> are broken into two | phases as shown in <xref target="RIV-Attestation-Model" format="default"/>:</t> | |||
phases, shown in Figure 1:</t> | <ul spacing="normal"> | |||
<li>During system startup, or Boot Phase, each distinct software objec | ||||
<t><list style="symbols"> | t is "measured" by the Attester. | |||
<t>During system startup, or boot phase, each distinct software object is “mea | The object's identity, hash (i.e., cryptographic digest), and version informatio | |||
sured” by the Attester. | n are recorded in a log. | |||
The object’s identity, hash (i.e., cryptographic digest) and version information | Hashes are also extended into the TPM (see <xref target="using-tpm" format="defa | |||
are recorded in a log. | ult"/> for more on extending hashes) in a way that can be used to validate the l | |||
Hashes are also extended into the TPM (see <xref target="using-tpm"/> for more o | og entries. The measurement process generally | |||
n ‘extending hashes’), in a way that can be used to validate the log entries. T | ||||
he measurement process generally | ||||
follows the layered chain-of-trust model used in Measured Boot, where each stage | follows the layered chain-of-trust model used in Measured Boot, where each stage | |||
of the system measures the next one, and extends its measurement into the TPM, | of the system measures the next one, and extends its measurement into the TPM, | |||
before launching it. See <xref target="I-D.ietf-rats-architecture"/>, section “ | before launching it. See <xref target="RFC9334" sectionFormat="of" section="3.2 | |||
Layered Attestation Environments,” for an architectural definition | "/>, "Layered Attestation Environments", for an architectural definition | |||
of this model.</t> | of this model.</li> | |||
<t>Once the device is running and has operational network connectivity, verifi | <li>Once the device is running and has operational network connectivit | |||
cation can take place. A separate | y, verification can take place. A separate | |||
Verifier, running in its own trusted environment, will interrogate the network | Verifier, running in its own trusted environment, will interrogate the network | |||
device to retrieve the logs and a copy of the digests collected by hashing | device to retrieve the logs and a copy of the digests collected by hashing | |||
each software object, signed by an attestation private key secured by, but never released by, | each software object, signed by an attestation private key secured by, but never released by, | |||
the TPM. The YANG model described in <xref target="I-D.ietf-rats-yang-tpm-charr | the TPM. The YANG model described in <xref target="RFC9684" format="default"/> | |||
a"/> facilitates this operation.</t> | facilitates this operation.</li> | |||
</list></t> | </ul> | |||
<t>The result is that the Verifier can verify the device's identity by c | ||||
<t>The result is that the Verifier can verify the device’s identity by checking | hecking | |||
the subject<xref target="RFC5280"/> and signature of the certificate containing | the subject <xref target="RFC5280" format="default"/> and signature of the certi | |||
the TPM’s attestation public key, and can | ficate containing the TPM's attestation public key. | |||
validate the software that was launched by verifying the correctness of the logs | The Verifier can then verify the log's correctness by accumulating all the hashe | |||
by comparing with the | s in the log | |||
signed digests from the TPM, and comparing digests in the log with | and comparing that to the signed digests from the TPM. From | |||
Reference Values.</t> | there, the Verifier can validate the launched software by | |||
comparing the digests in the log with Reference Values.</t> | ||||
<t>It should be noted that attestation and identity are inextricably linked; | <t>It should be noted that attestation and identity are inextricably lin | |||
ked; | ||||
signed Evidence that a particular version of software was loaded is of little | signed Evidence that a particular version of software was loaded is of little | |||
value without cryptographic proof of the identity of the Attester producing | value without cryptographic proof of the identity of the Attester producing | |||
the Evidence.</t> | the Evidence.</t> | |||
<figure anchor="RIV-Attestation-Model"> | ||||
<figure title="Layered RIV Attestation Model" anchor="RIV-Attestation-Model"><ar | <name>Layered RIV Attestation Model</name> | |||
twork align="left"><![CDATA[ | <artwork align="left" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[ | |||
+-------------------------------------------------------+ | +-------------------------------------------------------+ | |||
| +---------+ +--------+ +--------+ +---------+ | | | +---------+ +--------+ +--------+ +---------+ | | |||
| |UEFI BIOS|--->| Loader |-->| Kernel |--->|Userland | | | | |UEFI BIOS|--->| Loader |-->| Kernel |--->|Userland | | | |||
| +---------+ +--------+ +--------+ +---------+ | | | +---------+ +--------+ +--------+ +---------+ | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | |||
| +------------+-----------+-+ | | | +------------+-----------+-+ | | |||
| Boot Phase | | | | Boot Phase | | | |||
| V | | | V | | |||
| +--------+ | | | +--------+ | | |||
skipping to change at line 361 ¶ | skipping to change at line 325 ¶ | |||
| +--------+ | | | +--------+ | | |||
| Router | | | | Router | | | |||
+--------------------------------|----------------------+ | +--------------------------------|----------------------+ | |||
| | | | |||
| Verification Phase | | Verification Phase | |||
| +-----------+ | | +-----------+ | |||
+--->| Verifier | | +--->| Verifier | | |||
+-----------+ | +-----------+ | |||
Reset---------------flow-of-time-during-boot...---------> | Reset---------------flow-of-time-during-boot...---------> | |||
]]></artwork></figure> | ]]></artwork> | |||
</figure> | ||||
<t>In the Boot phase, measurements are “extended”, or hashed, into the TPM as pr | <t>In the Boot Phase, measurements are "extended", or hashed, into the T | |||
ocesses start, | PM as processes start, | |||
with the result that the TPM ends up containing hashes of all the measured hashe | which result in the TPM containing hashes of all the measured hashes. Later, onc | |||
s. Later, once the system is operational, during the Verification phase, signed | e the system is operational, signed | |||
digests are retrieved from the TPM for off-box analysis.</t> | digests are retrieved from the TPM during the Verification Phase for off-box ana | |||
lysis.</t> | ||||
<section anchor="what-does-riv-attest" title="What Does RIV Attest?"> | <section anchor="what-does-riv-attest" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
<name>What Does RIV Attest?</name> | ||||
<t>TPM attestation is focused on Platform Configuration Registers (PCRs), but th | <t>TPM attestation is focused on PCRs, but those registers are only ve | |||
ose registers are only vehicles for certifying | hicles for certifying | |||
accompanying Evidence, conveyed in log entries. It is the hashes in log entries | accompanying Evidence conveyed in log entries. It is the hashes in log entries | |||
that are extended into PCRs, where the final PCR values | that are extended into PCRs, where the final PCR values | |||
can be retrieved in the form of a structure called a Quote, signed by an Attesta | can be retrieved in the form of a structure called a Quote, which is signed by a | |||
tion key known only to the TPM. The use of multiple PCRs serves only to | n AK known only to the TPM. The use of multiple PCRs serves only to | |||
provide some independence between different classes of object, so that one class | provide some independence between different classes of object so that one class | |||
of objects can be updated without changing the | of objects can be updated without changing the | |||
extended hash for other classes. Although PCRs can be used for any purpose, thi s section outlines the objects within the | extended hash for other classes. Although PCRs can be used for any purpose, thi s section outlines the objects within the | |||
scope of this document which may be extended into the TPM.</t> | scope of this document that may be extended into the TPM.</t> | |||
<t>In general, assignment of measurements to PCRs is a policy choice m | ||||
<t>In general, assignment of measurements to PCRs is a policy choice made by the | ade by the device manufacturer, selected to independently attest three classes o | |||
device manufacturer, selected to independently attest three classes of object:< | f object:</t> | |||
/t> | <dl> | |||
<dt>Code:</dt> | ||||
<t><list style="symbols"> | <dd>Instructions to be executed by a CPU.</dd> | |||
<t>Code, (i.e., instructions) to be executed by a CPU.</t> | <dt>Configuration:</dt> | |||
<t>Configuration - Many devices offer numerous options controlled by non-volat | <dd>Many devices offer numerous options controlled by non-volatile c | |||
ile configuration variables which can impact the device’s security posture. The | onfiguration variables that can impact the device's security posture. These set | |||
se settings may have vendor defaults, but often can be changed by administrators | tings may have vendor defaults, but often can be changed by administrators, who | |||
, who may want to verify via attestation that the operational state of the setti | may want to verify via attestation that the operational state of the settings ma | |||
ngs match their intended state.</t> | tch their intended state.</dd> | |||
<t>Credentials - Administrators may wish to verify via attestation that public | <dt>Credentials:</dt> | |||
keys and credentials outside the Root of Trust have not been subject to unautho | <dd>Administrators may wish to verify via attestation that public ke | |||
rized tampering. (By definition, keys protecting the root of trust can’t be ver | ys and credentials outside the Root of Trust have not been subject to unauthoriz | |||
ified independently.)</t> | ed tampering. (By definition, keys protecting the Root of Trust can't be verifi | |||
</list></t> | ed independently.)</dd> | |||
</dl> | ||||
<t>The TCG PC Client Platform Firmware Profile Specification <xref target="PC-Cl | <t>The "TCG PC Client Specific Platform Firmware Profile Specification | |||
ient-BIOS-TPM-2.0"/> gives considerable detail on what is to be | " <xref target="PC-CLIENT-BIOS-TPM-2.0" format="default"/> details what is to be | |||
measured during the boot phase of platform startup using a UEFI BIOS (www.uefi.o | measured during the Boot Phase of platform startup using a Unified Extensible Fi | |||
rg), but the goal is simply to measure every bit of | rmware Interface (UEFI) BIOS (<eref target="www.uefi.org" brackets="angle"/>), b | |||
ut the goal is simply to measure every bit of | ||||
code executed in the process of starting the device, along with any configuratio n information related to security posture, leaving | code executed in the process of starting the device, along with any configuratio n information related to security posture, leaving | |||
no gap for unmeasured code to remain undetected, potentially subverting the chai | no gap for unmeasured code to remain undetected and potentially subverting the c | |||
n.</t> | hain.</t> | |||
<t>For devices using a UEFI BIOS, <xref target="PC-CLIENT-BIOS-TPM-2.0 | ||||
<t>For devices using a UEFI BIOS, <xref target="PC-Client-BIOS-TPM-2.0"/> and <x | " format="default"/> and <xref target="PC-CLIENT-EFI-TPM-1.2" format="default"/> | |||
ref target="PC-Client-EFI-TPM-1.2"/> give detailed normative requirements for PC | give detailed normative requirements for PCR usage. For other | |||
R usage. For other | platform architectures, where TCG normative requirements currently do not exist, | |||
platform architectures, where TCG normative requirements currently do not exist, | <xref target="Attested-Objects" format="default"/> gives non-normative guidance | |||
the table in <xref target="Attested-Objects"/> gives non-normative guidance for | for PCR assignment that generalizes the specific | |||
PCR assignment that generalizes the specific | details of <xref target="PC-CLIENT-BIOS-TPM-2.0" format="default"/>.</t> | |||
details of <xref target="PC-Client-BIOS-TPM-2.0"/>.</t> | <t>By convention, most PCRs are assigned in pairs, with the even-numbe | |||
red PCR used to measure executable code and | ||||
<t>By convention, most PCRs are assigned in pairs, which the even-numbered PCR u | ||||
sed to measure executable code, and | ||||
the odd-numbered PCR used to measure whatever data and configuration are associa ted with that code. It is important | the odd-numbered PCR used to measure whatever data and configuration are associa ted with that code. It is important | |||
to note that each PCR may contain results from dozens (or even thousands) of ind ividual measurements.</t> | to note that each PCR may contain results from dozens (or even thousands) of ind ividual measurements.</t> | |||
<table anchor="Attested-Objects"> | ||||
<name>Attested Objects</name> | ||||
<thead> | ||||
<tr> | ||||
<th></th> | ||||
<th rowspan="" colspan="2"> Assigned PCR #</th> | ||||
</tr> | ||||
<tr> | ||||
<th>Function</th> | ||||
<th>Code</th> | ||||
<th>Configuration</th> | ||||
</tr> | ||||
</thead> | ||||
<tbody> | ||||
<tr> | ||||
<td>Firmware Static Root of Trust (i.e., initial boot firmware | ||||
and drivers)</td> | ||||
<td>0</td> | ||||
<td>1</td> | ||||
</tr> | ||||
<tr> | ||||
<td>Drivers and initialization for optional or add-in devices</ | ||||
td> | ||||
<td>2</td> | ||||
<td>3</td> | ||||
</tr> | ||||
<tr> | ||||
<td>OS loader code and configuration (i.e., the code launched b | ||||
y firmware) to load an operating system kernel. These PCRs record each boot att | ||||
empt, and an identifier for where the loader was found</td> | ||||
<td>4</td> | ||||
<td>5</td> | ||||
</tr> | ||||
<tr> | ||||
<td>Vendor-specific measurements during boot</td> | ||||
<td>6</td> | ||||
<td>6</td> | ||||
</tr> | ||||
<tr> | ||||
<td>Secure Boot Policy. This PCR records keys and configuratio | ||||
n used to validate the OS loader</td> | ||||
<td></td> | ||||
<td>7</td> | ||||
</tr> | ||||
<tr> | ||||
<td> Measurements made by the OS loader (e.g., GRUB2 for Linux) | ||||
</td> | ||||
<td>8</td> | ||||
<td>9</td> | ||||
</tr> | ||||
<tr> | ||||
<td>Measurements made by OS (e.g., Linux IMA)</td> | ||||
<td>10</td> | ||||
<td>10</td> | ||||
</tr> | ||||
</tbody> | ||||
</table> | ||||
<figure title="Attested Objects" anchor="Attested-Objects"><artwork align="left" | </section> | |||
><![CDATA[ | <section anchor="notes-on-pcr-allocations" numbered="true" toc="default" | |||
+------------------------------------------------------------------+ | > | |||
| | Assigned PCR # | | <name>Notes on PCR Allocations</name> | |||
| Function | Code | Configuration| | <t>It is important to recognize that PCR[0] is critical. The first me | |||
| Firmware Static Root of Trust, (i.e., | 0 | 1 | | asurement into PCR[0] is taken by the Root of Trust for | |||
| initial boot firmware and drivers) | | | | Measurement, which is code that, by definition, cannot be verified by measuremen | |||
| Drivers and initialization for optional | 2 | 3 | | t. This measurement | |||
| or add-in devices | | | | ||||
| OS Loader code and configuration, (i.e., | 4 | 5 | | ||||
| the code launched by firmware) to load an | | | | ||||
| operating system kernel. These PCRs record | | | | ||||
| each boot attempt, and an identifier for | | | | ||||
| where the loader was found | | | | ||||
| Vendor Specific Measurements during boot | 6 | 6 | | ||||
| Secure Boot Policy. This PCR records keys | | 7 | | ||||
| and configuration used to validate the OS | | | | ||||
| loader | | | | ||||
| Measurements made by the OS Loader | 8 | 9 | | ||||
| (e.g. GRUB2 for Linux) | | | | ||||
| Measurements made by OS (e.g., Linux IMA) | 10 | 10 | | ||||
+------------------------------------------------------------------+ | ||||
]]></artwork></figure> | ||||
</section> | ||||
<section anchor="notes-on-pcr-allocations" title="Notes on PCR Allocations"> | ||||
<t>It is important to recognize that PCR[0] is critical. The first measurement | ||||
into PCR[0] is taken by the Root of Trust for | ||||
Measurement, code which, by definition, cannot be verified by measurement. This | ||||
measurement | ||||
establishes the chain of trust for all subsequent measurements. If the PCR[0] m easurement cannot be trusted, the | establishes the chain of trust for all subsequent measurements. If the PCR[0] m easurement cannot be trusted, the | |||
validity of the entire chain is put into question.</t> | validity of the entire chain is called into question.</t> | |||
<t>Distinctions between PCR[0], PCR[2], PCR[4], and PCR[8] are summari | ||||
<t>Distinctions Between PCR[0], PCR[2], PCR[4] and PCR[8] are summarized below:< | zed below:</t> | |||
/t> | <dl spacing="normal"> | |||
<dt>PCR[0]</dt><dd>typically represents a consistent view of rarely | ||||
<t><list style="symbols"> | changed boot components of the host platform, which allows Attestation policies | |||
<t>PCR[0] typically represents a consistent view of rarely-changed Host Platfo | to be defined using the less changeable components of the transitive trust chain | |||
rm boot components, allowing Attestation policies to be defined using the less c | . This PCR | |||
hangeable components of the transitive trust chain. This PCR | typically provides a consistent view of the platform regardless of user-selected | |||
typically provides a consistent view of the platform regardless of user selected | options.</dd> | |||
options.</t> | <dt>PCR[2]</dt><dd>is intended to represent a "user-configurable" en | |||
<t>PCR[2] is intended to represent a “user configurable” environment where the | vironment where the user has the ability to alter the | |||
user has the ability to alter the | ||||
components that are measured into PCR[2]. This is typically done by adding adapt er cards, etc., into user-accessible | components that are measured into PCR[2]. This is typically done by adding adapt er cards, etc., into user-accessible | |||
PCI or other slots. In UEFI systems these devices may be configured by Option R | Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) or other slots. In UEFI systems, these | |||
OMs measured into PCR[2] and | devices may be configured by Option ROMs measured into PCR[2] and | |||
executed by the UEFI BIOS.</t> | executed by the UEFI BIOS.</dd> | |||
<t>PCR[4] is intended to represent the software that manages the transition be | <dt>PCR[4]</dt><dd>is intended to represent the software that manage | |||
tween the platform’s Pre-Operating System | s the transition between the platform's pre-OS | |||
start and the state of a system with the Operating System present. This PCR, al | start and the state of a system with the OS present. This PCR, along with PCR[5 | |||
ong with PCR[5], identifies the initial | ], identifies the initial | |||
operating system loader (e.g., GRUB for Linux).</t> | OS loader (e.g., GRUB for Linux).</dd> | |||
<t>PCR[8] is used by the OS loader (e.g. GRUB) to record measurements of the v | <dt>PCR[8]</dt><dd>is used by the OS loader (e.g., GRUB) to record m | |||
arious components of the operating system.</t> | easurements of the various components of the operating system.</dd> | |||
</list></t> | </dl> | |||
<t>Although <xref target="PC-CLIENT-BIOS-TPM-2.0" format="default"/> s | ||||
<t>Although the TCG PC Client document specifies the use of the first eight PCRs | pecifies the use of the first eight PCRs very carefully to ensure interoperabili | |||
very carefully to ensure interoperability | ty | |||
among multiple | among multiple | |||
UEFI BIOS vendors, it should be noted that embedded software vendors may have co nsiderably more flexibility. Verifiers | UEFI BIOS vendors, it should be noted that embedded software vendors may have co nsiderably more flexibility. Verifiers | |||
typically need to know which log entries are consequential and which are not (po ssibly controlled by local policies) but | typically need to know which log entries are consequential and which are not (po ssibly controlled by local policies), but | |||
the Verifier may not need to know what each log entry means or why it was assign ed to a particular PCR. Designers must | the Verifier may not need to know what each log entry means or why it was assign ed to a particular PCR. Designers must | |||
recognize that some PCRs may cover log entries that a particular Verifier consid ers critical and other log entries that | recognize that some PCRs may cover log entries that a particular Verifier consid ers critical and other log entries that | |||
are not considered important, so differing PCR values may not on their own const | are not considered important, so differing PCR values may not on their own const | |||
itute a check for authenticity. For example, in a UEFI system, some administrat | itute a check for authenticity. For example, in a UEFI system, some administrat | |||
ors may consider booting an image from a removable drive, something recorded in | ors may consider booting an image from a removable drive, something recorded in | |||
a PCR, to be a security violation, while others might consider that operation an | a PCR, to be a security violation, while others might consider that operation to | |||
authorized recovery procedure.</t> | be an authorized recovery procedure.</t> | |||
<t>Designers may allocate particular events to specific PCRs in order | ||||
<t>Designers may allocate particular events to specific PCRs in order to achieve | to achieve a particular objective with local | |||
a particular objective with local | attestation (e.g., allowing a procedure to execute, or releasing a particular de | |||
attestation, (e.g., allowing a procedure to execute, or releasing a particular d | cryption key, only if a given PCR is in a given state). It may also be importan | |||
ecryption key, only if a given PCR is in a given state). It may also be importa | t | |||
nt | to designers to consider whether streaming notification of PCR updates is requir | |||
to designers to consider whether streaming notification of PCR updates is requir | ed (see <xref target="I-D.ietf-rats-network-device-subscription" format="default | |||
ed (see <xref target="I-D.birkholz-rats-network-device-subscription"/>). Specif | "/>). Specific | |||
ic | ||||
log entries can only be validated if the Verifier receives every log entry affec ting the relevant PCR, so (for example) | log entries can only be validated if the Verifier receives every log entry affec ting the relevant PCR, so (for example) | |||
a designer might want to separate rare, high-value events such as configuration | a designer might want to separate rare, high-value events, such as configuration | |||
changes, from high-volume, routine | changes, from high-volume, routine | |||
measurements such as IMA <xref target="IMA"/> logs.</t> | measurements such as IMA logs <xref target="IMA" format="default"/>.</t> | |||
</section> | ||||
</section> | </section> | |||
</section> | <section anchor="riv-keying" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
<section anchor="riv-keying" title="RIV Keying"> | <name>RIV Keying</name> | |||
<t>RIV attestation relies on two credentials:</t> | ||||
<t>RIV attestation relies on two credentials:</t> | <ul spacing="normal"> | |||
<li>An identity key pair and matching certificate is required to certi | ||||
<t><list style="symbols"> | fy the identity of the Attester itself. | |||
<t>An identity key pair and matching certificate is required to certify the id | RIV specifies the use of an IEEE 802.1AR DevID <xref target="IEEE-802-1AR" forma | |||
entity of the Attester itself. | t="default"/> that is | |||
RIV specifies the use of an IEEE 802.1AR Device Identity (DevID) <xref target="I | signed by the device manufacturer and contains the device serial number. This r | |||
EEE-802-1AR"/>, | equirement goes slightly | |||
signed by the device manufacturer, containing the device serial number. This re | beyond 802.1AR; see <xref target="riv-simplify" format="default"/> for notes.</l | |||
quirement goes slightly | i> | |||
beyond 802.1AR; see <xref target="riv-simplify"/> for notes.</t> | <li>An Attestation key pair and matching certificate is required to si | |||
<t>An Attestation key pair and matching certificate is required to sign the Qu | gn the Quote generated by the TPM to report evidence | |||
ote generated by the TPM to report evidence | of software configuration.</li> | |||
of software configuration.</t> | </ul> | |||
</list></t> | <t>In a TPM application, both the Attestation private key and the DevID | |||
private key <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be protected by the TPM. | ||||
<t>In a TPM application, both the Attestation private key and the DevID private | ||||
key MUST be protected by the TPM. | ||||
Depending on other TPM configuration procedures, | Depending on other TPM configuration procedures, | |||
the two keys are likely to be different; some of the considerations are outlined | the two keys are likely to be different; some of the considerations are outlined | |||
in TCG | in the | |||
“TPM 2.0 Keys for Device Identity and Attestation” <xref target="Platform-DevID- | "TPM 2.0 Keys for Device Identity and Attestation" document <xref target="PLATFO | |||
TPM-2.0"/>.</t> | RM-DEVID-TPM-2.0" format="default"/>.</t> | |||
<t>The "TPM 2.0 Keys for Device Identity and Attestation" document <xref | ||||
<t>The TCG TPM 2.0 Keys document <xref target="Platform-DevID-TPM-2.0"/> specifi | target="PLATFORM-DEVID-TPM-2.0" format="default"/> specifies further convention | |||
es further conventions for these keys:</t> | s for these keys:</t> | |||
<ul spacing="normal"> | ||||
<t><list style="symbols"> | <li>When separate Identity and Attestation keys are used, the | |||
<t>When separate Identity and Attestation keys are used, the Attestation | AK and its X.509 certificate should parallel the DevID, with the same unique | |||
Key (AK) and its X.509 certificate should parallel the DevID, with the same uniq | device identification as the DevID certificate (that is, the same subject and su | |||
ue | bjectAltName (if present), even though the key pairs are different). By examini | |||
device identification as the DevID certificate (that is, the same subject and su | ng the corresponding AK certificate, the Verifier | |||
bjectAltName (if present), even though the key pairs are different). This allow | can directly link a device's quote, which was signed by an | |||
s | AK, to the device that provided it. If the | |||
a quote from the device, signed by an AK, to be linked directly to the | subject in the AK certificate doesn't match the corresponding DevID certificate, | |||
device that provided it, by examining the corresponding AK certificate. If the | or | |||
subject in the AK certificate doesn’t match the corresponding DevID certificate, | if they're signed by different authorities, the Verifier may signal the detecti | |||
or | on of an Asokan-style person-in-the-middle attack (see <xref target="pitm" forma | |||
they’re signed by differing authorities the Verifier may signal the detection o | t="default"/>).</li> | |||
f an Asokan-style person-in-the-middle attack (see <xref target="pitm"/>).</t> | <li>Network devices that are expected to use SZTP as | |||
<t>Network devices that are expected to use secure zero touch provisioning as | specified in <xref target="RFC8572" format="default"/> | |||
specified in <xref target="RFC8572"/> | <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be shipped by the manufacturer with pre-provisioned keys (In | |||
MUST be shipped by the manufacturer with pre-provisioned keys (Initial DevID and | itial DevID and Initial AK, | |||
Initial AK, | called IDevID and IAK, respectively). IDevID and IAK certificates <bcp14>MUST</ | |||
called IDevID and IAK). IDevID and IAK certificates MUST both be signed by the | bcp14> both be signed by the Endorser | |||
Endorser | ||||
(typically the device manufacturer). Inclusion of an IDevID and IAK by a vendor does not | (typically the device manufacturer). Inclusion of an IDevID and IAK by a vendor does not | |||
preclude a mechanism whereby an administrator can define Local Identity and | preclude a mechanism whereby an administrator can define LDevID and | |||
Attestation Keys (LDevID and LAK) if desired.</t> | Local Attestation Keys (LAK) if desired.</li> | |||
</list></t> | </ul> | |||
</section> | ||||
</section> | <section anchor="RIV-flow" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
<section anchor="RIV-flow" title="RIV Information Flow"> | <name>RIV Information Flow</name> | |||
<t>RIV workflow for network equipment is organized around a simple use c | ||||
<t>RIV workflow for network equipment is organized around a simple use case | ase | |||
where a network operator wishes to verify the integrity of software installed | where a network operator wishes to verify the integrity of software installed | |||
in specific, fielded devices. A normative taxonomy of terms is given in <xref t arget="I-D.ietf-rats-architecture"/>, | in specific, fielded devices. A normative taxonomy of terms is given in <xref t arget="RFC9334" format="default"/>, | |||
but as a reminder, this use case implies several roles and objects:</t> | but as a reminder, this use case implies several roles and objects:</t> | |||
<dl spacing="normal"> | ||||
<t><list style="numbers"> | <dt>Attester:</dt> | |||
<t>The Attester, the device which the network operator wants to examine.</t> | <dd>The device that the network operator wants to examine.</dd> | |||
<t>A Verifier (which might be a network management station) somewhere separate | <dt>Verifier:</dt> | |||
<dd>Which might be a Network Management Station and is somewhat separa | ||||
te | ||||
from the Device that will retrieve the signed evidence and measurement logs, a nd analyze them to pass | from the Device that will retrieve the signed evidence and measurement logs, a nd analyze them to pass | |||
judgment on the security posture of the device.</t> | judgment on the security posture of the device.</dd> | |||
<t>A Relying Party, which can act on Attestation Results. Interaction between | <dt>Relying Party:</dt> | |||
the Relying Party and the | <dd>Can act on Attestation Results. Interaction between the Relying P | |||
Verifier is considered out of scope for RIV.</t> | arty and the | |||
<t>Signed Reference Integrity Manifests (RIMs), containing Reference Values, c | Verifier is considered out of scope for RIV.</dd> | |||
an | <dt>Signed Reference Integrity Manifests (RIMs):</dt> | |||
<dd>Contains Reference Values. RIMs can | ||||
either be created by the device manufacturer | either be created by the device manufacturer | |||
and shipped along with the device as part of its software image, or alternativ ely, | and shipped along with the device as part of its software image, or alternativ ely, | |||
could be obtained several other ways (direct to the Verifier from the | could be obtained several other ways (direct to the Verifier from the | |||
manufacturer, from a third party, from the owner’s observation of what’s | manufacturer, from a third party, from the owner's concept | |||
thought to be a “known good system”, etc.). Retrieving RIMs from the device | of a "known good system", etc.). Retrieving RIMs from the device | |||
itself allows attestation to be done in systems that may not have access | itself allows attestation to be done in systems that may not have access | |||
to the public internet, or by other devices that are not management stations | to the public Internet, or by other devices that are not management stations | |||
per se (e.g., a peer device; see <xref target="RIM-policy"/>). If Reference V | per se (e.g., a peer device; see <xref target="RIM-policy" format="default"/>) | |||
alues are obtained from | . If Reference Values are obtained from | |||
multiple sources, the Verifier may need to evaluate the relative level of | multiple sources, the Verifier may need to evaluate the relative level of | |||
trust to be placed in each source in case of a discrepancy.</t> | trust to be placed in each source in case of a discrepancy.</dd> | |||
</list></t> | </dl> | |||
<t>These components are illustrated in <xref target="RIV-Reference-Confi | ||||
<t>These components are illustrated in <xref target="RIV-Reference-Configuration | guration" format="default"/>.</t> | |||
"/>.</t> | <figure anchor="RIV-Reference-Configuration"> | |||
<name>RIV Reference Configuration for Network Equipment</name> | ||||
<figure title="RIV Reference Configuration for Network Equipment" anchor="RIV-Re | <artwork align="left" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[ | |||
ference-Configuration"><artwork align="left"><![CDATA[ | ||||
+----------------+ +-------------+ +---------+--------+ | +----------------+ +-------------+ +---------+--------+ | |||
|Reference Value | | Attester | Step 1 | Verifier| | | |Reference Value | | Attester | Step 1 | Verifier| | | |||
|Provider | | (Device |<-------| (Network| Relying| | |Provider | | (Device |<-------| (Network| Relying| | |||
|(Device | | under |------->| Mngmt | Party | | |(Device | | under |------->| Mgmt | Party | | |||
|Manufacturer | | attestation)| Step 2 | Station)| | | |Manufacturer | | attestation)| Step 2 | Station)| | | |||
|or other | | | | | | | |or other | | | | | | | |||
|authority) | | | | | | | |authority) | | | | | | | |||
+----------------+ +-------------+ +---------+--------+ | +----------------+ +-------------+ +---------+--------+ | |||
| /\ | | /\ | |||
| Step 0 | | | Step 0 | | |||
----------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------- | |||
]]></artwork> | ||||
]]></artwork></figure> | </figure> | |||
<ol spacing="normal" type="Step %d:" start="0" indent="9"> | ||||
<t><list style="symbols"> | <li>The Reference Value Provider (the device manufacturer or other aut | |||
<t>In Step 0, The Reference Value Provider (the device manufacturer or other a | hority) makes | |||
uthority) makes | one or more RIMs, which correspond to the software image expected to be found on | |||
one or more Reference Integrity Manifests (RIMs), corresponding to the software | the device and are signed by the Reference Value Provider, available to the Ver | |||
image expected to be found on the device, signed by the Reference Value Provider | ifier. | |||
, available to the Verifier | (See <xref target="RIM-policy" format="default"/> for "in-band" and "out of band | |||
(see <xref target="RIM-policy"/> for “in-band” and “out of band” ways to make th | " ways to make this happen.)</li> | |||
is happen).</t> | <li>On behalf of a Relying Party, the Verifier (Network Management Sta | |||
<t>In Step 1, | tion) requests DevID, | |||
the Verifier (Network Management Station), on behalf of a Relying Party, request | Measurement Values, and possibly RIMs from the Attester.</li> | |||
s Identity, | <li>The | |||
Measurement Values, and possibly RIMs, from the Attester.</t> | Attester responds to the request by providing a DevID, quotes (measured values t | |||
<t>In Step 2, the | hat are signed by the Attester), | |||
Attester responds to the request by providing a DevID, quotes (measured values, | and optionally RIMs.</li> | |||
signed by the Attester), | </ol> | |||
and optionally RIMs.</t> | <t>The use of the following standards components allows for interoperabi | |||
</list></t> | lity:</t> | |||
<ol spacing="normal" type="1"><li>TPM keys <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be config | ||||
<t>Use of the following standards components allows for interoperability:</t> | ured according to <xref target="PLATFORM-DEVID-TPM-2.0" format="default"/> or <x | |||
ref target="PLATFORM-ID-TPM-1.2" format="default"/>.</li> | ||||
<t><list style="numbers"> | <li>For devices using UEFI and Linux, measurements of firmware and boo | |||
<t>TPM Keys MUST be configured according to <xref target="Platform-DevID-TPM-2 | table modules <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be taken according to "TCG EFI Platform Specif | |||
.0"/>, or <xref target="Platform-ID-TPM-1.2"/>.</t> | ication" <xref target="PC-CLIENT-EFI-TPM-1.2" format="default"/> or "TCG PC Clie | |||
<t>For devices using UEFI and Linux, measurements of firmware and bootable mod | nt Specific Platform Firmware Profile Specification" <xref target="PC-CLIENT-BIO | |||
ules MUST be taken according to TCG PC Client <xref target="PC-Client-EFI-TPM-1. | S-TPM-2.0" format="default"/>, and Linux IMA <xref target="IMA" format="default" | |||
2"/> or <xref target="PC-Client-BIOS-TPM-2.0"/>, and Linux IMA <xref target="IMA | />.</li> | |||
"/>.</t> | <li>DevID <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be managed as DevID certificates as spec | |||
<t>Device Identity MUST be managed as specified in IEEE 802.1AR Device Identit | ified in IEEE Std 802.1AR <xref target="IEEE-802-1AR" format="default"/>, with k | |||
y certificates <xref target="IEEE-802-1AR"/>, with keys protected by TPMs.</t> | eys protected by TPMs.</li> | |||
<t>Attestation logs from Linux-based systems MUST be formatted according to th | <li>Attestation logs from Linux-based systems <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be f | |||
e Canonical Event Log format <xref target="Canonical-Event-Log"/>. UEFI-based s | ormatted according to the "Canonical Event Log Format" <xref target="CEL" format | |||
ystems MUST use the TCG UEFI BIOS event log <xref target="PC-Client-EFI-TPM-1.2" | ="default"/>. UEFI-based systems <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> use the TCG UEFI BIOS even | |||
/> for TPM1.2 systems, and TCG PC Client Platform Firmware Profile <xref target= | t log <xref target="PC-CLIENT-EFI-TPM-1.2" format="default"/> for TPM 1.2 system | |||
"PC-Client-BIOS-TPM-2.0"/> for TPM2.0.</t> | s and the "TCG PC Client Specific Platform Firmware Profile" <xref target="PC-CL | |||
<t>Quotes MUST be retrieved from the TPM according to TCG TAP Information Mode | IENT-BIOS-TPM-2.0" format="default"/> for TPM 2.0 systems.</li> | |||
l <xref target="TAP"/> and the CHARRA YANG model <xref target="I-D.ietf-rats-yan | <li>Quotes <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be retrieved from the TPM according to | |||
g-tpm-charra"/>. While the TAP IM gives a protocol-independent description of t | the TCG Trusted Attestation Protocol Information Model (TAP IM) <xref target="TA | |||
he data elements involved, it’s important to note that quotes from the TPM are s | P" format="default"/> and the Challenge-Response-based Remote Attestation (CHARR | |||
igned inside the TPM, and MUST be retrieved in a way that does not invalidate th | A) YANG model <xref target="RFC9684" format="default"/>. While the TAP IM gives | |||
e signature, to preserve the trust model. The <xref target="I-D.ietf-rats-yang- | a protocol-independent description of the data elements involved, it's importan | |||
tpm-charra"/> is used for this purpose. (See <xref target="security-cons"/> Sec | t to note that quotes from the TPM are signed inside the TPM and <bcp14>MUST</bc | |||
urity Considerations).</t> | p14> be retrieved in a way that does not invalidate the signature, to preserve t | |||
<t>Reference Values MUST be encoded as defined in | he trust model. The CHARRA YANG model <xref target="RFC9684" format="default"/> | |||
the TCG RIM document <xref target="RIM"/>, typically using SWID <xref target=" | is used for this purpose. (See <xref target="security-cons" format="default"/> | |||
SWID"/>, <xref target="NIST-IR-8060"/> or CoSWID tags <xref target="I-D.ietf-sac | , Security Considerations).</li> | |||
m-coswid"/>.</t> | <li>Reference Values <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be encoded as defined in | |||
</list></t> | the TCG RIM document <xref target="RIM" format="default"/>, typically using So | |||
ftware Identification (SWID) tags <xref target="SWID" format="default"/> <xref t | ||||
</section> | arget="NIST-IR-8060" format="default"/> or Concise SWID (CoSWID) tags <xref targ | |||
<section anchor="riv-simplify" title="RIV Simplifying Assumptions"> | et="RFC9393" format="default"/>.</li> | |||
</ol> | ||||
<t>This document makes the following simplifying assumptions to reduce complexit | </section> | |||
y:</t> | <section anchor="riv-simplify" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
<name>RIV Simplifying Assumptions</name> | ||||
<t><list style="symbols"> | <t>This document makes the following simplifying assumptions to reduce c | |||
<t>The product to be attested MUST be shipped by the equipment vendor with bot | omplexity:</t> | |||
h an IEEE 802.1AR Device Identity and an Initial | <ul spacing="normal"> | |||
Attestation Key (IAK), with certificates in place. The IAK certificate must con | <li>The product to be attested <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be shipped by the e | |||
tain the same identity | quipment vendor with both a DevID as specified by IEEE Std 802.1AR and an IAK, w | |||
ith certificates in place. The IAK certificate must contain the same identity | ||||
information as the DevID (specifically, the same subject and subjectAltName (if used), signed by the manufacturer). The IAK is a type of key that can be | information as the DevID (specifically, the same subject and subjectAltName (if used), signed by the manufacturer). The IAK is a type of key that can be | |||
used to sign a TPM Quote, but not other objects (i.e., it’s marked as a TCG “Res tricted” key; | used to sign a TPM Quote, but not other objects (i.e., it's marked as a TCG "Res tricted" key; | |||
this convention is described in | this convention is described in | |||
“TPM 2.0 Keys for Device Identity and Attestation” <xref target="Platform-DevID- TPM-2.0"/>). For network equipment, which is generally non-privacy-sensitive, sh ipping | "TPM 2.0 Keys for Device Identity and Attestation" <xref target="PLATFORM-DEVID- TPM-2.0" format="default"/>). For network equipment, which is generally not priv acy sensitive, shipping | |||
a device with both an IDevID and an IAK already provisioned substantially | a device with both an IDevID and an IAK already provisioned substantially | |||
simplifies initial startup.</t> | simplifies initial startup.</li> | |||
<t>IEEE 802.1AR does not require a product serial number as part of the subjec | <li> | |||
t, but RIV-compliant | <t>IEEE Std 802.1AR does not require a product serial number as part | |||
devices MUST include their serial numbers in the DevID/IAK certificates to simpl | of the subject, but RIV-compliant | |||
ify tracking logistics | devices <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> include their serial numbers in the DevID/IAK certif | |||
icates to simplify tracking logistics | ||||
for network equipment users. All other optional | for network equipment users. All other optional | |||
802.1AR fields remain optional in RIV.<vspace /> | 802.1AR fields remain optional in RIV.</t> | |||
It should be noted that 802.1AR use of X.509 certificate fields | <t> | |||
is not identical to those descsribed in <xref target="RFC6125"/> for representat | It should be noted that the use of X.509 certificate fields as specified by IEEE | |||
ion of application service identity.</t> | Std 802.1AR | |||
<t>The product MUST be equipped with a Root of Trust for Measurement (RTM), Ro | is not identical to that described in <xref target="RFC9525" format="default"/> | |||
ot of Trust | for representation of application service identity.</t> | |||
for Storage and Root of Trust for Reporting (as defined in <xref target="SP800-1 | </li> | |||
55"/>) which together are | <li>The product <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be equipped with an RTM, a Root of | |||
capable of conforming to TCG Trusted Attestation Protocol Information Model <xre | Trust | |||
f target="TAP"/>.</t> | for Storage, and a Root of Trust for Reporting (as defined in <xref target="SP80 | |||
<t>The authorized software supplier MUST make available Reference Values | 0-155" format="default"/>), which together are | |||
in the form of signed SWID or CoSWID tags.</t> | capable of conforming to the TCG TAP IM <xref target="TAP" format="default"/>.</ | |||
</list></t> | li> | |||
<li>The authorized software supplier <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> make availabl | ||||
<section anchor="RIM-section" title="Reference Integrity Manifests (RIMs)"> | e Reference Values | |||
in the form of signed SWID or CoSWID tags.</li> | ||||
<t><xref target="I-D.ietf-rats-yang-tpm-charra"/> focuses on collecting and tran | </ul> | |||
smitting evidence in | <section anchor="RIM-section" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
<name>Reference Integrity Manifests (RIMs)</name> | ||||
<t><xref target="RFC9684" format="default"/> focuses on collecting and | ||||
transmitting evidence in | ||||
the form of PCR measurements and attestation logs. But the critical part | the form of PCR measurements and attestation logs. But the critical part | |||
of the process is enabling the Verifier to decide whether the measurements | of the process is enabling the Verifier to decide whether the measurements | |||
are “the right ones” or not.</t> | are "the right ones" or not.</t> | |||
<t>While it must be up to network administrators to decide what they w | ||||
<t>While it must be up to network administrators to decide what they want on | ant on | |||
their networks, the software supplier should supply the Reference Values, in | their networks, the software supplier should supply the Reference Values, in | |||
signed Reference Integrity Manifests, that | signed RIMs, that | |||
may be used by a Verifier to determine if evidence shows known good, known | may be used by a Verifier to determine if evidence shows known good, known | |||
bad or unknown software configurations.</t> | bad, or unknown software configurations.</t> | |||
<t>In general, there are two kinds of reference measurements:</t> | ||||
<t>In general, there are two kinds of reference measurements:</t> | <ol spacing="normal" type="1"><li>Measurements of early system startup | |||
(e.g., BIOS, boot loader, OS kernel) | ||||
<t><list style="numbers"> | are essentially single threaded and executed exactly once, in a known sequence, | |||
<t>Measurements of early system startup (e.g., BIOS, boot loader, OS kernel) | before any results can be reported. In this case, while the method for | |||
are essentially single-threaded, and executed exactly once, in a known sequence, | ||||
before any results could be reported. In this case, while the method for | ||||
computing the hash and extending relevant PCRs may be complicated, the net | computing the hash and extending relevant PCRs may be complicated, the net | |||
result is that the software (more likely, firmware) vendor will have one | result is that the software (more likely, firmware) vendor will have one | |||
known good PCR value that “should” be present in the relevant PCRs after the box has | known good PCR value that "should" be present in the relevant PCRs after the box has | |||
booted. In this case, the signed reference measurement could simply list the | booted. In this case, the signed reference measurement could simply list the | |||
expected hashes for the given version. However, a RIM that contains the | expected hashes for the given version. However, a RIM that contains the | |||
intermediate hashes can be useful in debugging cases where the expected final ha sh | intermediate hashes can be useful in debugging cases where the expected final ha sh | |||
is not the one reported.</t> | is not the one reported.</li> | |||
<t>Measurements taken later in operation of the system, once an OS has started | <li>Measurements taken later in operation of the system, once an OS | |||
(for example, Linux IMA <xref target="IMA"/>), may be more complex, with unpredi | has started | |||
ctable “final” | (for example, Linux IMA <xref target="IMA" format="default"/>), may be more comp | |||
lex, with unpredictable "final" | ||||
PCR values. In this case, the Verifier must have enough information to reconstr uct | PCR values. In this case, the Verifier must have enough information to reconstr uct | |||
the expected PCR values from logs and signed reference measurements from | the expected PCR values from logs and signed reference measurements from | |||
a trusted authority.</t> | a trusted authority.</li> | |||
</list></t> | </ol> | |||
<t>In both cases, the expected values can be expressed as signed SWID | ||||
<t>In both cases, the expected values can be expressed as signed SWID or CoSWID | or CoSWID tags, | |||
tags, | ||||
but the SWID structure in the second case is somewhat more complex, as reconstru ction of the extended hash in a PCR may involve thousands of files and other obj ects.</t> | but the SWID structure in the second case is somewhat more complex, as reconstru ction of the extended hash in a PCR may involve thousands of files and other obj ects.</t> | |||
<t>TCG has published an information model defining elements of RIMs | ||||
<t>TCG has published an information model defining elements of Reference Integri | under the title "TCG Reference Integrity Manifest (RIM) Information Model" <xref | |||
ty | target="RIM" format="default"/>. This information model outlines how SWID tags | |||
Manifests under the title TCG Reference Integrity Manifest Information Model <xr | should be structured to allow attestation, and it defines "bundles" of SWID tag | |||
ef target="RIM"/>. This information model outlines how SWID tags should be stru | s that may be needed to describe a complete software release. The RIM contains | |||
ctured to allow attestation, and defines “bundles” of SWID tags that may be need | metadata relating to the software release it belongs to, plus hashes for each in | |||
ed to describe a complete software release. The RIM contains metadata relating | dividual file or other object that could be attested.</t> | |||
to the software release it belongs to, plus hashes for each individual file or o | <t>Many network equipment vendors use a UEFI BIOS to launch their netw | |||
ther object that could be attested.</t> | ork operating system. These vendors may want to | |||
also use the "TCG PC Client Reference Integrity Manifest Specification" <xref ta | ||||
<t>Many network equipment vendors use a UEFI BIOS to launch their network operat | rget="PC-CLIENT-RIM" format="default"/>, which focuses specifically on a SWID-co | |||
ing system. These vendors may want to | mpatible format suitable for expressing measurement values expected from a UEFI | |||
also use the TCG PC Client Reference Integrity Measurement specification <xref t | BIOS.</t> | |||
arget="PC-Client-RIM"/>, which focuses specifically on a SWID-compatible format | </section> | |||
suitable for expressing measurement values expected from a UEFI BIOS.</t> | <section anchor="attestation-logs" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
<name>Attestation Logs</name> | ||||
</section> | <t>Quotes from a TPM can provide evidence of the state of a device up | |||
<section anchor="attestation-logs" title="Attestation Logs"> | to the time | |||
the evidence was recorded. However, to make sense of the quote in cases where se | ||||
<t>Quotes from a TPM can provide evidence of the state of a device up to the tim | veral events are extended into one PCR, an | |||
e | ||||
the evidence was recorded, but to make sense of the quote in cases where several | ||||
events are extended into one PCR an | ||||
event log that identifies which software modules contributed which values to the quote | event log that identifies which software modules contributed which values to the quote | |||
during startup must also be provided. When required, the log MUST contain enoug h information | during startup must also be provided. When required, the log <bcp14>MUST</bcp14 > contain enough information | |||
to demonstrate its integrity by allowing exact reconstruction of the digest | to demonstrate its integrity by allowing exact reconstruction of the digest | |||
conveyed in the signed quote (that is, calculating the hash of all the hashes in the | conveyed in the signed quote (that is, calculating the hash of all the hashes in the | |||
log should produce the same values as contained in the PCRs; if they don’t match | log should produce the same values as contained in the PCRs; if they don't match | |||
, the log | , the log | |||
may have been tampered with. See <xref target="using-tpm"/>).</t> | may have been tampered with. See <xref target="using-tpm" format="default"/>).< | |||
/t> | ||||
<t>There are multiple event log formats which may be supported as viable formats | <t>There are multiple event log formats that may be supported as viabl | |||
of Evidence between the Attester and Verifier, | e formats of Evidence between the Attester and Verifier; | |||
but to simplify interoperability, RIV focuses on just three:</t> | however, to simplify interoperability, RIV focuses on just three:</t> | |||
<ol spacing="normal" type="1"> | ||||
<t><list style="symbols"> | <li>TCG UEFI BIOS event log for TPM 2.0 ("TCG PC Client Specific Pla | |||
<t>TCG UEFI BIOS event log for TPM 2.0 (TCG PC Client Platform Firmware Profil | tform Firmware Profile Specification") <xref target="PC-CLIENT-BIOS-TPM-2.0" for | |||
e) <xref target="PC-Client-BIOS-TPM-2.0"/></t> | mat="default"/></li> | |||
<t>TCG UEFI BIOS event log for TPM 1.2 (TCG EFI Platform Specification for TPM | <li>TCG UEFI BIOS event log for TPM 1.2 ("TCG EFI Platform Specifica | |||
Family 1.1 or | tion" for TPM Family 1.1 or | |||
1.2, Section 7) <xref target="PC-Client-EFI-TPM-1.2"/></t> | 1.2, Section 7) <xref target="PC-CLIENT-EFI-TPM-1.2" format="default"/></li> | |||
<t>TCG Canonical Event Log <xref target="Canonical-Event-Log"/></t> | <li>TCG "Canonical Event Log Format" <xref target="CEL" format="defa | |||
</list></t> | ult"/></li> | |||
</ol> | ||||
</section> | </section> | |||
</section> | </section> | |||
</section> | </section> | |||
<section anchor="standards-components" title="Standards Components"> | <section anchor="standards-components" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
<name>Standards Components</name> | ||||
<section anchor="prerequisites-for-riv" title="Prerequisites for RIV"> | <section anchor="prerequisites-for-riv" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
<name>Prerequisites for RIV</name> | ||||
<t>The Reference Interaction Model for Challenge-Response-based Remote Attestati | <t>The Reference Interaction Model for Challenge-Response-based Remote A | |||
on (<xref target="I-D.birkholz-rats-reference-interaction-model"/>) | ttestation (<xref target="I-D.ietf-rats-reference-interaction-models" format="de | |||
is based on the standard roles defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf-rats-architectu | fault"/>) | |||
re"/>. However, additional prerequisites have been established to allow for int | is based on the standard roles defined in <xref target="RFC9334" format="default | |||
eroperable RIV use case implementations. These prerequisites are intended to pr | "/>. However, additional prerequisites have been established to allow for inter | |||
ovide sufficient context information so that the Verifier can acquire and evalua | operable implementations of RIV use cases. These prerequisites are intended to | |||
te measurements collected by the Attester.</t> | provide sufficient context information so that the Verifier can acquire and eval | |||
uate measurements collected by the Attester.</t> | ||||
<section anchor="unique-device-identity" title="Unique Device Identity"> | <section anchor="unique-device-identity" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
<name>Unique Device Identity</name> | ||||
<t>A secure Device Identity (DevID) in the form of an IEEE 802.1AR DevID certifi | <t>A DevID in the form of a DevID certificate as specified by IEEE Std | |||
cate <xref target="IEEE-802-1AR"/> must be provisioned in the Attester’s TPMs.</ | 802.1AR <xref target="IEEE-802-1AR" format="default"/> must be provisioned in t | |||
t> | he Attester's TPMs.</t> | |||
</section> | ||||
</section> | <section anchor="keys" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
<section anchor="keys" title="Keys"> | <name>Keys</name> | |||
<t>The AK and certificate must also be provisioned on the Attester acc | ||||
<t>The Attestation Key (AK) and certificate must also be provisioned on the Atte | ording to <xref target="PLATFORM-DEVID-TPM-2.0" format="default"/> or <xref targ | |||
ster according to <xref target="Platform-DevID-TPM-2.0"/>, or <xref target="Plat | et="PLATFORM-ID-TPM-1.2" format="default"/>.</t> | |||
form-ID-TPM-1.2"/>.</t> | <t>It <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be possible for the Verifier to determine th | |||
at the Attester's AKs are resident in the same TPM as its DevID keys (see <xref | ||||
<t>It MUST be possible for the Verifier to determine that the Attester’s Attesta | target="riv-keying" format="default"/> and <xref target="security-cons" format=" | |||
tion keys are resident in the same TPM as its DevID keys (see <xref target="riv- | default"/>, Security Considerations).</t> | |||
keying"/> and <xref target="security-cons"/> Security Considerations).</t> | </section> | |||
<section anchor="RIM-policy" numbered="true" toc="default"> | ||||
</section> | <name>Appraisal Policy for Evidence</name> | |||
<section anchor="RIM-policy" title="Appraisal Policy for Evidence"> | <t>As noted in <xref target="RIV-flow" format="default"/>, the Verifie | |||
r may obtain Reference Values from several sources. In addition, administrators | ||||
<t>As noted in <xref target="RIV-flow"/>, the Verifier may obtain Reference Valu | may make authorized, site-specific changes (e.g., keys in key databases) that c | |||
es from several sources. In addition, administrators may make authorized, site- | ould impact attestation results. As such, there could be conflicts, omissions, | |||
specific changes (e.g. keys in key databases) that could impact attestation resu | or ambiguities between some Reference Values and collected Evidence.</t> | |||
lts. As such, there could be conflicts, omissions or ambiguities between some R | <t>The Verifier <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> have an Appraisal Policy for Evide | |||
eference Values and collected Evidence.</t> | nce to evaluate the significance of any discrepancies between different referenc | |||
e sources, or between Reference Values and evidence from logs and quotes. | ||||
<t>The Verifier MUST have an Appraisal Policy for Evidence to evaluate the signi | ||||
ficance of any discrepancies between different reference sources, or between ref | ||||
erence values and evidence from logs and quotes. | ||||
While there must be an Appraisal Policy, this document does not specify the form at or mechanism to convey the intended policy, nor does RIV specify mechanisms b y which the results of applying the policy are communicated to the Relying Party .</t> | While there must be an Appraisal Policy, this document does not specify the form at or mechanism to convey the intended policy, nor does RIV specify mechanisms b y which the results of applying the policy are communicated to the Relying Party .</t> | |||
</section> | ||||
</section> | </section> | |||
</section> | <section anchor="reference-model-for-challenge-response" numbered="true" t | |||
<section anchor="reference-model-for-challenge-response" title="Reference Model | oc="default"> | |||
for Challenge-Response"> | <name>Reference Model for Challenge-Response</name> | |||
<t>Once the prerequisites for RIV are met, a Verifier is able to acquire | ||||
<t>Once the prerequisites for RIV are met, a Verifier is able to acquire Evidenc | Evidence from an Attester. <xref target="IETF-Attestation-Information-Flow" fo | |||
e from an Attester. The following diagram illustrates a RIV information flow be | rmat="default"/> illustrates a RIV information flow between a Verifier and an At | |||
tween a Verifier and an Attester, | tester, | |||
derived from Section 7.1 of <xref target="I-D.birkholz-rats-reference-interactio | derived from Section 7.1 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-rats-reference-interaction-mo | |||
n-model"/>. In this diagram, each event with its | dels" format="default"/>. In this diagram, each event with its | |||
input and output parameters is shown as “Event(input-params)=>(outputs)”. | input and output parameters is shown as "Event(input-params)=>(outputs)". | |||
Event times shown correspond to the time types described within Appendix A of <x | The event times shown correspond to the time types described within <xref target | |||
ref target="I-D.ietf-rats-architecture"/>:</t> | ="RFC9334" section="A" sectionFormat="of" format="default"/>:</t> | |||
<figure anchor="IETF-Attestation-Information-Flow"> | ||||
<figure title="IETF Attestation Information Flow" anchor="IETF-Attestation-Infor | <name>IETF Attestation Information Flow</name> | |||
mation-Flow"><artwork align="left"><![CDATA[ | <artwork align="left" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[ | |||
.----------. .-----------------------. | .----------. .-----------------------. | |||
| Attester | | Relying Party/Verifier | | | Attester | | Relying Party/Verifier | | |||
'----------' '------------------------' | '----------' '------------------------' | |||
time(VG) | | time(VG) | | |||
generateClaims(attestingEnvironment) | | generateClaims(attestingEnvironment) | | |||
| => claims, eventLogs | | | => claims, eventLogs | | |||
| | | | | | |||
| time(NS) | | time(NS) | |||
| <-- requestAttestation(handle, authSecIDs, claimSelection) | | | <-- requestAttestation(handle, authSecIDs, claimSelection) | | |||
| | | | | | |||
skipping to change at line 727 ¶ | skipping to change at line 680 ¶ | |||
generateEvidence(handle, authSecIDs, collectedClaims) | | generateEvidence(handle, authSecIDs, collectedClaims) | | |||
| => evidence | | | => evidence | | |||
| time(RG,RA) | | time(RG,RA) | |||
| evidence, eventLogs -------------------------------------> | | | evidence, eventLogs -------------------------------------> | | |||
| | | | | | |||
| appraiseEvidence(evidence, eventLogs, refValues) | | appraiseEvidence(evidence, eventLogs, refValues) | |||
| attestationResult <= | | | attestationResult <= | | |||
| | | | | | |||
~ ~ | ~ ~ | |||
| time(RX) | | time(RX) | |||
]]></artwork></figure> | ]]></artwork> | |||
</figure> | ||||
<t><list style="symbols"> | <dl spacing="normal"> | |||
<t>Step 1 (time(VG)): One or more Attesting Network Device PCRs are extended w | <dt>Step 1 (time(VG)):</dt><dd>One or more attesting network device PC | |||
ith measurements. RIV provides no direct link between | Rs are extended with measurements. RIV provides no direct link between | |||
the time at which the event takes place and the time that it’s attested, althoug | the time at which the event takes place and the time that it's attested, althoug | |||
h streaming attestation as in <xref target="I-D.birkholz-rats-network-device-sub | h streaming attestation as described in <xref target="I-D.ietf-rats-network-devi | |||
scription"/> could.</t> | ce-subscription" format="default"/> could.</dd> | |||
<t>Step 2 (time(NS)): The Verifier generates a unique random nonce (“number us | <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2. FYI, we will update the title of RFC 9684 when it is f | |||
ed once”), and makes a request for one or more PCRs from an Attester. For inter | inalized. --> | |||
operability, this must be accomplished as specified in the YANG Data Model for C | <dt>Step 2 (time(NS)):</dt><dd>The Verifier generates a unique random | |||
hallenge-Response-based Remote Attestation Procedures using TPMs <xref target="I | nonce ("number used once") and makes a request for one or more PCRs from an Atte | |||
-D.ietf-rats-yang-tpm-charra"/>. TPM1.2 and TPM2.0 both allow nonces as large a | ster. For interoperability, this must be accomplished as specified in "A YANG D | |||
s the operative digest size (i.e., 20 or 32 bytes; see <xref target="TPM1.2"></x | ata Model for Challenge-Response-Based Remote Attestation (CHARRA) Procedures Us | |||
ref> Part 2, Section 5.5 and <xref target="TPM2.0"></xref> Part 2, Section 10.4. | ing Trusted Platform Modules (TPMs)" <xref target="RFC9684" format="default"/>. | |||
4).</t> | Both TPM 1.2 and TPM 2.0 allow nonces as large as the operative digest size (i. | |||
<t>Step 3 (time(EG)): On the Attester, measured values are retrieved from the | e., 20 or 32 bytes; see <xref target="TPM-1.2" format="default"/> Part 2, Sectio | |||
Attester’s TPM. This requested PCR evidence, | n 5.5, and <xref target="TPM-2.0" format="default"/> Part 2, Section 10.4.4).</d | |||
along with the Verifier’s nonce, called a Quote, is signed by the Attestation Ke | d> | |||
y (AK) associated with the DevID. Quotes are retrieved according to CHARRA YANG | <dt>Step 3 (time(EG)):</dt><dd>On the Attester, measured values are re | |||
model <xref target="I-D.ietf-rats-yang-tpm-charra"/>. At the same time, the At | trieved from the Attester's TPM. This requested PCR evidence | |||
tester collects log evidence showing the values have been extended into that PCR | along with the Verifier's nonce is called a Quote and is signed by the AK associ | |||
. <xref target="using-tpm"/> gives more detail on how this works, including ref | ated with the DevID. Quotes are retrieved according to the CHARRA YANG model <x | |||
erences to the structure and contents of quotes in TPM documents.</t> | ref target="RFC9684" format="default"/>. At the same time, the Attester collect | |||
<t>Step 4: Collected Evidence is passed from the Attester to the Verifier</t> | s log evidence showing the values have been extended into that PCR. <xref targe | |||
<t>Step 5 (time(RG,RA)): The Verifier reviews the Evidence and takes action as | t="using-tpm" format="default"/> gives more detail on how this works and include | |||
needed. As the interaction between Relying Party and Verifier is out of scope | s references to the structure and contents of quotes in TPM documents.</dd> | |||
for RIV, this can be described as one step. <list style="symbols"> | <dt>Step 4:</dt><dd>The collected Evidence is passed from the Attester | |||
<t>If the signature covering TPM Evidence is not correct, the device SHOUL | to the Verifier.</dd> | |||
D NOT be trusted.</t> | ||||
<t>If the nonce in the response doesn’t match the Verifier’s nonce, the re | ||||
sponse may be a replay, and device SHOULD NOT be trusted.</t> | ||||
<t>If the signed PCR values do not match the set of log entries which have | ||||
extended a particular PCR, the device SHOULD NOT be trusted.</t> | ||||
<t>If the log entries that the Verifier considers important do not match k | ||||
nown good values, the device SHOULD NOT be trusted. We note that the process of | ||||
collecting and analyzing the log can be omitted if the value in the relevant PC | ||||
R is already a known-good value.</t> | ||||
<t>If the set of log entries are not seen as acceptable by the Appraisal P | ||||
olicy for Evidence, the device SHOULD NOT be trusted.</t> | ||||
<t>If time(RG)-time(NS) is greater than the Appraisal Policy for Evidence’ | ||||
s threshold for assessing freshness, the Evidence is considered stale and SHOULD | ||||
NOT be trusted.</t> | ||||
</list></t> | ||||
</list></t> | ||||
<section anchor="transport-and-encoding" title="Transport and Encoding"> | ||||
<t>Network Management systems may retrieve signed PCR based Evidence using NETCO | ||||
NF or RESTCONF with <xref target="I-D.ietf-rats-yang-tpm-charra"/>. | ||||
In either case, implementatations must do so using a secure tunnel.</t> | ||||
<t>Log Evidence MUST be retrieved via log interfaces specified in <xref target=" | ||||
I-D.ietf-rats-yang-tpm-charra"/>.</t> | ||||
</section> | ||||
</section> | ||||
<section anchor="peer-to-peer" title="Centralized vs Peer-to-Peer"> | ||||
<t><xref target="IETF-Attestation-Information-Flow"/> above assumes that the Ver | ||||
ifier is trusted, while the Attester is not. In a Peer-to-Peer application such | ||||
as two routers negotiating a trust relationship, the two peers can each ask the | ||||
other to prove software integrity. In this application, the information flow i | ||||
s the same, but each side plays a role both as an Attester and a Verifier. Each | ||||
device issues a challenge, and each device responds to the other’s challenge, a | ||||
s shown in <xref target="Peer-to-peer-Information-Flow"/>. Peer-to-peer challen | ||||
ges, particularly if used to establish a trust relationship between routers, req | ||||
uire devices to carry their own signed reference measurements (RIMs). Devices m | ||||
ay also have to carry Appraisal Policy for Evidence for each possible peer devic | ||||
e so that each device has everything needed for remote attestation, without havi | ||||
ng to resort to a central authority.</t> | ||||
<figure title="Peer-to-Peer Attestation Information Flow" anchor="Peer-to-peer-I | <dt>Step 5 (time(RG,RA)):</dt><dd><t>The Verifier reviews the Eviden | |||
nformation-Flow"><artwork align="left"><![CDATA[ | ce and takes action as needed. As the interaction between Relying Party and Ver | |||
ifier is out of scope for RIV, this can be described as one step.</t> | ||||
<ul spacing="normal"> | ||||
<li>If the signature covering TPM Evidence is not correct, the dev | ||||
ice <bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14> be trusted.</li> | ||||
<li>If the nonce in the response doesn't match the Verifier's nonc | ||||
e, the response may be a replay, and the device <bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14> be tru | ||||
sted.</li> | ||||
<li>If the signed PCR values do not match the set of log entries t | ||||
hat have extended a particular PCR, the device <bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14> be trus | ||||
ted.</li> | ||||
<li>If the log entries that the Verifier considers important do no | ||||
t match known good values, the device <bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14> be trusted. We | ||||
note that the process of collecting and analyzing the log can be omitted if the | ||||
value in the relevant PCR is already a known-good value.</li> | ||||
<li>If the set of log entries are not seen as acceptable by the Ap | ||||
praisal Policy for Evidence, the device <bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14> be trusted.</l | ||||
i> | ||||
<li>If time(RG)-time(NS) is greater than the Appraisal Policy for | ||||
Evidence's threshold for assessing freshness, the Evidence is considered stale a | ||||
nd <bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14> be trusted.</li> | ||||
</ul> | ||||
</dd> | ||||
</dl> | ||||
<section anchor="transport-and-encoding" numbered="true" toc="default"> | ||||
<name>Transport and Encoding</name> | ||||
<t>Network Management systems may retrieve signed PCR-based Evidence u | ||||
sing NETCONF or RESTCONF with <xref target="RFC9684" format="default"/>. | ||||
In either case, implementations must do so using a secure tunnel.</t> | ||||
<t>Log Evidence <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be retrieved via log interfaces sp | ||||
ecified in <xref target="RFC9684" format="default"/>.</t> | ||||
</section> | ||||
</section> | ||||
<section anchor="peer-to-peer" numbered="true" toc="default"> | ||||
<name>Centralized vs. Peer-to-Peer</name> | ||||
<t><xref target="IETF-Attestation-Information-Flow" format="default"/> a | ||||
ssumes that the Verifier is trusted, while the Attester is not. In a peer-to-pe | ||||
er application such as two routers negotiating a trust relationship, the two pee | ||||
rs can each ask the other to prove software integrity. In this application, the | ||||
information flow is the same, but each side plays a role both as an Attester an | ||||
d a Verifier. Each device issues a challenge, and each device responds to the o | ||||
ther's challenge, as shown in <xref target="Peer-to-peer-Information-Flow" forma | ||||
t="default"/>. Peer-to-peer challenges, particularly if used to establish a tru | ||||
st relationship between routers, require devices to carry their own signed refer | ||||
ence measurements (RIMs). Devices may also have to carry an appraisal policy fo | ||||
r evidence for each possible peer device so that each device has everything need | ||||
ed for remote attestation, without having to resort to a central authority.</t> | ||||
<figure anchor="Peer-to-peer-Information-Flow"> | ||||
<name>Peer-to-Peer Attestation Information Flow</name> | ||||
<artwork align="left" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[ | ||||
+---------------+ +---------------+ | +---------------+ +---------------+ | |||
| RefVal | | RefVal | | | RefVal | | RefVal | | |||
| Provider A | | Provider B | | | Provider A | | Provider B | | |||
| Firmware | | Firmware | | | Firmware | | Firmware | | |||
| Configuration | | Configuration | | | Configuration | | Configuration | | |||
| Authority | | Authority | | | Authority | | Authority | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | |||
+---------------+ +---------------+ | +---------------+ +---------------+ | |||
| | | | | | |||
| |Step 0B | | |Step 0B | |||
skipping to change at line 787 ¶ | skipping to change at line 742 ¶ | |||
|- Router A -| Step 3 |- Router B -| | / | |- Router A -| Step 3 |- Router B -| | / | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | |||
| | Step 1 | | | \ | | | Step 1 | | | \ | |||
| Verifier |<------>| Attester |<-+ | Router A | | Verifier |<------>| Attester |<-+ | Router A | |||
| |<------>| | |- Challenges | | |<------>| | |- Challenges | |||
| | Step 2 | | | Router B | | | Step 2 | | | Router B | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | |||
| |<-------| | | | | |<-------| | | | |||
+------------+ Step 3 +------------+ / | +------------+ Step 3 +------------+ / | |||
]]></artwork> | ||||
]]></artwork></figure> | </figure> | |||
<t>In this application, each device may need to be equipped with signed | ||||
<t>In this application, each device may need to be equipped with signed RIMs to | RIMs to act as an Attester, and to allow each device to act as a Verifier, each | |||
act as an Attester, and also an Appraisal Policy for Evidence and a selection of | may need to be equipped with an Appraisal Policy for Evidence and a selection of | |||
trusted X.509 root certificates, to allow the device to act as a Verifier. An | trusted X.509 root certificates also. An existing link layer protocol such as | |||
existing link layer protocol such as 802.1X <xref target="IEEE-802.1X"/> or 802 | 802.1X <xref target="IEEE-802.1X" format="default"/> or 802.1AE <xref target="I | |||
.1AE <xref target="IEEE-802.1AE"/>, with Evidence being enclosed over a variant | EEE-802.1AE" format="default"/>, with Evidence being enclosed over a variant of | |||
of EAP <xref target="RFC3748"/> or LLDP <xref target="LLDP"/> are suitable metho | the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) <xref target="RFC3748" format="defa | |||
ds for such an exchange. | ult"/> or Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP) <xref target="LLDP" format="defau | |||
lt"/>, are suitable methods for such an exchange. | ||||
Details of peer-to-peer operation are out of scope for this document.</t> | Details of peer-to-peer operation are out of scope for this document.</t> | |||
</section> | ||||
</section> | </section> | |||
</section> | <section anchor="privacy-considerations" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
<section anchor="privacy-considerations" title="Privacy Considerations"> | <name>Privacy Considerations</name> | |||
<t>Network equipment, such as routers, switches, and firewalls, has a key | ||||
<t>Network equipment, such as routers, switches and firewalls, has a key role to | role to play in guarding the privacy of individuals using the network. Network | |||
play in guarding the privacy of individuals using the network. Network equipme | equipment generally adheres to several rules to protect privacy:</t> | |||
nt generally adheres to several rules to protect privacy:</t> | <ul spacing="normal"> | |||
<li> | ||||
<t><list style="symbols"> | <t>Packets passing through the device must not be sent to unauthorized | |||
<t>Packets passing through the device must not be sent to unauthorized destina | destinations. For example: </t> | |||
tions. For example: <list style="symbols"> | <ul spacing="normal"> | |||
<t>Routers often act as Policy Enforcement Points, where individual subscr | <li>Routers often act as Policy Enforcement Points, where individual | |||
ibers may be checked for | subscribers may be checked for | |||
authorization to access a network. Subscriber login information must not be rel | authorization to access a network. Subscriber login information must not be rel | |||
eased to unauthorized parties.</t> | eased to unauthorized parties.</li> | |||
<t>Network equipment is often called upon to block access to protected res | <li>Network equipment is often called upon to block access to protec | |||
ources from unauthorized users.</t> | ted resources from unauthorized users.</li> | |||
</list></t> | </ul> | |||
<t>Routing information, such as the identity of a router’s peers, must not be | </li> | |||
leaked to unauthorized neighbors.</t> | <li>Routing information, such as the identity of a router's peers, must | |||
<t>If configured, encryption and decryption of traffic must be carried out rel | not be leaked to unauthorized neighbors.</li> | |||
iably, while protecting keys and credentials.</t> | <li>If configured, encryption and decryption of traffic must be carried | |||
</list></t> | out reliably, while protecting keys and credentials.</li> | |||
</ul> | ||||
<t>Functions that protect privacy are implemented as part of each layer of hardw | <t>Functions that protect privacy are implemented as part of each layer of | |||
are and software that | hardware and software that | |||
makes up the networking device. | makes up the networking device. | |||
In light of these requirements for protecting the privacy of users of the networ k, the network equipment | In light of these requirements for protecting the privacy of users of the networ k, the network equipment | |||
must identify itself, and its boot configuration and measured device state (for example, PCR values), | must identify itself, and its boot configuration and measured device state (for example, PCR values), | |||
to the equipment’s administrator, so there’s no uncertainty as to what function | to the equipment's administrator so there's no uncertainty about the device's fu | |||
each device and | nction and | |||
configuration is configured to carry out. Attestation is a component that allows | configuration. Attestation is a component that allows the administrator to ensur | |||
the administrator to ensure that the network | e that the network | |||
provides individual and peer privacy guarantees, even though the device itself m ay not have a | provides individual and peer privacy guarantees, even though the device itself m ay not have a | |||
right to keep its identity secret.</t> | right to keep its identity secret.</t> | |||
<t>See <xref target="NET-EQ" format="default"/> for more context on privac | ||||
<t>See <xref target="NetEq"/> for more context on privacy in networking devices. | y in networking devices.</t> | |||
</t> | <t>While attestation information from network devices is not likely to con | |||
tain privacy-sensitive content regarding | ||||
<t>While attestation information from network devices is not likely to contain p | ||||
rivacy-sensitive content regarding | ||||
network users, administrators may want to keep attestation records confidential to avoid disclosing versions of | network users, administrators may want to keep attestation records confidential to avoid disclosing versions of | |||
software loaded on the device, information which could facilitate attacks agains | software loaded on the device, which is information that could facilitate attack | |||
t known vulnerabilities.</t> | s against known vulnerabilities.</t> | |||
</section> | ||||
</section> | <section anchor="security-cons" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
<section anchor="security-cons" title="Security Considerations"> | <name>Security Considerations</name> | |||
<t>Specifications such as TLS <xref target="RFC8446" format="default"/> an | ||||
<t>Specifications such as <xref target="RFC8446"/> (TLS) and <xref target="RFC79 | d YANG <xref target="RFC7950" format="default"/> contain considerable advice on | |||
50"/> (YANG) contain considerable advice on keeping | keeping | |||
network-connected systems secure. This section outlines specific risks and miti gations related to attestation.</t> | network-connected systems secure. This section outlines specific risks and miti gations related to attestation.</t> | |||
<t>Attestation Evidence obtained by the RIV procedure is subject to a numb | ||||
<t>Attestation Evidence obtained by the RIV procedure is subject to a number of | er of attacks:</t> | |||
attacks:</t> | <ul spacing="normal"> | |||
<li>Keys may be compromised.</li> | ||||
<t><list style="symbols"> | <li>A counterfeit device may attempt to impersonate (spoof) a known auth | |||
<t>Keys may be compromised.</t> | entic device.</li> | |||
<t>A counterfeit device may attempt to impersonate (spoof) a known authentic d | <li>Person-in-the-middle attacks may be used by a compromised device to | |||
evice.</t> | attempt to deliver | |||
<t>Person-in-the-middle attacks may be used by a compromised device to attempt | responses that originate in an authentic device.</li> | |||
to deliver | <li>Replay attacks may be attempted by a compromised device.</li> | |||
responses that originate in an authentic device.</t> | </ul> | |||
<t>Replay attacks may be attempted by a compromised device.</t> | <section anchor="keys-used-in-riv" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
</list></t> | <name>Keys Used in RIV</name> | |||
<t>Trustworthiness of RIV attestation depends strongly on the validity o | ||||
<section anchor="keys-used-in-riv" title="Keys Used in RIV"> | f keys used for identity | |||
<t>Trustworthiness of RIV attestation depends strongly on the validity of keys u | ||||
sed for identity | ||||
and attestation reports. RIV takes full advantage of TPM capabilities to ensure that evidence can be trusted.</t> | and attestation reports. RIV takes full advantage of TPM capabilities to ensure that evidence can be trusted.</t> | |||
<t>Two sets of key pairs are relevant to RIV attestation:</t> | ||||
<t>Two sets of key-pairs are relevant to RIV attestation:</t> | <ul spacing="normal"> | |||
<li>A DevID key pair is used to certify the identity of the device in | ||||
<t><list style="symbols"> | which the TPM is installed.</li> | |||
<t>A DevID key-pair is used to certify the identity of the device in which the | <li>An AK key pair is used to certify attestation Evidence (i.e., quot | |||
TPM is installed.</t> | es) and | |||
<t>An Attestation Key-pair (AK) key is used to certify attestation Evidence (c | to provide evidence for integrity of the device software.</li> | |||
alled ‘quotes’ in TCG documents), | </ul> | |||
used to provide evidence for integrity of the software on the device</t> | <t>TPM practices usually require that these keys be different to ensure | |||
</list></t> | that a general-purpose | |||
<t>TPM practices usually require that these keys be different, as a way of ensur | ||||
ing that a general-purpose | ||||
signing key cannot be used to spoof an attestation quote.</t> | signing key cannot be used to spoof an attestation quote.</t> | |||
<t>In each case, the private half of the key is known only to the TPM an | ||||
<t>In each case, the private half of the key is known only to the TPM, and canno | d cannot be | |||
t be | retrieved externally, even by a trusted party. To ensure that's the case, | |||
retrieved externally, even by a trusted party. To ensure that’s the case, | specification-compliant private/public key pairs are generated inside the TPM, w | |||
specification-compliant private/public key-pairs are generated inside the TPM, w | here they are never | |||
here they are never | exposed and cannot be extracted (see <xref target="PLATFORM-DEVID-TPM-2.0" forma | |||
exposed, and cannot be extracted (See <xref target="Platform-DevID-TPM-2.0"/>).< | t="default"/>).</t> | |||
/t> | <t>Keeping keys safe is a critical enabler of trustworthiness, but it's | |||
just part of attestation security; knowing which keys are bound | ||||
<t>Keeping keys safe is a critical enabler of trustworthiness, but it’s just par | ||||
t of attestation security; knowing which keys are bound | ||||
to the device in question is just as important in an environment where private k eys are never exposed.</t> | to the device in question is just as important in an environment where private k eys are never exposed.</t> | |||
<t>While there are many ways to manage keys in a TPM (see <xref target=" | ||||
<t>While there are many ways to manage keys in a TPM (see <xref target="Platform | PLATFORM-DEVID-TPM-2.0" format="default"/>), RIV includes | |||
-DevID-TPM-2.0"/>), RIV includes | support for "zero touch" provisioning (also known as zero touch onboarding) of f | |||
support for “zero touch” provisioning (also known as zero-touch onboarding) of f | ielded | |||
ielded | devices (e.g., SZTP <xref target="RFC8572" format="default"/>), where keys that | |||
devices (e.g., Secure ZTP, <xref target="RFC8572"/>), where keys which have pred | have predictable trust properties are | |||
ictable trust properties are | ||||
provisioned by the device vendor.</t> | provisioned by the device vendor.</t> | |||
<t>Device identity in RIV is based on DevID defined by IEEE Std 802.1AR. | ||||
<t>Device identity in RIV is based on IEEE 802.1AR Device Identity (DevID). This | This specification provides several elements:</t> | |||
specification provides several elements:</t> | <ul spacing="normal"> | |||
<li>A DevID requires a unique key pair for each device, accompanied by | ||||
<t><list style="symbols"> | an X.509 certificate.</li> | |||
<t>A DevID requires a unique key pair for each device, accompanied by an X.509 | <li>The private portion of the DevID key is to be stored in the device | |||
certificate,</t> | , in a manner that provides confidentiality (Section 6.2.5 of <xref target="IEEE | |||
<t>The private portion of the DevID key is to be stored in the device, in a ma | -802-1AR" format="default"/>).</li> | |||
nner that provides confidentiality (Section 6.2.5 <xref target="IEEE-802-1AR"/>) | </ul> | |||
</t> | <t>The X.509 certificate contains several components:</t> | |||
</list></t> | <ul spacing="normal"> | |||
<li>The public part of the unique DevID key assigned to that device al | ||||
<t>The X.509 certificate contains several components:</t> | lows a challenge of identity.</li> | |||
<li>An identifying string that's unique to the manufacturer of the dev | ||||
<t><list style="symbols"> | ice. This is normally the | |||
<t>The public part of the unique DevID key assigned to that device allows a ch | serial number of the unit, which might also be printed on a label on the device. | |||
allenge of identity.</t> | </li> | |||
<t>An identifying string that’s unique to the manufacturer of the device. Thi | <li>The certificate must be signed by a key traceable to the manufactu | |||
s is normally the | rer's root key.</li> | |||
serial number of the unit, which might also be printed on a label on the device. | </ul> | |||
</t> | <t>With these elements, the device's manufacturer and serial number can | |||
<t>The certificate must be signed by a key traceable to the manufacturer’s roo | be identified by analyzing the | |||
t key.</t> | DevID certificate plus the chain of intermediate certificates leading back to th | |||
</list></t> | e manufacturer's root | |||
<t>With these elements, the device’s manufacturer and serial number can be ident | ||||
ified by analyzing the | ||||
DevID certificate plus the chain of intermediate certificates leading back to th | ||||
e manufacturer’s root | ||||
certificate. As is conventional in TLS or SSH connections, a random nonce must be signed by the device | certificate. As is conventional in TLS or SSH connections, a random nonce must be signed by the device | |||
in response to a challenge, | in response to a challenge, | |||
proving possession of its DevID private key.</t> | proving possession of its DevID private key.</t> | |||
<t>RIV uses the DevID to validate a TLS or SSH connection to the device | ||||
as the attestation session begins. Security of | ||||
this process derives from TLS or SSH security, with the DevID, which contains a | ||||
device serial number, providing proof that the session terminates on | ||||
the intended device. See <xref target="RFC8446" format="default"/> <xref target= | ||||
"RFC4253" format="default"/>.</t> | ||||
<t>Evidence of software integrity is delivered in the form of a quote th | ||||
at is signed by the TPM | ||||
itself and accompanied by an IAK certificate containing the same identity inform | ||||
ation as the DevID. Because the contents of the quote are signed inside the TPM | ||||
, any external | ||||
modification (including reformatting to a different data format) after measureme | ||||
nts have been taken will be detected | ||||
as tampering. An unbroken chain of trust is essential for ensuring that blocks | ||||
of code that are taking | ||||
measurements have been verified before execution (see <xref target="RIV-Attestat | ||||
ion-Model" format="default"/>).</t> | ||||
<t>Requiring measurements of the operating software to be signed by a ke | ||||
y known only to the TPM also | ||||
removes the need to trust the device's operating software (beyond the first meas | ||||
urement in the RTM; see below). | ||||
If malicious software makes any changes to a quote | ||||
in the device itself, or in the path back to the Verifier, the signature on the | ||||
quote will | ||||
be invalidated.</t> | ||||
<t>A critical feature of the YANG model described in <xref target="RFC96 | ||||
84" format="default"/> is the ability to carry TPM data structures in their TCG- | ||||
defined format, without requiring any changes to the structures as they were sig | ||||
ned and delivered by the TPM. While alternate methods of conveying TPM quotes c | ||||
ould reduce redundant information, or add another layer of signing using externa | ||||
l keys, the implementation <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> preserve the TPM signing so that | ||||
tampering anywhere in the path between the TPM itself and the Verifier can be de | ||||
tected.</t> | ||||
</section> | ||||
<section anchor="pitm" numbered="true" toc="default"> | ||||
<name>Prevention of Spoofing and Person-in-the-Middle Attacks</name> | ||||
<t>Prevention of spoofing attacks against attestation systems is also im | ||||
portant. There are several cases to consider:</t> | ||||
<ul spacing="normal"> | ||||
<li>The entire device could be spoofed. If the Verifier goes to apprai | ||||
se a specific Attester, it might be redirected to a different Attester.</li> | ||||
<li>A compromised device could have a valid DevID, but substitute a qu | ||||
ote from a known-good device instead of returning its own, as described in <xref | ||||
target="RFC6813" format="default"/>.</li> | ||||
<li>A device with a compromised OS could return a fabricated quote pro | ||||
viding spoofed attestation Evidence.</li> | ||||
</ul> | ||||
<t>Use of the 802.1AR DevID in the TPM provides protection against the c | ||||
ase of a spoofed device by ensuring that the Verifier's TLS or SSH session is in | ||||
fact terminating on the right device.</t> | ||||
<t>Protection against spoofed quotes from a device with valid identity i | ||||
s a bit more complex. | ||||
An identity key must be available to sign any kind of nonce or hash offered by t | ||||
he Verifier, | ||||
and consequently, could be used to sign a fabricated quote. To block a spoofed | ||||
Attestation | ||||
Result, the quote generated inside the TPM must be signed by | ||||
a key, known as an AK, that's different from the DevID.</t> | ||||
<t>Given separate Attestation and DevID keys, the | ||||
binding between the AK and the same device must also be proven to | ||||
prevent a person-in-the-middle attack (e.g., the "Asokan Attack" <xref target="R | ||||
FC6813" format="default"/>).</t> | ||||
<t>This is accomplished in RIV through use of an AK certificate with the | ||||
same elements as the DevID | ||||
(same manufacturer's serial number and signed by the same manufacturer's key), b | ||||
ut containing | ||||
the device's unique AK public key instead of the DevID public key. | ||||
This binding between DevID and AK certificates is critical to reliable attestati | ||||
on.</t> | ||||
<t>The TCG document "TPM 2.0 Keys for Device Identity and Attestation" < | ||||
xref target="PLATFORM-DEVID-TPM-2.0" format="default"/> specifies | ||||
OIDs for Attestation Certificates that allow the CA to mark a key as specificall | ||||
y known to be | ||||
an AK.</t> | ||||
<t>These two key pairs and certificates are used together:</t> | ||||
<ul spacing="normal"> | ||||
<li>The DevID is used to validate a TLS connection terminating on the | ||||
device with a known serial number.</li> | ||||
<li>The AK is used to sign attestation quotes, which provides proof th | ||||
at the attestation | ||||
evidence comes from the same device.</li> | ||||
</ul> | ||||
</section> | ||||
<section anchor="replay-attacks" numbered="true" toc="default"> | ||||
<name>Replay Attacks</name> | ||||
<t>Replay attacks, where the results of a previous attestation are submi | ||||
tted in response to subsequent requests, | ||||
are usually prevented by the inclusion of a random nonce in the request to the T | ||||
PM | ||||
for a quote. Each request from the Verifier includes a new random number (a non | ||||
ce). The resulting | ||||
quote signed by the TPM contains the same nonce, which allows the Verifier to de | ||||
termine | ||||
freshness (i.e., that the resulting quote was generated in response to the Verif | ||||
ier's specific request). | ||||
"Time-Based Uni-Directional Attestation" <xref target="I-D.birkholz-rats-tuda" f | ||||
ormat="default"/> provides an alternate mechanism | ||||
to verify freshness without requiring a request/response cycle.</t> | ||||
</section> | ||||
<section anchor="owner-signed-keys" numbered="true" toc="default"> | ||||
<name>Owner-Signed Keys</name> | ||||
<t>Although device manufacturers must pre-provision devices with easily | ||||
verified DevID and AK certificates | ||||
if SZTP such as described in <xref target="RFC8572" format="default"/> is to be | ||||
supported, | ||||
use of those credentials is not mandatory. IEEE Std 802.1AR incorporates the id | ||||
ea of an | ||||
IDevID, which is provisioned by the manufacturer, and a LDevID, which is provisi | ||||
oned by the owner of | ||||
the device. RIV and <xref target="PLATFORM-DEVID-TPM-2.0" format="default"/> ex | ||||
tend that concept by defining an IAK and | ||||
LAK with the same properties.</t> | ||||
<t>Device owners can use any method to provision the local credentials.< | ||||
/t> | ||||
<ul spacing="normal"> | ||||
<li>The TCG document <xref target="PLATFORM-DEVID-TPM-2.0" format="def | ||||
ault"/> shows how the IAKs | ||||
can be used to certify LDevID and LAK keys. The use of the LDevID and LAK allow | ||||
s the device owner | ||||
to use a uniform identity structure across device types from multiple manufactur | ||||
ers (in the same way | ||||
that an "Asset Tag" is used by many enterprises to identify devices they own). | ||||
The TCG document | ||||
<xref target="PROV-TPM-2.0" format="default"/> also contains guidance on provisi | ||||
oning local identity keys in TPM 2.0. | ||||
Owners should follow the same practice of binding LDevID and LAK as the manufact | ||||
urer would for IDevID and IAK. | ||||
See <xref target="riv-keying" format="default"/>.</li> | ||||
<li>Device owners, however, can use any other mechanism they want, inc | ||||
luding physical inspection and programming in a secure location, to assure thems | ||||
elves that local identity | ||||
certificates are inserted into the intended device | ||||
if they prefer to avoid placing trust in the manufacturer-provided keys.</li> | ||||
</ul> | ||||
<t>Clearly, local keys can't be used for SZTP; installation of the local | ||||
keys | ||||
can only be done by some process that runs before the device is installed for ne | ||||
twork operation, | ||||
or by using procedures such as those outlined in Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key | ||||
Infrastructure (BRSKI) <xref target="RFC8995" format="default"/>.</t> | ||||
<t>On the other end of the device lifecycle, provision should be made to | ||||
wipe local keys when a device | ||||
is decommissioned to indicate that the device is no longer owned by the enterpri | ||||
se. The manufacturer's | ||||
initial identity keys must be preserved, as they contain no information that's n | ||||
ot already printed on | ||||
the device's serial number plate.</t> | ||||
</section> | ||||
<section anchor="other-factors-for-trustworthy-operation" numbered="true" | ||||
toc="default"> | ||||
<name>Other Factors for Trustworthy Operation</name> | ||||
<t>In addition to the trustworthy provisioning of keys, RIV depends on a | ||||
number of other factors for trustworthy operation.</t> | ||||
<ul spacing="normal"> | ||||
<li>Secure identity depends on mechanisms to prevent per-device secret | ||||
keys from being compromised. The TPM | ||||
provides this capability as a Root of Trust for Storage.</li> | ||||
<li>Attestation depends on an unbroken chain of measurements, starting | ||||
from the very first | ||||
measurement. See <xref target="using-tpm" format="default"/> for background on | ||||
TPM practices.</li> | ||||
<li>That first measurement is made by code called the RTM, typically d | ||||
one by trusted | ||||
firmware stored in boot flash. Mechanisms for maintaining the trustworthiness o | ||||
f the RTM are out of | ||||
scope for RIV, but could include immutable firmware, signed updates, or a vendor | ||||
-specific hardware | ||||
verification technique. See <xref target="root-of-trust" format="default"/> f | ||||
or background on Roots of Trust.</li> | ||||
<li>The device owner <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> provide some level of physi | ||||
cal defense for the device. If a TPM that has already been programmed | ||||
with an authentic DevID is stolen and is inserted into a counterfeit device, att | ||||
estation of that counterfeit | ||||
device may become indistinguishable from an authentic device.</li> | ||||
</ul> | ||||
<t>RIV also depends on reliable Reference Values, as expressed by the RI | ||||
M <xref target="RIM" format="default"/>. The definition of | ||||
trust procedures for RIMs is out of scope for RIV, and the device owner is free | ||||
to use any policy to validate | ||||
a set of reference measurements. It should also be noted that, while RIV can pr | ||||
ovide a reliable indication that a known software package is in use by the devic | ||||
e and that the package has not been tampered with, it is the device owner's resp | ||||
onsibility to determine that it's the correct package for the application.</t> | ||||
<t>RIMs may be conveyed either out-of-band or in-band as part of the att | ||||
estation | ||||
process (see <xref target="RIM-policy" format="default"/>). However, for networ | ||||
k devices, where software is usually shipped as a self-contained | ||||
package, RIMs signed by the manufacturer and delivered in-band may be more conve | ||||
nient for the device owner.</t> | ||||
<t>The validity of RIV attestation results is also influenced by procedu | ||||
res used to create Reference Values:</t> | ||||
<ul spacing="normal"> | ||||
<li>While the RIM itself is signed, supply chains <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14 | ||||
> be carefully scrutinized to ensure that the values are | ||||
not subject to unexpected manipulation prior to signing. Insider attacks agains | ||||
t code bases and build chains | ||||
are particularly hard to spot.</li> | ||||
<li>Designers <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> guard against hash collision attac | ||||
ks. RIMs often give hashes for large objects | ||||
of indeterminate size. If one of the measured objects can be replaced with an im | ||||
plant engineered to produce | ||||
the same hash, RIV will be unable to detect the substitution. TPM 1.2 only uses | ||||
SHA-1 hashes, which have been | ||||
shown to be susceptible to collision attack. TPM 2.0 will produce quotes with S | ||||
HA-256, which so far has resisted | ||||
such attacks. Consequently, RIV implementations <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> use TPM 2 | ||||
.0.</li> | ||||
</ul> | ||||
</section> | ||||
</section> | ||||
<section anchor="IANA" numbered="true" toc="default"> | ||||
<name>IANA Considerations</name> | ||||
<t>This document has no IANA actions.</t> | ||||
</section> | ||||
<section anchor="conclusion" numbered="true" toc="default"> | ||||
<name>Conclusion</name> | ||||
<t>TCG technologies can play an important part in the implementation of RI | ||||
V. | ||||
Standards for many of the components needed for | ||||
implementation of RIV already exist:</t> | ||||
<ul spacing="normal"> | ||||
<li>Platform identity can be based on IEEE 802.1AR DevID, coupled with | ||||
careful supply-chain management by the manufacturer.</li> | ||||
<li>Complex supply chains can be certified using TCG Platform Certificat | ||||
es <xref target="PLATFORM-CERTS" format="default"/>.</li> | ||||
<li>The TCG TAP mechanism coupled with <xref target="RFC9684" format="de | ||||
fault"/> can be used to retrieve attestation evidence.</li> | ||||
<li>Reference Values must be conveyed from the software authority (e.g., | ||||
the manufacturer) in RIMs to the system in which verification will take place. | ||||
IETF and TCG | ||||
SWID and CoSWID work (<xref target="RFC9393" format="default"/> <xref target="RI | ||||
M" format="default"/>) forms the basis for this function.</li> | ||||
</ul> | ||||
</section> | ||||
</middle> | ||||
<back> | ||||
<t>RIV uses the DevID to validate a TLS or SSH connection to the device as the a | <displayreference target="I-D.ietf-rats-reference-interaction-models" to="RATS-I | |||
ttestation session begins. Security of | NTERACTION-MODELS"/> | |||
this process derives from TLS or SSH security, with the DevID, containing a devi | <displayreference target="I-D.richardson-rats-usecases" to="RATS-USECASES"/> | |||
ce serial number, providing proof that the session terminates on | <displayreference target="I-D.birkholz-rats-tuda" to="RATS-TUDA"/> | |||
the intended device. See <xref target="RFC8446"/>, <xref target="RFC4253"/>.</t> | <displayreference target="I-D.ietf-rats-network-device-subscription" to="RATS-NE | |||
T-DEV-SUB"/> | ||||
<displayreference target="I-D.ietf-rats-eat" to="RATS-EAT"/> | ||||
<t>Evidence of software integrity is delivered in the form of a quote signed by | <references> | |||
the TPM | <name>References</name> | |||
itself, accompanied by an IAK certificate containing the same identity informati | <references> | |||
on as the DevID. Because the contents of the quote are signed inside the TPM, a | <name>Normative References</name> | |||
ny external | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.21 | |||
modification (including reformatting to a different data format) after measureme | 19.xml"/> | |||
nts have been taken will be detected | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.84 | |||
as tampering. An unbroken chain of trust is essential to ensuring that blocks o | 46.xml"/> | |||
f code that are taking | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.42 | |||
measurements have been verified before execution (see <xref target="RIV-Attestat | 53.xml"/> | |||
ion-Model"/>).</t> | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.62 | |||
41.xml"/> | ||||
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.81 | ||||
74.xml"/> | ||||
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.52 | ||||
80.xml"/> | ||||
<t>Requiring measurements of the operating software to be signed by a key known | <!-- [I-D.ietf-rats-yang-tpm-charra] companion document RFC 9684 --> | |||
only to the TPM also | ||||
removes the need to trust the device’s operating software (beyond the first meas | ||||
urement in the RTM; see below); any | ||||
changes to the quote, generated and signed by the TPM itself, made by malicious | ||||
device software, or in | ||||
the path back to the Verifier, will invalidate the signature on the quote.</t> | ||||
<t>A critical feature of the YANG model described in <xref target="I-D.ietf-rats | <reference anchor='RFC9684' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9684'> | |||
-yang-tpm-charra"/> is the ability to carry TPM data structures in their TCG-def | <front> | |||
ined format, without requiring any changes to the structures as they were signed | <title>A YANG Data Model for Challenge-Response-Based Remote Attestation (CH | |||
and delivered by the TPM. While alternate methods of conveying TPM quotes coul | ARRA) Procedures Using Trusted Platform Modules (TPMs)</title> | |||
d compress out redundant information, or add another layer of signing using exte | <author initials='H' surname='Birkholz' fullname='Henk Birkholz'> | |||
rnal keys, the implementation MUST preserve the TPM signing, so that tampering a | <organization /> | |||
nywhere in the path between the TPM itself and the Verifier can be detected.</t> | </author> | |||
<author initials='M' surname='Eckel' fullname='Michael Eckel'> | ||||
<organization /> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author initials='S' surname='Bhandari' fullname='Shwetha Bhandari'> | ||||
<organization /> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author initials='E' surname='Voit' fullname='Eric Voit'> | ||||
<organization /> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author initials='B' surname='Sulzen' fullname='Bill Sulzen'> | ||||
<organization /> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author initials='L' surname='Xia' fullname='Liang Xia'> | ||||
<organization /> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author initials='T' surname='Laffey' fullname='Tom Laffey'> | ||||
<organization /> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author initials='G' surname='Fedorkow' fullname='Guy Fedorkow'> | ||||
<organization /> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year='2024' month='October'/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9684"/> | ||||
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9684"/> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
</section> | <!-- [I-D.ietf-sacm-coswid] has been published as RFC 9393. --> | |||
<section anchor="pitm" title="Prevention of Spoofing and Person-in-the-Middle At | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.93 | |||
tacks"> | 93.xml"/> | |||
<t>Prevention of spoofing attacks against attestation systems is also important. | <!-- [I-D.ietf-rats-architecture] has been published as RFC 9334. --> | |||
There are several cases to consider:</t> | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.93 | |||
34.xml"/> | ||||
<t><list style="symbols"> | <reference anchor="IEEE-802-1AR" > | |||
<t>The entire device could be spoofed. If the Verifier goes to appraise a spec | <front> | |||
ific Attester, it might be redirected to a different Attester.</t> | <title>IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Secu | |||
<t>A compromised device could have a valid DevID, but substitute a quote from | re Device Identity</title> | |||
a knonwn-good device, instead of returning its own, as described in <xref target | <author> | |||
="RFC6813"/>.</t> | <organization>IEEE</organization> | |||
<t>A device with a compromised OS could return a fabricated quote providing sp | </author> | |||
oofed attestation Evidence.</t> | <date year="2018" month="August"/> | |||
</list></t> | </front> | |||
<seriesInfo name="IEEE Std" value="802.1AR-2018"/> | ||||
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8423794"/> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<t>Use of the 802.1AR Device Identity (DevID) in the TPM provides protection aga | <reference anchor="TAP" target="https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/wp-con | |||
inst the case of a spoofed device, by ensuring that the Verifier’s TLS or SSH se | tent/uploads/TNC_TAP_Information_Model_v1.00_r0.36-FINAL.pdf"> | |||
ssion is in fact terminating on the right device.</t> | <front> | |||
<title>TCG Trusted Attestation Protocol (TAP) Information Model for | ||||
TPM Families 1.2 and 2.0 and DICE Family 1.0</title> | ||||
<author> | ||||
<organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2018" month="October"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<refcontent>Version 1.0, Revision 0.36</refcontent> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<t>Protection against spoofed quotes from a device with valid identity is a bit | <reference anchor="CEL" target="https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/wp-con | |||
more complex. | tent/uploads/TCG_IWG_CEL_v1_r0p41_pub.pdf"> | |||
An identity key must be available to sign any kind of nonce or hash offered by t | <front> | |||
he Verifier, | <title>Canonical Event Log Format</title> | |||
and consequently, could be used to sign a fabricated quote. To block a spoofed | <author> | |||
Attestation | <organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | |||
Result, the quote generated inside the TPM must be signed by | </author> | |||
a key that’s different from the DevID, called an Attestation Key (AK).</t> | <date year="2022" month="February"/> | |||
</front> | ||||
<refcontent>Version 1.0, Revision 0.41</refcontent> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<t>Given separate Attestation and DevID keys, the | <reference anchor="PC-CLIENT-BIOS-TPM-2.0" target="https://trustedcomput | |||
binding between the AK and the same device must also be proven to | inggroup.org/resource/pc-client-specific-platform-firmware-profile-specification | |||
prevent a person-in-the-middle attack (e.g., the ‘Asokan Attack’ <xref target="R | /"> | |||
FC6813"/>).</t> | <front> | |||
<title>TCG PC Client Specific Platform Firmware Profile Specificatio | ||||
n</title> | ||||
<author> | ||||
<organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2021" month="May"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<refcontent>Family "2.0", Level 00, Version 1.05, Revision 23</refconte | ||||
nt> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<t>This is accomplished in RIV through use of an AK certificate with the same el | <reference anchor="PC-CLIENT-EFI-TPM-1.2" target="https://trustedcomputi | |||
ements as the DevID | nggroup.org/resource/tcg-efi-platform-specification/"> | |||
(same manufacturer’s serial number, signed by the same manufacturer’s key), but | <front> | |||
containing | <title>TCG EFI Platform Specification</title> | |||
the device’s unique AK public key instead of the DevID public key. | <author> | |||
This binding between DevID and AK certificates is critical to reliable attestati | <organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | |||
on.</t> | </author> | |||
<date year="2014" month="January"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<refcontent>For TPM Family 1.1 or 1.2, Version 1.22, Revision 15</refco | ||||
ntent> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<t>The TCG document TPM 2.0 Keys for Device Identity and Attestation <xref targe | <reference anchor="RIM" target="https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/resour | |||
t="Platform-DevID-TPM-2.0"/> specifies | ce/tcg-reference-integrity-manifest-rim-information-model/"> | |||
OIDs for Attestation Certificates that allow the CA to mark a key as specificall | <front> | |||
y known to be | <title>TCG Reference Integrity Manifest (RIM) Information Model</tit | |||
an Attestation key.</t> | le> | |||
<author> | ||||
<organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2020" month="November"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<refcontent>Version 1.01, Revision 0.16</refcontent> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<t>These two key-pairs and certificates are used together:</t> | <reference anchor="PC-CLIENT-RIM" target="https://trustedcomputinggroup. | |||
org/resource/tcg-pc-client-reference-integrity-manifest-specification/"> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>TCG PC Client Reference Integrity Manifest Specification</tit | ||||
le> | ||||
<author> | ||||
<organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2020" month="November"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<refcontent>Version 1.04</refcontent> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<t><list style="symbols"> | <reference anchor="PLATFORM-DEVID-TPM-2.0" target="https://trustedcomput | |||
<t>The DevID is used to validate a TLS connection terminating on the device wi | inggroup.org/resource/tpm-2-0-keys-for-device-identity-and-attestation/"> | |||
th a known serial number.</t> | <front> | |||
<t>The AK is used to sign attestation quotes, providing proof that the attesta | <title>TPM 2.0 Keys for Device Identity and Attestation</title> | |||
tion | <author> | |||
evidence comes from the same device.</t> | <organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | |||
</list></t> | </author> | |||
<date year="2021" month="October"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<refcontent>Version 1.00, Revision 12</refcontent> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
</section> | <reference anchor="PLATFORM-ID-TPM-1.2" target="https://trustedcomputing | |||
<section anchor="replay-attacks" title="Replay Attacks"> | group.org/resource/tpm-keys-for-platform-identity-for-tpm-1-2-2/"> | |||
<front> | ||||
<title>TCG Infrastructure WG TPM Keys for Platform Identity for TPM | ||||
1.2</title> | ||||
<author> | ||||
<organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2015" month="August"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<refcontent>Specification Version 1.0, Revision 3</refcontent> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<t>Replay attacks, where results of a previous attestation are submitted in resp | <reference anchor="SWID" target="https://www.iso.org/standard/65666.html | |||
onse to subsequent requests, | "> | |||
are usually prevented by inclusion of a random nonce in the request to the TPM | <front> | |||
for a quote. Each request from the Verifier includes a new random number (a non | <title>Information technology - IT asset management - Part 2: Softwa | |||
ce). The resulting | re identification tag</title> | |||
quote signed by the TPM contains the same nonce, allowing the Verifier to determ | <author> | |||
ine | <organization>ISO/IEC</organization> | |||
freshness, (i.e., that the resulting quote was generated in response to the Veri | </author> | |||
fier’s specific request). | <date year="2015" month="October"/> | |||
Time-Based Uni-directional Attestation <xref target="I-D.birkholz-rats-tuda"/> p | </front> | |||
rovides an alternate mechanism | <seriesInfo name="ISO/IEC" value="19770-2:2015"/> | |||
to verify freshness without requiring a request/response cycle.</t> | </reference> | |||
</section> | <reference anchor="IMA" target="https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v6.11/ad | |||
<section anchor="owner-signed-keys" title="Owner-Signed Keys"> | min-guide/device-mapper/dm-ima.html"> | |||
<front> | ||||
<title>dm-ima</title> | ||||
<author> | ||||
<organization>The kernel development community</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2024" month="September" day="15"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<refcontent>Linux Kernel 6.11</refcontent> | ||||
<annotation>The latest version can be found at <eref target="https://d | ||||
ocs.kernel.org/admin-guide/device-mapper/dm-ima.html"/>.</annotation> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
</references> | ||||
<references> | ||||
<name>Informative References</name> | ||||
<t>Although device manufacturers must pre-provision devices with easily verified | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.681 | |||
DevID and AK certificates | 3.xml"/> | |||
if zero-touch provisioning such as described in <xref target="RFC8572"/> is to b | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.374 | |||
e supported, | 8.xml"/> | |||
use of those credentials is not mandatory. IEEE 802.1AR incorporates the idea o | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.952 | |||
f an Initial Device ID | 5.xml"/> | |||
(IDevID), provisioned by the manufacturer, and a Local Device ID (LDevID) provis | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.899 | |||
ioned by the owner of | 5.xml"/> | |||
the device. RIV and <xref target="Platform-DevID-TPM-2.0"/> extends that concep | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.795 | |||
t by defining an Initial Attestation Key (IAK) and Local Attestation | 0.xml"/> | |||
Key (LAK) with the same properties.</t> | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.857 | |||
2.xml"/> | ||||
<t>Device owners can use any method to provision the Local credentials.</t> | <!-- [I-D.birkholz-rats-reference-interaction-model] replaced by [I-D.ietf-rats- reference-interaction-models] IESG state I-D Exists --> | |||
<t><list style="symbols"> | <xi:include href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bibxml3/reference.I-D. | |||
<t>TCG document <xref target="Platform-DevID-TPM-2.0"/> shows how the initial | ietf-rats-reference-interaction-models.xml"/> | |||
Attestation | ||||
keys can be used to certify LDevID and LAK keys. Use of the LDevID and LAK allo | ||||
ws the device owner | ||||
to use a uniform identity structure across device types from multiple manufactur | ||||
ers (in the same way | ||||
that an “Asset Tag” is used by many enterprises to identify devices they own). | ||||
TCG document | ||||
<xref target="Provisioning-TPM-2.0"/> also contains guidance on provisioning Loc | ||||
al identity keys in TPM 2.0. | ||||
Owners should follow the same practice of binding Local DevID and Local AK as th | ||||
e manufacturer would for IDevID and IAK. | ||||
See Section <xref target="riv-keying"/>.</t> | ||||
<t>Device owners, however, can use any other mechanism they want to assure the | ||||
mselves that local identity | ||||
certificates are inserted into the intended device, including physical inspectio | ||||
n and programming | ||||
in a secure location, if they prefer to avoid placing trust in the manufacturer- | ||||
provided keys.</t> | ||||
</list></t> | ||||
<t>Clearly, local keys can’t be used for secure Zero Touch provisioning; install | <!-- [I-D.richardson-rats-usecases] IESG state Expired --> | |||
ation of the local keys | ||||
can only be done by some process that runs before the device is installed for ne | ||||
twork operation, | ||||
or using procedures such as those outlined in Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key In | ||||
frastructure (BRSKI) <xref target="RFC8995"/>.</t> | ||||
<t>On the other end of the device life cycle, provision should be made to wipe l | <xi:include href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bibxml3/reference.I-D | |||
ocal keys when a device | .richardson-rats-usecases.xml"/> | |||
is decommissioned, to indicate that the device is no longer owned by the enterpr | ||||
ise. The manufacturer’s | ||||
Initial identity keys must be preserved, as they contain no information that’s n | ||||
ot already printed on | ||||
the device’s serial number plate.</t> | ||||
</section> | <!-- [I-D.birkholz-rats-tuda] IESG state I-D Exists --> | |||
<section anchor="other-factors-for-trustworthy-operation" title="Other Factors f | ||||
or Trustworthy Operation"> | ||||
<t>In addition to trustworthy provisioning of keys, RIV depends on a number of o ther factors for trustworthy operation.</t> | <xi:include href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bibxml3/reference.I-D .birkholz-rats-tuda.xml"/> | |||
<t><list style="symbols"> | <!-- [I-D.birkholz-rats-network-device-subscription] Replaced by [I-D.ietf-rats- | |||
<t>Secure identity depends on mechanisms to prevent per-device secret keys fro | network-device-subscription] IESG state I-D Exists --> | |||
m being compromised. The TPM | ||||
provides this capability as a Root of Trust for Storage.</t> | ||||
<t>Attestation depends on an unbroken chain of measurements, starting from the | ||||
very first | ||||
measurement. See <xref target="using-tpm"/> for background on TPM practices.</t | ||||
> | ||||
<t>That first measurement is made by code called the Root of Trust for Measure | ||||
ment, typically done by trusted | ||||
firmware stored in boot flash. Mechanisms for maintaining the trustworthiness o | ||||
f the RTM are out of | ||||
scope for RIV, but could include immutable firmware, signed updates, or a vendor | ||||
-specific hardware | ||||
verification technique. See <xref target="root-of-trust"/> for background on | ||||
roots of trust.</t> | ||||
<t>The device owner SHOULD provide some level of physical defense for the devi | ||||
ce. If a TPM that has already been programmed | ||||
with an authentic DevID is stolen and inserted into a counterfeit device, attest | ||||
ation of that counterfeit | ||||
device may become indistinguishable from an authentic device.</t> | ||||
</list></t> | ||||
<t>RIV also depends on reliable Reference Values, as expressed by the RIM <xref | <xi:include href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bibxml3/reference.I-D | |||
target="RIM"/>. The definition of | .ietf-rats-network-device-subscription.xml"/> | |||
trust procedures for RIMs is out of scope for RIV, and the device owner is free | ||||
to use any policy to validate | ||||
a set of reference measurements. It should also be noted that, while RIV can pr | ||||
ovide a reliable indication that a known software package is in use by the devic | ||||
e, and that the package has not been tampered, it is the device owner’s responsi | ||||
bility to determine that it’s the correct package for the application.</t> | ||||
<t>RIMs may be conveyed out-of-band or in-band, as part of the attestation | <!-- [I-D.ietf-rats-eat] IESG state I-D Exists --> | |||
process (see <xref target="RIM-policy"/>). But for network devices, where softw | ||||
are is usually shipped as a self-contained | ||||
package, RIMs signed by the manufacturer and delivered in-band may be more conve | ||||
nient for the device owner.</t> | ||||
<t>The validity of RIV attestation results is also influenced by procedures used to create Reference Values:</t> | <xi:include href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bibxml3/reference.I-D .ietf-rats-eat.xml"/> | |||
<t><list style="symbols"> | <reference anchor="TPM-1.2" target="https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/re | |||
<t>While the RIM itself is signed, supply-chains SHOULD be carefully scrutiniz | source/tpm-main-specification/"> | |||
ed to ensure that the values are | <front> | |||
not subject to unexpected manipulation prior to signing. Insider-attacks agains | <title>TPM 1.2 Main Specification</title> | |||
t code bases and build chains | <author> | |||
are particularly hard to spot.</t> | <organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | |||
<t>Designers SHOULD guard against hash collision attacks. Reference Integrity | </author> | |||
Manifests often give hashes for large objects | <date year="2011" month="March"/> | |||
of indeterminate size; if one of the measured objects can be replaced with an im | </front> | |||
plant engineered to produce | <refcontent>Level 2, Version 1.2, Revision 116</refcontent> | |||
the same hash, RIV will be unable to detect the substitution. TPM1.2 uses SHA-1 | </reference> | |||
hashes only, which have been | ||||
shown to be susceptible to collision attack. TPM2.0 will produce quotes with SH | ||||
A-256, which so far has resisted | ||||
such attacks. Consequently, RIV implementations SHOULD use TPM2.0.</t> | ||||
</list></t> | ||||
</section> | <reference anchor="TPM-2.0" target="https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/re | |||
</section> | source/tpm-library-specification/"> | |||
<section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations"> | <front> | |||
<title>Trusted Platform Module Library</title> | ||||
<author> | ||||
<organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2024" month="March"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<refcontent>Family "2.0", Level 00, Revision 01.83</refcontent> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<t>This document has no IANA actions.</t> | <reference anchor="PLATFORM-CERTS" target="https://trustedcomputinggroup | |||
.org/resource/tcg-platform-attribute-credential-profile/"> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>TCG Platform Attribute Credential Profile</title> | ||||
<author> | ||||
<organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2018" month="January"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<refcontent>Specification Version 1.0, Revision 16</refcontent> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
</section> | <reference anchor="PROV-TPM-2.0" target="https://trustedcomputinggroup.o | |||
<section anchor="conclusion" title="Conclusion"> | rg/wp-content/uploads/TCG-TPM-v2.0-Provisioning-Guidance-Published-v1r1.pdf"> | |||
<front> | ||||
<title>TCG TPM v2.0 Provisioning Guidance</title> | ||||
<author> | ||||
<organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2017" month="March"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<refcontent>Version 1.0, Revision 1.0</refcontent> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<t>TCG technologies can play an important part in the implementation of Remote | <reference anchor="IEEE-802.1X"> | |||
Integrity Verification. Standards for many of the components needed for | <front> | |||
implementation of RIV already exist:</t> | <title>IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Port | |||
-Based Network Access Control</title> | ||||
<author> | ||||
<organization>IEEE</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2020" month="February"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<seriesInfo name="IEEE Std" value="802.1X-2020"/> | ||||
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.1109/IEEESTD.2020.9018454"/> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<t><list style="symbols"> | <reference anchor="IEEE-802.1AE"> | |||
<t>Platform identity can be based on IEEE 802.1AR Device Identity, coupled wit | <front> | |||
h | <title>IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks - Medi | |||
careful supply-chain management by the manufacturer.</t> | a Access Control (MAC) Security</title> | |||
<t>Complex supply chains can be certified using TCG Platform Certificates <xre | <author> | |||
f target="Platform-Certificates"/>.</t> | <organization>IEEE</organization> | |||
<t>The TCG TAP mechanism coupled with <xref target="I-D.ietf-rats-yang-tpm-cha | </author> | |||
rra"/> can be used to retrieve attestation evidence.</t> | <date year="2018"/> | |||
<t>Reference Values must be conveyed from the software authority (e.g., | </front> | |||
the manufacturer) in Reference Integrity Manifests, to the system in which verif | <seriesInfo name="IEEE Std" value="802.1AE-2018"/> | |||
ication will take place. IETF and TCG | <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8585421" /> | |||
SWID and CoSWID work (<xref target="I-D.ietf-sacm-coswid"/>, <xref target="RIM"/ | </reference> | |||
>) forms the basis for this function.</t> | ||||
</list></t> | ||||
</section> | <reference anchor="LLDP"> | |||
<section anchor="acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements"> | <front> | |||
<title>IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks - Stat | ||||
ion and Media Access Control Connectivity Discovery</title> | ||||
<author> | ||||
<organization>IEEE</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2016" month="March"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<seriesInfo name="IEEE Std" value="802.1AB-2016"/> | ||||
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.1109/IEEESTD.2016.7433915"/> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<t>The authors wish to thank numerous reviewers for generous assistance, includi | <reference anchor="TCG-RT" target="https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/wp- | |||
ng William Bellingrath, Mark Baushke, Ned Smith, | content/uploads/TCG_Roots_of_Trust_Specification_v0p20_PUBLIC_REVIEW.pdf"> | |||
Henk Birkholz, Tom Laffey, Dave Thaler, Wei Pan, Michael Eckel, Thomas Hardjono, | <front> | |||
Bill Sulzen, Willard (Monty) Wiseman, | <title>TCG Roots of Trust Specification</title> | |||
Kathleen Moriarty, Nancy Cam-Winget and Shwetha Bhandari</t> | <author> | |||
<organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2018" month="July"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<refcontent>(Draft), Family "1.0", Level 00, Revision 0.20</refcontent | ||||
> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
</section> | <reference anchor="SP800-193" target="https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ | |||
<section anchor="appendix" title="Appendix"> | SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-193.pdf"> | |||
<front> | ||||
<title>Platform Firmware Resiliency Guidelines</title> | ||||
<author> | ||||
<organization>NIST</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2018" month="May"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<seriesInfo name="NIST SP" value="800-193"/> | ||||
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.6028/NIST.SP.800-193"/> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<section anchor="using-tpm" title="Using a TPM for Attestation"> | <reference anchor="SP800-155" target="https://csrc.nist.gov/files/pubs/s | |||
p/800/155/ipd/docs/draft-sp800-155_dec2011.pdf"> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>BIOS Integrity Measurement Guidelines (Draft)</title> | ||||
<author> | ||||
<organization>NIST</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2011" month="December"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<seriesInfo name="NIST SP" value="800-155 (Draft)"/> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<t>The Trusted Platform Module and surrounding ecosystem provide three interlock | <reference anchor="NET-EQ" target="https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/res | |||
ing capabilities to enable secure collection | ource/tcg-guidance-securing-network-equipment/"> | |||
of evidence from a remote device, Platform Configuration Registers (PCRs), a Quo | <front> | |||
te mechanism, and a standardized Event Log.</t> | <title>TCG Guidance for Securing Network Equipment Using TCG Technol | |||
ogy</title> | ||||
<author> | ||||
<organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2018" month="January"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<refcontent>Version 1.0, Revision 29</refcontent> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<t>Each TPM has at least eight and at most twenty-four PCRs (depending on the pr | <reference anchor="NIST-IR-8060" target="https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpu | |||
ofile and vendor choices), each one large | bs/ir/2016/NIST.IR.8060.pdf"> | |||
<front> | ||||
<title>Guidelines for the Creation of Interoperable Software Identif | ||||
ication (SWID) Tags</title> | ||||
<author initials="D" surname="Waltermire" fullname="David Waltermire | ||||
"></author> | ||||
<author initials="B. A." surname="Cheikes" fullname="Brant A. Cheike | ||||
s"></author> | ||||
<author initials="L" surname="Feldman" fullname="Larry Feldman"></au | ||||
thor> | ||||
<author initials="G" surname="Witte" fullname="Greg Witte"></author> | ||||
<date year="2016" month="April"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<seriesInfo name="NIST NISTIR" value="8060"/> | ||||
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.6028/NIST.IR.8060"/> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor="AIK-ENROLL" target="https://trustedcomputinggroup.org | ||||
/resource/tcg-infrastructure-working-group-a-cmc-profile-for-aik-certificate-enr | ||||
ollment/"> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>TCG Infrastructure Working Group A CMC Profile for AIK Certif | ||||
icate Enrollment</title> | ||||
<author> | ||||
<organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2011" month="March"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<refcontent>Version 1.0, Revision 7</refcontent> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor="SWID-GEN" target="https://github.com/Labs64/swid-mave | ||||
n-plugin"> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>SoftWare IDentification (SWID) Tags Generator (Maven Plugin)< | ||||
/title> | ||||
<author> | ||||
<organization>Labs64</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
</front> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
</references> | ||||
</references> | ||||
<section anchor="appendix" numbered="true" toc="default"> | ||||
<name>Supporting Materials</name> | ||||
<section anchor="using-tpm" numbered="true" toc="default"> | ||||
<name>Using a TPM for Attestation</name> | ||||
<t>The TPM and surrounding ecosystem provide three interlocking capabili | ||||
ties to enable secure collection | ||||
of evidence from a remote device: PCRs, a Quote mechanism, and a standardized Ev | ||||
ent Log.</t> | ||||
<t>Each TPM has at least eight and at most twenty-four PCRs (depending o | ||||
n the profile and vendor choices), each one large | ||||
enough to hold one hash value (SHA-1, SHA-256, and other hash algorithms can | enough to hold one hash value (SHA-1, SHA-256, and other hash algorithms can | |||
be used, depending on TPM version). PCRs can’t be accessed directly from outsid | be used, depending on TPM version). PCRs can't be accessed directly from outsid | |||
e the chip, but the TPM | e the chip, but the TPM | |||
interface provides a way to “extend” a new security measurement hash into any PC | interface provides a way to "extend" a new security measurement hash into any PC | |||
R, a process by which the existing value | R, a process by which the existing value | |||
in the PCR is hashed with the new security measurement hash, and the result plac ed back into the same PCR. The result | in the PCR is hashed with the new security measurement hash, and the result plac ed back into the same PCR. The result | |||
is a composite fingerprint comprising the hash of all the security measurements extended into each PCR since the system was reset.</t> | is a composite fingerprint comprising the hash of all the security measurements extended into each PCR since the system was reset.</t> | |||
<t>Every time a PCR is extended, an entry should be added to the corresp | ||||
<t>Every time a PCR is extended, an entry should be added to the corresponding E | onding Event Log. Logs contain the security | |||
vent Log. Logs contain the security | ||||
measurement hash plus informative fields offering hints as to which event genera ted the security measurement. | measurement hash plus informative fields offering hints as to which event genera ted the security measurement. | |||
The Event Log itself is protected against accidental manipulation, but it is imp | The Event Log itself is protected against accidental manipulation, but it is imp | |||
licitly tamper-evident – any | licitly tamper-evident: Any | |||
verification process can read the security measurement hash from the log events, | verification process can read the security measurement hash from the log events, | |||
compute the composite value | compute the composite value, | |||
and compare that to what ended up in the PCR. If there’s no discrepancy, the l | and compare that to what is in the PCR. If there's no discrepancy, the logs do | |||
ogs do provide an accurate | provide an accurate | |||
view of what was placed into the PCR.</t> | view of what was placed into the PCR.</t> | |||
<t>Note that the composite hash-of-hashes recorded in PCRs is order-depe | ||||
<t>Note that the composite hash-of-hashes recorded in PCRs is order-dependent, r | ndent, resulting in different PCR values for different | |||
esulting in different PCR values for different | ordering of the same set of events (e.g., Event A followed by Event B yields a d | |||
ordering of the same set of events (e.g. Event A followed by Event B yields a di | ifferent PCR value than B followed by A). | |||
fferent PCR value than B followed by A). | ||||
For single-threaded code, where both the events and their order are fixed, a Ver ifier may validate a single PCR value, and use the log only to diagnose a mismat ch from Reference Values. However, operating system code is usually | For single-threaded code, where both the events and their order are fixed, a Ver ifier may validate a single PCR value, and use the log only to diagnose a mismat ch from Reference Values. However, operating system code is usually | |||
non-deterministic, meaning that there may never be a single “known good” PCR val ue. In this case, the Verifier may have | nondeterministic, meaning that there may never be a single "known good" PCR valu e. In this case, the Verifier may have | |||
to verify that the log is correct, and then analyze each item in the log to dete rmine if it represents an authorized event.</t> | to verify that the log is correct, and then analyze each item in the log to dete rmine if it represents an authorized event.</t> | |||
<t>In a conventional TPM Attestation environment, the first measurement | ||||
<t>In a conventional TPM Attestation environment, the first measurement must be | must be made and extended into the TPM by trusted | |||
made and extended into the TPM by trusted | device code (called the RTM). That first measurement should cover the segment o | |||
device code (called the Root of Trust for Measurement, RTM). That first measure | f | |||
ment should cover the segment of | ||||
code that is run immediately after the RTM, which then measures the next code se gment before running it, and so on, | code that is run immediately after the RTM, which then measures the next code se gment before running it, and so on, | |||
forming an unbroken chain of trust. See <xref target="TCGRoT"/> for more on Mut | forming an unbroken chain of trust. See <xref target="TCG-RT" format="default"/ | |||
able vs Immutable roots of trust.</t> | > for more on Mutable vs. Immutable Roots of Trust.</t> | |||
<t>The TPM provides another mechanism called a Quote that can read the c | ||||
<t>The TPM provides another mechanism called a Quote that can read the current v | urrent value of the PCRs and package them, | |||
alue of the PCRs and package them, | along with the Verifier's nonce, into a TPM-specific data structure signed by an | |||
along with the Verifier’s nonce, into a TPM-specific data structure signed by an | Attestation private key, known | |||
Attestation private key, known | ||||
only to the TPM.</t> | only to the TPM.</t> | |||
<t>It's important to note that the Quote data structure is signed inside | ||||
<t>As noted above in <xref target="security-cons"/> Security Considerations, it’ | the TPM (see <xref target="security-cons" format="default"/>, Security Consider | |||
s important to note that the Quote data structure is signed inside the TPM. The | ations). The trust model is preserved by retrieving the Quote in a way that doe | |||
trust model is preserved by retrieving the Quote in a way that does not invalid | s not invalidate the signature, | |||
ate the signature, | as specified in <xref target="RFC9684" format="default"/>. The structure of the | |||
as specified in <xref target="I-D.ietf-rats-yang-tpm-charra"/>. The structure o | command and response for a quote, including its signature, as generated by the | |||
f the command and response for a quote, including its signature, as generated by | TPM, can be seen in Part 3, Section 16.5, of <xref target="TPM-1.2" format="defa | |||
the TPM, can be seen in <xref target="TPM1.2"></xref> Part 3, Section 16.5, and | ult"/> and Section 18.4.2 of <xref target="TPM-2.0" format="default"/>.</t> | |||
<xref target="TPM2.0"></xref> Section 18.4.2.</t> | <t>The Verifier uses the Quote and Log together. The Quote contains the | |||
composite hash of the complete sequence | ||||
<t>The Verifier uses the Quote and Log together. The Quote contains the composi | of security measurement hashes, signed by the TPM's private AK. The Log contain | |||
te hash of the complete sequence | s a record of each | |||
of security measurement hashes, signed by the TPM’s private Attestation Key. Th | measurement extended into the TPM's PCRs. By computing the composite hash of al | |||
e Log contains a record of each | l the measurements, the Verifier | |||
measurement extended into the TPM’s PCRs. By computing the composite hash of al | ||||
l the measurements, the Verifier | ||||
can verify the integrity of the Event Log, even though the Event Log itself is n ot signed. Each hash in the validated | can verify the integrity of the Event Log, even though the Event Log itself is n ot signed. Each hash in the validated | |||
Event Log can then be compared to corresponding expected values in the set of Re ference Values to | Event Log can then be compared to corresponding expected values in the set of Re ference Values to | |||
validate overall system integrity.</t> | validate overall system integrity.</t> | |||
<t>A summary of information exchanged in obtaining quotes from TPM 1.2 a | ||||
<t>A summary of information exchanged in obtaining quotes from TPM1.2 and TPM2.0 | nd TPM 2.0 can be found in <xref target="TAP" format="default"/>, Section 4. | |||
can be found in <xref target="TAP"/>, Section 4. | Detailed information about PCRs and Quote data structures can be found in <xref | |||
Detailed information about PCRs and Quote data structures can be found in <xref | target="TPM-1.2" format="default"/>, <xref target="TPM-2.0" format="default"/>. | |||
target="TPM1.2"/>, <xref target="TPM2.0"/>. Recommended log | Recommended log | |||
formats include <xref target="PC-Client-BIOS-TPM-2.0"/>, and <xref target="Canon | formats include <xref target="PC-CLIENT-BIOS-TPM-2.0" format="default"/>, and <x | |||
ical-Event-Log"/>.</t> | ref target="CEL" format="default"/>.</t> | |||
</section> | ||||
</section> | <section anchor="root-of-trust" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
<section anchor="root-of-trust" title="Root of Trust for Measurement"> | <name>Root of Trust for Measurement (RTM)</name> | |||
<t>The measurements needed for attestation require that the device being | ||||
<t>The measurements needed for attestation require that the device being atteste | attested | |||
d | is equipped with an RTM, that is, some trustworthy | |||
is equipped with a Root of Trust for Measurement, that is, some trustworthy | ||||
mechanism that can compute the first measurement in the chain of trust required | mechanism that can compute the first measurement in the chain of trust required | |||
to attest that each stage of system startup is verified, a Root of Trust for Sto rage (i.e., | to attest that each stage of system startup is verified, a Root of Trust for Sto rage (i.e., | |||
the TPM PCRs) to record the results, and a Root of Trust | the TPM PCRs) to record the results, and a Root of Trust | |||
for Reporting to report the results.</t> | for Reporting to report the results.</t> | |||
<t>While there are many complex aspects of Roots of Trust (<xref target= "TCG-RT" format="default"/> <xref target="SP800-155" format="default"/> <xref ta rget="SP800-193" format="default"/>), two aspects that | ||||
<t>While there are many complex aspects of Roots of Trust ( <xref target="TCGRoT "/>, <xref target="SP800-155"/>, <xref target="SP800-193"/>), two aspects that | ||||
are important in the case of attestation are:</t> | are important in the case of attestation are:</t> | |||
<ul spacing="normal"> | ||||
<t><list style="symbols"> | <li>The first measurement computed by the RTM and stored | |||
<t>The first measurement computed by the Root of Trust for Measurement, and st | in the TPM's Root of Trust for Storage must be assumed to be correct.</li> | |||
ored | <li>There must not be a way to reset the Root of Trust for Storage wit | |||
in the TPM’s Root of Trust for Storage, must be assumed to be correct.</t> | hout re-entering | |||
<t>There must not be a way to reset the Root of Trust for Storage without re-e | the RTM code.</li> | |||
ntering | </ul> | |||
the Root of Trust for Measurement code.</t> | <t>The first measurement must be computed by code that is implicitly tru | |||
</list></t> | sted; if that | |||
<t>The first measurement must be computed by code that is implicitly trusted; if | ||||
that | ||||
first measurement can be subverted, none of the remaining measurements can | first measurement can be subverted, none of the remaining measurements can | |||
be trusted. (See <xref target="SP800-155"/>)</t> | be trusted. (See <xref target="SP800-155" format="default"/>.)</t> | |||
<t>It's important to note that the trustworthiness of the RTM code canno | ||||
<t>It’s important to note that the trustworthiness of the RTM code cannot be ass | t be assured by | |||
ured by | the TPM or TPM supplier -- code or procedures external to the TPM must guarantee | |||
the TPM or TPM supplier – code or procedures external to the TPM must guarantee | the | |||
the | ||||
security of the RTM.</t> | security of the RTM.</t> | |||
</section> | ||||
</section> | <section anchor="layering-model-for-network-equipment-attester-and-verifie | |||
<section anchor="layering-model-for-network-equipment-attester-and-verifier" tit | r" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
le="Layering Model for Network Equipment Attester and Verifier"> | <name>Layering Model for Network Equipment Attester and Verifier</name> | |||
<t>Retrieval of identity and attestation state uses one protocol stack, | ||||
<t>Retrieval of identity and attestation state uses one protocol stack, while | while | |||
retrieval of Reference Values uses a different set of protocols. Figure | retrieval of Reference Values uses a different set of protocols. | |||
5 shows the components involved.</t> | <xref target="RIV-Protocol-Stacks" format="default"/> shows the components invol | |||
ved.</t> | ||||
<figure title="RIV Protocol Stacks" anchor="RIV-Protocol-Stacks"><artwork align= | <figure anchor="RIV-Protocol-Stacks"> | |||
"left"><![CDATA[ | <name>RIV Protocol Stacks</name> | |||
<artwork align="left" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[ | ||||
+-----------------------+ +-------------------------+ | +-----------------------+ +-------------------------+ | |||
| | | | | | | | | | |||
| Attester |<-------------| Verifier | | | Attester |<-------------| Verifier | | |||
| (Device) |------------->| (Management Station) | | | (Device) |------------->| (Management Station) | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | |||
+-----------------------+ | +-------------------------+ | +-----------------------+ | +-------------------------+ | |||
| | | | |||
-------------------- -------------------- | -------------------- -------------------- | |||
| | | | | | |||
------------------------------- --------------------------------- | ------------------------------- --------------------------------- | |||
|Reference Values | | Attestation | | | Reference Values | | Attestation | | |||
------------------------------- --------------------------------- | ------------------------------- --------------------------------- | |||
******************************************************************** | ******************************************************************** | |||
* IETF Attestation Reference Interaction Diagram * | * IETF Remote Attestation Conceptual Data Flow * | |||
* RFC9334, Figure 1 * | ||||
******************************************************************** | ******************************************************************** | |||
......................... ......................... | ......................... ......................... | |||
. Reference Integrity . . TAP (PTS2.0) Info . | . Reference Integrity . . TAP Info . | |||
. Manifest . . Model and Canonical . | . Manifest . . Model and Canonical . | |||
. . . Log Format . | . . . Log Format . | |||
......................... ......................... | ......................... ......................... | |||
************************* ************************* | ************************* ************************* | |||
* YANG SWID Module * * YANG Attestation * | * YANG SWID Module * * YANG Attestation * | |||
* I-D.ietf-sacm-coswid * * Module * | * RFC9393 * * Module * | |||
* * * I-D.ietf-rats- * | * * * RFC9684 * | |||
* * * yang-tpm-charra * | * * * * | |||
************************* ************************* | ************************* ************************* | |||
************************* ************************* | ************************* ************************* | |||
* XML, JSON, CBOR (etc) * * XML, JSON, CBOR (etc) * | * XML, JSON, CBOR, etc. * * XML, JSON, CBOR, etc. * | |||
************************* ************************* | ************************* ************************* | |||
************************* ************************* | ************************* ************************* | |||
* RESTCONF/NETCONF * * RESTCONF/NETCONF * | * RESTCONF/NETCONF * * RESTCONF/NETCONF * | |||
************************* ************************* | ************************* ************************* | |||
************************* ************************* | ************************* ************************* | |||
* TLS, SSH * * TLS, SSH * | * TLS, SSH * * TLS, SSH * | |||
************************* ************************* | ************************* ************************* | |||
]]></artwork> | ||||
]]></artwork></figure> | </figure> | |||
<t>IETF documents are captured in boxes surrounded by asterisks. TCG doc | ||||
<t>IETF documents are captured in boxes surrounded by asterisks. TCG documents | uments | |||
are shown in boxes surrounded by dots.</t> | are shown in boxes surrounded by dots.</t> | |||
</section> | ||||
</section> | <section anchor="implementation-notes" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
<section anchor="implementation-notes" title="Implementation Notes"> | <name>Implementation Notes</name> | |||
<t><xref target="Component-Status" format="default"/> summarizes many of | ||||
<t><xref target="Component-Status"/> summarizes many of the actions needed to co | the actions needed to complete an Attestation | |||
mplete an Attestation | ||||
system, with links to relevant documents. While documents are controlled | system, with links to relevant documents. While documents are controlled | |||
by several standards organizations, the implied actions required for | by several standards organizations, the implied actions required for | |||
implementation are all the responsibility of the manufacturer of the device, | implementation are all the responsibility of the manufacturer of the device, | |||
unless otherwise noted.</t> | unless otherwise noted.</t> | |||
<t>As noted, SWID tags can be generated many ways, but one possible tool is <xref target="SWID-GEN" format="default"/>.</t> | ||||
<t>As noted, SWID tags can be generated many ways, but one possible tool is <xre | <!-- [rfced] Appendix A.4, Table 2. | |||
f target="SWID-Gen"></xref></t> | ||||
<figure title="Component Status" anchor="Component-Status"><artwork align="left" | ||||
><![CDATA[ | ||||
+------------------------------------------------------------------+ | ||||
| Component | Controlling | | ||||
| | Specification | | ||||
| Make a Secure execution environment | TCG RoT | | ||||
| o Attestation depends on a secure root of | UEFI.org | | ||||
| trust for measurement outside the TPM, as | | | ||||
| well as roots for storage and reporting | | | ||||
| inside the TPM. | | | ||||
| o Refer to TCG Root of Trust for Measurement.| | | ||||
| o NIST SP 800-193 also provides guidelines | | | ||||
| on Roots of Trust | | | ||||
| Provision the TPM as described in |[Platform-DevID-TPM-2.0]| | ||||
| TCG documents. | TCG Platform | | ||||
| | Certificate | | ||||
| Put a DevID or Platform Cert in the TPM | TCG TPM DevID | | ||||
| o Install an Initial Attestation Key at the | TCG Platform | | ||||
| same time so that Attestation can work out | Certificate | | ||||
| of the box |----------------- | ||||
| o Equipment suppliers and owners may want to | IEEE 802.1AR | | ||||
| implement Local Device ID as well as | | | ||||
| Initial Device ID | | | ||||
| Connect the TPM to the TLS stack | Vendor TLS | | ||||
| o Use the DevID in the TPM to authenticate | stack (This | | ||||
| TAP connections, identifying the device | action is | | ||||
| | configuring TLS| | ||||
| | to use the DevID | | ||||
| | as its client | | ||||
| | certificate) | | ||||
| Make CoSWID tags for BIOS/Loader/Kernel objects | IETF CoSWID | | ||||
| o Add reference measurements into SWID tags | ISO/IEC 19770-2| | ||||
| o Manufacturer should sign the SWID tags | NIST IR 8060 | | ||||
| o The TCG RIM-IM identifies further | | | ||||
| procedures to create signed RIM | | | ||||
| documents that provide the necessary | | | ||||
| reference information | | | ||||
| Package the SWID tags with a vendor software | Retrieve tags | | ||||
| release | with | | ||||
| o A tag-generator plugin such | I-D.ietf-sacm-coswid| | ||||
| as [SWID-Gen] can be used |----------------| | ||||
| | TCG PC Client | | ||||
| | RIM | | ||||
| Use PC Client measurement definitions | TCG PC Client | | ||||
| to define the use of PCRs | BIOS | | ||||
| (although Windows OS is rare on Networking | | | ||||
| Equipment, UEFI BIOS is not) | | | ||||
| Use TAP to retrieve measurements | | | ||||
| o Map to YANG | YANG Module for| | ||||
| Use Canonical Log Format | Basic | | ||||
| | Attestation | | ||||
| | TCG Canonical | | ||||
| | Log Format | | ||||
| Posture Collection Server (as described in IETF | | | ||||
| SACMs ECP) should request the | | | ||||
| attestation and analyze the result | | | ||||
| The Management application might be broken down | | | ||||
| to several more components: | | | ||||
| o A Posture Manager Server | | | ||||
| which collects reports and stores them in | | | ||||
| a database | | | ||||
| o One or more Analyzers that can look at the| | | ||||
| results and figure out what it means. | | | ||||
]]></artwork></figure> | ||||
</section> | ||||
</section> | ||||
</middle> | ||||
<back> | ||||
<references title='Normative References'> | ||||
<reference anchor='RFC2119' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119'> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title> | ||||
<author fullname='S. Bradner' initials='S.' surname='Bradner'><organization/></a | ||||
uthor> | ||||
<date month='March' year='1997'/> | ||||
<abstract><t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify | ||||
the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This | ||||
document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. | ||||
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Comm | ||||
unity, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t></abstract> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='BCP' value='14'/> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='2119'/> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC2119'/> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor='RFC8446' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446'> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3</title> | ||||
<author fullname='E. Rescorla' initials='E.' surname='Rescorla'><organization/>< | ||||
/author> | ||||
<date month='August' year='2018'/> | ||||
<abstract><t>This document specifies version 1.3 of the Transport Layer Security | ||||
(TLS) protocol. TLS allows client/server applications to communicate over the | ||||
Internet in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, and mess | ||||
age forgery.</t><t>This document updates RFCs 5705 and 6066, and obsoletes RFCs | ||||
5077, 5246, and 6961. This document also specifies new requirements for TLS 1.2 | ||||
implementations.</t></abstract> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='8446'/> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC8446'/> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor='RFC4253' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4253'> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>The Secure Shell (SSH) Transport Layer Protocol</title> | ||||
<author fullname='T. Ylonen' initials='T.' surname='Ylonen'><organization/></aut | ||||
hor> | ||||
<author fullname='C. Lonvick' initials='C.' role='editor' surname='Lonvick'><org | ||||
anization/></author> | ||||
<date month='January' year='2006'/> | ||||
<abstract><t>The Secure Shell (SSH) is a protocol for secure remote login and ot | ||||
her secure network services over an insecure network.</t><t>This document descri | ||||
bes the SSH transport layer protocol, which typically runs on top of TCP/IP. Th | ||||
e protocol can be used as a basis for a number of secure network services. It p | ||||
rovides strong encryption, server authentication, and integrity protection. It | ||||
may also provide compression.</t><t>Key exchange method, public key algorithm, s | ||||
ymmetric encryption algorithm, message authentication algorithm, and hash algori | ||||
thm are all negotiated.</t><t>This document also describes the Diffie-Hellman ke | ||||
y exchange method and the minimal set of algorithms that are needed to implement | ||||
the SSH transport layer protocol. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t></abstract> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='4253'/> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC4253'/> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor='RFC6241' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241'> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)</title> | ||||
<author fullname='R. Enns' initials='R.' role='editor' surname='Enns'><organizat | ||||
ion/></author> | ||||
<author fullname='M. Bjorklund' initials='M.' role='editor' surname='Bjorklund'> | ||||
<organization/></author> | ||||
<author fullname='J. Schoenwaelder' initials='J.' role='editor' surname='Schoenw | ||||
aelder'><organization/></author> | ||||
<author fullname='A. Bierman' initials='A.' role='editor' surname='Bierman'><org | ||||
anization/></author> | ||||
<date month='June' year='2011'/> | ||||
<abstract><t>The Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) defined in this docume | ||||
nt provides mechanisms to install, manipulate, and delete the configuration of n | ||||
etwork devices. It uses an Extensible Markup Language (XML)-based data encoding | ||||
for the configuration data as well as the protocol messages. The NETCONF proto | ||||
col operations are realized as remote procedure calls (RPCs). This document obs | ||||
oletes RFC 4741. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t></abstract> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='6241'/> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC6241'/> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor='RFC8174' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174'> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title> | ||||
<author fullname='B. Leiba' initials='B.' surname='Leiba'><organization/></autho | ||||
r> | ||||
<date month='May' year='2017'/> | ||||
<abstract><t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol s | ||||
pecifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that on | ||||
ly UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.</t></abs | ||||
tract> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='BCP' value='14'/> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='8174'/> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC8174'/> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor='RFC5280' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280'> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revo | ||||
cation List (CRL) Profile</title> | ||||
<author fullname='D. Cooper' initials='D.' surname='Cooper'><organization/></aut | ||||
hor> | ||||
<author fullname='S. Santesson' initials='S.' surname='Santesson'><organization/ | ||||
></author> | ||||
<author fullname='S. Farrell' initials='S.' surname='Farrell'><organization/></a | ||||
uthor> | ||||
<author fullname='S. Boeyen' initials='S.' surname='Boeyen'><organization/></aut | ||||
hor> | ||||
<author fullname='R. Housley' initials='R.' surname='Housley'><organization/></a | ||||
uthor> | ||||
<author fullname='W. Polk' initials='W.' surname='Polk'><organization/></author> | ||||
<date month='May' year='2008'/> | ||||
<abstract><t>This memo profiles the X.509 v3 certificate and X.509 v2 certificat | ||||
e revocation list (CRL) for use in the Internet. An overview of this approach a | ||||
nd model is provided as an introduction. The X.509 v3 certificate format is des | ||||
cribed in detail, with additional information regarding the format and semantics | ||||
of Internet name forms. Standard certificate extensions are described and two | ||||
Internet-specific extensions are defined. A set of required certificate extensi | ||||
ons is specified. The X.509 v2 CRL format is described in detail along with sta | ||||
ndard and Internet-specific extensions. An algorithm for X.509 certification pa | ||||
th validation is described. An ASN.1 module and examples are provided in the ap | ||||
pendices. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t></abstract> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='5280'/> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC5280'/> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor='I-D.ietf-rats-yang-tpm-charra'> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>A YANG Data Model for Challenge-Response-based Remote Attestation P | ||||
rocedures using TPMs</title> | ||||
<author fullname='Henk Birkholz'> | ||||
<organization>Fraunhofer SIT</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author fullname='Michael Eckel'> | ||||
<organization>Fraunhofer SIT</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author fullname='Shwetha Bhandari'> | ||||
<organization>ThoughtSpot</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author fullname='Eric Voit'> | ||||
<organization>Cisco Systems</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author fullname='Bill Sulzen'> | ||||
<organization>Cisco Systems</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author fullname='Liang Xia (Frank)'> | ||||
<organization>Huawei Technologies</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author fullname='Tom Laffey'> | ||||
<organization>Hewlett Packard Enterprise</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author fullname='Guy C. Fedorkow'> | ||||
<organization>Juniper Networks</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date day='20' month='March' year='2022'/> | ||||
<abstract> | ||||
<t> This document defines YANG RPCs and a few configuration nodes | ||||
required to retrieve attestation evidence about integrity | ||||
measurements from a device, following the operational context defined | ||||
in TPM-based Network Device Remote Integrity Verification. | ||||
Complementary measurement logs are also provided by the YANG RPCs, | ||||
originating from one or more roots of trust for measurement (RTMs). | ||||
The module defined requires at least one TPM 1.2 or TPM 2.0 as well | ||||
as a corresponding TPM Software Stack (TSS), or equivalent hardware | ||||
implementations that include the protected capabilities as provided | ||||
by TPMs as well as a corresponding software stack, included in the | ||||
device components of the composite device the YANG server is running | ||||
on. | ||||
</t> | ||||
</abstract> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-ietf-rats-yang-tpm-charra-18'/ | ||||
> | ||||
<format target='https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rats-yang-tpm-char | ||||
ra-18.txt' type='TXT'/> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor='I-D.ietf-sacm-coswid'> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>Concise Software Identification Tags</title> | ||||
<author fullname='Henk Birkholz'> | ||||
<organization>Fraunhofer SIT</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author fullname='Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay'> | ||||
<organization>National Security Agency</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author fullname='Charles Schmidt'> | ||||
<organization>The MITRE Corporation</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author fullname='David Waltermire'> | ||||
<organization>National Institute of Standards and Technology</organizati | ||||
on> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date day='7' month='March' year='2022'/> | ||||
<abstract> | ||||
<t> ISO/IEC 19770-2:2015 Software Identification (SWID) tags provide a | ||||
n | ||||
extensible XML-based structure to identify and describe individual | ||||
software components, patches, and installation bundles. SWID tag | ||||
representations can be too large for devices with network and storage | ||||
constraints. This document defines a concise representation of SWID | ||||
tags: Concise SWID (CoSWID) tags. CoSWID supports a similar set of | ||||
semantics and features as SWID tags, as well as new semantics that | ||||
allow CoSWIDs to describe additional types of information, all in a | ||||
more memory efficient format. | ||||
</t> | ||||
</abstract> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-ietf-sacm-coswid-21'/> | ||||
<format target='https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-sacm-coswid-21.txt | ||||
' type='TXT'/> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor='I-D.ietf-rats-architecture'> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>Remote Attestation Procedures Architecture</title> | ||||
<author fullname='Henk Birkholz'> | ||||
<organization>Fraunhofer SIT</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author fullname='Dave Thaler'> | ||||
<organization>Microsoft</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author fullname='Michael Richardson'> | ||||
<organization>Sandelman Software Works</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author fullname='Ned Smith'> | ||||
<organization>Intel Corporation</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author fullname='Wei Pan'> | ||||
<organization>Huawei Technologies</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date day='8' month='February' year='2022'/> | ||||
<abstract> | ||||
<t> In network protocol exchanges it is often useful for one end of a | ||||
communication to know whether the other end is in an intended | ||||
operating state. This document provides an architectural overview of | ||||
the entities involved that make such tests possible through the | ||||
process of generating, conveying, and evaluating evidentiary claims. | ||||
An attempt is made to provide for a model that is neutral toward | ||||
processor architectures, the content of claims, and protocols. | ||||
</t> | ||||
</abstract> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-ietf-rats-architecture-15'/> | ||||
<format target='https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rats-architecture- | ||||
15.txt' type='TXT'/> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor="IEEE-802-1AR" > | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>802.1AR-2018 - IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks | ||||
- Secure Device Identity, IEEE Computer Society</title> | ||||
<author initials="M." surname="Seaman"> | ||||
<organization>IEEE Computer Society</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2018" month="August"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor="TAP" target="https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/resource/tcg-t | ||||
ap-information-model/"> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>TCG Trusted Attestation Protocol (TAP) Information Model for TPM Fami | ||||
lies 1.2 and 2.0 and DICE Family 1.0, Version 1.0, Revision 0.36</title> | ||||
<author > | ||||
<organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2018" month="October"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor="Canonical-Event-Log" target="https://trustedcomputinggroup.or | ||||
g/resource/canonical-event-log-format/"> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>Canonical Event Log Format Version 1.0 Revision .41, February 25, 202 | ||||
2</title> | ||||
<author > | ||||
<organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2020" month="December"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor="PC-Client-BIOS-TPM-2.0" target="https://trustedcomputinggroup | ||||
.org/resource/pc-client-specific-platform-firmware-profile-specification/"> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>PC Client Specific Platform Firmware Profile Specification Family "2. | ||||
0", Level 00 Revision 1.05 Revision 23, May 7, 2021</title> | ||||
<author > | ||||
<organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2021" month="May"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor="PC-Client-EFI-TPM-1.2" target="https://trustedcomputinggroup. | ||||
org/resource/tcg-efi-platform-specification/"> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>TCG EFI Platform Specification for TPM Family 1.1 or 1.2, Specificati | ||||
on Version 1.22, Revision 15</title> | ||||
<author > | ||||
<organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2014" month="January"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor="RIM" target="https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/resource/tcg-r | ||||
eference-integrity-manifest-rim-information-model/"> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>TCG Reference Integrity Manifest (RIM) Information Model, v1.0, Revis | ||||
ion 0.16, Nov 12, 2020</title> | ||||
<author > | ||||
<organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2019" month="June"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor="PC-Client-RIM" target="https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/reso | ||||
urce/tcg-pc-client-reference-integrity-manifest-specification/"> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>TCG PC Client Reference Integrity Manifest Specification, v1.04, Nov | ||||
4, 2020</title> | ||||
<author > | ||||
<organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2019" month="December"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor="Platform-DevID-TPM-2.0" target="https://trustedcomputinggroup | ||||
.org/resource/tpm-2-0-keys-for-device-identity-and-attestation/"> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>TPM 2.0 Keys for Device Identity and Attestation, Specification Versi | ||||
on 1.0, Revision 2</title> | ||||
<author > | ||||
<organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2020" month="September"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor="Platform-ID-TPM-1.2" target="https://trustedcomputinggroup.or | ||||
g/resource/tpm-keys-for-platform-identity-for-tpm-1-2-2/"> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>TPM Keys for Platform Identity for TPM 1.2, Specification Version 1.0 | ||||
, Revision 3</title> | ||||
<author > | ||||
<organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2015" month="August"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor="SWID" target="https://www.iso.org/standard/65666.html"> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>Information Technology Software Asset Management Part 2: Software Ide | ||||
ntification Tag, ISO/IEC 19770-2</title> | ||||
<author > | ||||
<organization>The International Organization for Standardization/Internati | ||||
onal Electrotechnical Commission</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2015" month="October"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor="IMA" target="https://sourceforge.net/p/linux-ima/wiki/Home/"> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>Integrity Measurement Architecture</title> | ||||
<author surname="dsafford"> | ||||
<organization>dsafford</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author surname="kds_etu"> | ||||
<organization>kds_etu</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author surname="mzohar"> | ||||
<organization>mzohar</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author surname="reinersailer"> | ||||
<organization>reinersailer</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author surname="serge_hallyn"> | ||||
<organization>serge_hallyn</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2019" month="June"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
</references> | ||||
<references title='Informative References'> | ||||
<reference anchor='RFC6813' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6813'> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>The Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA) Asokan Attack Analysis</title> | ||||
<author fullname='J. Salowey' initials='J.' surname='Salowey'><organization/></a | ||||
uthor> | ||||
<author fullname='S. Hanna' initials='S.' surname='Hanna'><organization/></autho | ||||
r> | ||||
<date month='December' year='2012'/> | ||||
<abstract><t>The Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA) protocols are subject to a su | ||||
btle forwarding attack that has become known as the NEA Asokan Attack. This docu | ||||
ment describes the attack and countermeasures that may be mounted. This documen | ||||
t is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informat | ||||
ional purposes.</t></abstract> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='6813'/> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC6813'/> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor='RFC3748' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3748'> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)</title> | ||||
<author fullname='B. Aboba' initials='B.' surname='Aboba'><organization/></autho | ||||
r> | ||||
<author fullname='L. Blunk' initials='L.' surname='Blunk'><organization/></autho | ||||
r> | ||||
<author fullname='J. Vollbrecht' initials='J.' surname='Vollbrecht'><organizatio | ||||
n/></author> | ||||
<author fullname='J. Carlson' initials='J.' surname='Carlson'><organization/></a | ||||
uthor> | ||||
<author fullname='H. Levkowetz' initials='H.' role='editor' surname='Levkowetz'> | ||||
<organization/></author> | ||||
<date month='June' year='2004'/> | ||||
<abstract><t>This document defines the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), | ||||
an authentication framework which supports multiple authentication methods. EA | ||||
P typically runs directly over data link layers such as Point-to-Point Protocol | ||||
(PPP) or IEEE 802, without requiring IP. EAP provides its own support for dupli | ||||
cate elimination and retransmission, but is reliant on lower layer ordering guar | ||||
antees. Fragmentation is not supported within EAP itself; however, individual E | ||||
AP methods may support this. This document obsoletes RFC 2284. A summary of th | ||||
e changes between this document and RFC 2284 is available in Appendix A. [STAND | ||||
ARDS-TRACK]</t></abstract> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='3748'/> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC3748'/> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor='RFC6125' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6125'> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>Representation and Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Ident | ||||
ity within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX) Certificates in | ||||
the Context of Transport Layer Security (TLS)</title> | ||||
<author fullname='P. Saint-Andre' initials='P.' surname='Saint-Andre'><organizat | ||||
ion/></author> | ||||
<author fullname='J. Hodges' initials='J.' surname='Hodges'><organization/></aut | ||||
hor> | ||||
<date month='March' year='2011'/> | ||||
<abstract><t>Many application technologies enable secure communication between t | ||||
wo entities by means of Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX) ce | ||||
rtificates in the context of Transport Layer Security (TLS). This document speci | ||||
fies procedures for representing and verifying the identity of application servi | ||||
ces in such interactions. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t></abstract> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='6125'/> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC6125'/> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor='RFC8995' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8995'> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructure (BRSKI)</title> | ||||
<author fullname='M. Pritikin' initials='M.' surname='Pritikin'><organization/>< | ||||
/author> | ||||
<author fullname='M. Richardson' initials='M.' surname='Richardson'><organizatio | ||||
n/></author> | ||||
<author fullname='T. Eckert' initials='T.' surname='Eckert'><organization/></aut | ||||
hor> | ||||
<author fullname='M. Behringer' initials='M.' surname='Behringer'><organization/ | ||||
></author> | ||||
<author fullname='K. Watsen' initials='K.' surname='Watsen'><organization/></aut | ||||
hor> | ||||
<date month='May' year='2021'/> | ||||
<abstract><t>This document specifies automated bootstrapping of an Autonomic Con | ||||
trol Plane. To do this, a Secure Key Infrastructure is bootstrapped. This is d | ||||
one using manufacturer-installed X.509 certificates, in combination with a manuf | ||||
acturer's authorizing service, both online and offline. We call this process th | ||||
e Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructure (BRSKI) protocol. Bootstrapping | ||||
a new device can occur when using a routable address and a cloud service, only | ||||
link-local connectivity, or limited/disconnected networks. Support for deploymen | ||||
t models with less stringent security requirements is included. Bootstrapping is | ||||
complete when the cryptographic identity of the new key infrastructure is succe | ||||
ssfully deployed to the device. The established secure connection can be used t | ||||
o deploy a locally issued certificate to the device as well.</t></abstract> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='8995'/> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC8995'/> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor='RFC7950' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950'> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language</title> | ||||
<author fullname='M. Bjorklund' initials='M.' role='editor' surname='Bjorklund'> | ||||
<organization/></author> | ||||
<date month='August' year='2016'/> | ||||
<abstract><t>YANG is a data modeling language used to model configuration data, | ||||
state data, Remote Procedure Calls, and notifications for network management pro | ||||
tocols. This document describes the syntax and semantics of version 1.1 of the | ||||
YANG language. YANG version 1.1 is a maintenance release of the YANG language, | ||||
addressing ambiguities and defects in the original specification. There are a s | ||||
mall number of backward incompatibilities from YANG version 1. This document al | ||||
so specifies the YANG mappings to the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF).< | ||||
/t></abstract> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='7950'/> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC7950'/> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor='RFC8572' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8572'> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>Secure Zero Touch Provisioning (SZTP)</title> | ||||
<author fullname='K. Watsen' initials='K.' surname='Watsen'><organization/></aut | ||||
hor> | ||||
<author fullname='I. Farrer' initials='I.' surname='Farrer'><organization/></aut | ||||
hor> | ||||
<author fullname='M. Abrahamsson' initials='M.' surname='Abrahamsson'><organizat | ||||
ion/></author> | ||||
<date month='April' year='2019'/> | ||||
<abstract><t>This document presents a technique to securely provision a networki | ||||
ng device when it is booting in a factory-default state. Variations in the solu | ||||
tion enable it to be used on both public and private networks. The provisioning | ||||
steps are able to update the boot image, commit an initial configuration, and e | ||||
xecute arbitrary scripts to address auxiliary needs. The updated device is subs | ||||
equently able to establish secure connections with other systems. For instance, | ||||
a device may establish NETCONF (RFC 6241) and/or RESTCONF (RFC 8040) connection | ||||
s with deployment-specific network management systems.</t></abstract> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='8572'/> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC8572'/> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor='I-D.birkholz-rats-reference-interaction-model'> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>Reference Interaction Models for Remote Attestation Procedures</tit | ||||
le> | ||||
<author fullname='Henk Birkholz'> | ||||
<organization>Fraunhofer SIT</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author fullname='Michael Eckel'> | ||||
<organization>Fraunhofer SIT</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author fullname='Christopher Newton'> | ||||
<organization>University of Surrey</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author fullname='Liqun Chen'> | ||||
<organization>University of Surrey</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date day='7' month='July' year='2020'/> | ||||
<abstract> | ||||
<t> This document describes interaction models for remote attestation | ||||
procedures (RATS). Three conveying mechanisms - Challenge/Response, | ||||
Uni-Directional, and Streaming Remote Attestation - are illustrated | ||||
and defined. Analogously, a general overview about the information | ||||
elements typically used by corresponding conveyance protocols are | ||||
highlighted. Privacy preserving conveyance of Evidence via Direct | ||||
Anonymous Attestation is elaborated on for each interaction model, | ||||
individually. | ||||
</t> | ||||
</abstract> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-birkholz-rats-reference-intera | ||||
ction-model-03'/> | ||||
<format target='https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-birkholz-rats-reference | ||||
-interaction-model-03.txt' type='TXT'/> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor='I-D.richardson-rats-usecases'> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>Use cases for Remote Attestation common encodings</title> | ||||
<author fullname='Michael Richardson'> | ||||
<organization>Sandelman Software Works</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author fullname='Carl Wallace'> | ||||
<organization>Red Hound Software</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author fullname='Wei Pan'> | ||||
<organization>Huawei Technologies</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date day='2' month='November' year='2020'/> | ||||
<abstract> | ||||
<t> This document details mechanisms created for performing Remote | ||||
Attestation that have been used in a number of industries. The | ||||
document initially focuses on existing industry verticals, mapping | ||||
terminology used in those specifications to the more abstract | ||||
terminology used by the IETF RATS Working Group. | ||||
The document aspires to describe possible future use cases that would | ||||
be enabled by common formats. | ||||
</t> | ||||
</abstract> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-richardson-rats-usecases-08'/> | ||||
<format target='https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-richardson-rats-usecase | ||||
s-08.txt' type='TXT'/> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor='I-D.birkholz-rats-tuda'> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>Time-Based Uni-Directional Attestation</title> | ||||
<author fullname='Andreas Fuchs'> | ||||
<organization>Fraunhofer Institute for Secure Information Technology</or | ||||
ganization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author fullname='Henk Birkholz'> | ||||
<organization>Fraunhofer Institute for Secure Information Technology</or | ||||
ganization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author fullname='Ira E McDonald'> | ||||
<organization>High North Inc</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author fullname='Carsten Bormann'> | ||||
<organization>Universität Bremen TZI</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date day='12' month='January' year='2022'/> | ||||
<abstract> | ||||
<t> This document defines the method and bindings used to convey Evide | ||||
nce | ||||
via Time-based Uni-Directional Attestation (TUDA) in Remote | ||||
ATtestation procedureS (RATS). TUDA does not require a challenge- | ||||
response handshake and thereby does not rely on the conveyance of a | ||||
nonce to prove freshness of remote attestation Evidence. TUDA | ||||
enables the creation of Secure Audit Logs that can constitute | ||||
believable Evidence about both current and past operational states of | ||||
an Attester. In TUDA, RATS entities require access to a Handle | ||||
Distributor to which a trustable and synchronized time-source is | ||||
available. The Handle Distributor takes on the role of a Time Stamp | ||||
Authority (TSA) to distribute Handles incorporating Time Stamp Tokens | ||||
(TST) to the RATS entities. RATS require an Attesting Environment | ||||
that generates believable Evidence. While a TPM is used as the | ||||
corresponding root of trust in this specification, any other type of | ||||
root of trust can be used with TUDA. | ||||
</t> | ||||
</abstract> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-birkholz-rats-tuda-06'/> | ||||
<format target='https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-birkholz-rats-tuda-06.t | ||||
xt' type='TXT'/> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor='I-D.birkholz-rats-network-device-subscription'> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>Attestation Event Stream Subscription</title> | ||||
<author fullname='Henk Birkholz'> | ||||
<organization>Fraunhofer SIT</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author fullname='Eric Voit'> | ||||
<organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author fullname='Wei Pan'> | ||||
<organization>Huawei Technologies</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date day='17' month='August' year='2021'/> | ||||
<abstract> | ||||
<t> This memo defines how to subscribe to YANG Event Streams for Remot | ||||
e | ||||
Attestation Procedures (RATS). In RATS, Conceptional Messages, are | ||||
defined. Analogously, the YANG module defined in this memo augments | ||||
the YANG module for TPM-based Challenge-Response based Remote | ||||
Attestation (CHARRA) to allow for subscription to remote attestation | ||||
Evidence. Additionally, this memo provides the methods and means to | ||||
define additional Event Streams for other Conceptual Message as | ||||
illustrated in the RATS Architecture, e.g. Attestation Results, | ||||
Endorsements, or Event Logs. | ||||
</t> | ||||
</abstract> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-birkholz-rats-network-device-s | ||||
ubscription-03'/> | ||||
<format target='https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-birkholz-rats-network-d | ||||
evice-subscription-03.txt' type='TXT'/> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor='I-D.ietf-rats-eat'> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>The Entity Attestation Token (EAT)</title> | ||||
<author fullname='Laurence Lundblade'> | ||||
<organization>Security Theory LLC</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author fullname='Giridhar Mandyam'> | ||||
<organization>Qualcomm Technologies Inc.</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<author fullname='Jeremy O'Donoghue'> | ||||
<organization>Qualcomm Technologies Inc.</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date day='24' month='February' year='2022'/> | ||||
<abstract> | ||||
<t> An Entity Attestation Token (EAT) provides an attested claims set | ||||
that describes state and characteristics of an entity, a device like | ||||
a phone, IoT device, network equipment or such. This claims set is | ||||
used by a relying party, server or service to determine how much it | ||||
wishes to trust the entity. | ||||
An EAT is either a CBOR Web Token (CWT) or JSON Web Token (JWT) with | ||||
attestation-oriented claims. To a large degree, all this document | ||||
does is extend CWT and JWT. | ||||
</t> | ||||
</abstract> | ||||
</front> | ||||
<seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-ietf-rats-eat-12'/> | ||||
<format target='https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rats-eat-12.txt' t | ||||
ype='TXT'/> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor="TPM1.2" target="https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/resource/tp | ||||
m-main-specification/"> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>TPM Main Specification Level 2 Version 1.2, Revision 116</title> | ||||
<author > | ||||
<organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2011" month="March"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor="TPM2.0" target="https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/resource/tp | ||||
m-library-specification/"> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>Trusted Platform Module Library Specification, Family "2.0", Level 00 | ||||
, Revision 01.59</title> | ||||
<author > | ||||
<organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2019" month="November"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor="Platform-Certificates" target="https://trustedcomputinggroup. | ||||
org/resource/tcg-platform-attribute-credential-profile/"> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>TCG Platform Attribute Credential Profile, Specification Version 1.0, | ||||
Revision 16</title> | ||||
<author > | ||||
<organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2018" month="January"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor="Provisioning-TPM-2.0" target="https://trustedcomputinggroup.o | ||||
rg/wp-content/uploads/TCG-TPM-v2.0-Provisioning-Guidance-Published-v1r1.pdf"> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>TCG TPM v2.0 Provisioning Guidance, Version 1.0, Revision 1.0</title> | ||||
<author > | ||||
<organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2015" month="March"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor="IEEE-802.1X" target="https://standards.ieee.org/standard/802_ | ||||
1X-2020.html"> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>802.1X-2020 - IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks- | ||||
-Port-Based Network Access Control</title> | ||||
<author > | ||||
<organization>IEEE Computer Society</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2020" month="February"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor="IEEE-802.1AE" target="https://1.ieee802.org/security/802-1ae/ | ||||
"> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>802.1AE MAC Security (MACsec)</title> | ||||
<author initials="M." surname="Seaman"> | ||||
<organization>IEEE Computer Society</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2018"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor="LLDP" target="https://standards.ieee.org/standard/802_1AB-201 | ||||
6.html"> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>802.1AB-2016 - IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks | ||||
- Station and Media Access Control Connectivity Discovery</title> | ||||
<author > | ||||
<organization>IEEE Computer Society</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2016" month="March"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor="TCGRoT" target="https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/wp-content/ | ||||
uploads/TCG_Roots_of_Trust_Specification_v0p20_PUBLIC_REVIEW.pdf"> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>DRAFT: TCG Roots of Trust Specification</title> | ||||
<author > | ||||
<organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2018" month="October"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor="SP800-193" target="https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialP | ||||
ublications/NIST.SP.800-193.pdf"> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>NIST Special Publication 800-193: Platform Firmware Resiliency Guidel | ||||
ines</title> | ||||
<author > | ||||
<organization>National Institute for Standards and Technology</organizatio | ||||
n> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2018" month="April"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor="SP800-155" target="https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/publicati | ||||
ons/sp/800-155/draft/documents/draft-sp800-155_dec2011.pdf"> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>BIOS Integrity Measurement Guidelines (Draft)</title> | ||||
<author > | ||||
<organization>National Institute of Standards and Technology</organization | ||||
> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2011" month="December"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor="NetEq" target="https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/resource/tcg | ||||
-guidance-securing-network-equipment/"> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>TCG Guidance for Securing Network Equipment, Version 1.0, Revision 29 | ||||
</title> | ||||
<author > | ||||
<organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2018" month="January"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor="NIST-IR-8060" target="https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/20 | ||||
16/NIST.IR.8060.pdf"> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>Guidelines for the Creation of Interoperable Software Identification | ||||
(SWID) Tags</title> | ||||
<author > | ||||
<organization>National Institute for Standards and Technology</organizatio | ||||
n> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2016" month="April"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor="AK-Enrollment" target="https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/reso | ||||
urce/tcg-infrastructure-working-group-a-cmc-profile-for-aik-certificate-enrollme | ||||
nt/"> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>TCG Infrastructure Working Group - A CMC Profile for AIK Certificate | ||||
Enrollment Version 1.0, Revision 7</title> | ||||
<author > | ||||
<organization>Trusted Computing Group</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="2011" month="March"/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
<reference anchor="SWID-Gen" target="https://github.com/Labs64/swid-maven-plugin | ||||
"> | ||||
<front> | ||||
<title>SoftWare IDentification (SWID) Tags Generator (Maven Plugin)</title> | ||||
<author > | ||||
<organization>Labs64, Munich, Germany</organization> | ||||
</author> | ||||
<date year="n.d."/> | ||||
</front> | ||||
</reference> | ||||
</references> | ||||
</back> | ||||
<!-- ##markdown-source: | ||||
H4sIAAy3OWIAA82963bbVpYu+h9PgaH8kJgQ1CW247i66jQty4k6lq2WlKT2 | ||||
rq6RAZGghDIJsABQMhOnR73D/rXH2Ofl6knOvK41FwBK8qXOOR7dFYkiFtZl | ||||
rnmf30ySJKqbtJj+ks7LInsWN9Uqi/JlRT/VzcHe3rd7B9G0nBTpAv48rdJZ | ||||
k+RZM0uqtKmTZrlILtM6myZF1tyW1dtkmt3kkyxJmyarm2T/UTRJm2dxXszK | ||||
aJk/i+K4KSfP4u11Vm/zL9Ns2VzDJ4/w93q9qLJZ7b9Ql1UTfjIpF8t00piv | ||||
rC79Z0W5HTV5M4e5Xpye8Nzi1zy3+AXNLT7LFmWTxcdFk11VebOOf8qqfJbD | ||||
RPOyiNLLyyq7edZ56PinKK2y9Fl8nk1W+Fh0e/UsPhtfnMc/w/fy4ir+ripX | ||||
y+jt7TMau4ItSV7ghkXpqrkuq2dRElclTi2b5k1ZwdzzAlb23Sg+HMUvsykM | ||||
U97Cp7zX363W9sOygtf9x6rIl1mlk6uH8KbJCDcBdimDDdjfiy+yyXVRzsur | ||||
dXya4gKq/CbDjYM5P4t/hmOZldWUdnIKr9ne23/69AluZJVdwQY8i0/Suk4n | ||||
16s6a5qavrcqmgqe/fEcflteE6Fs4xPZIs3nz+KrmUzz3//G8xvB0mGxtLqj | ||||
UfxTmTduWUdVPtFPaE2HeT0p4/N13WQLfJ0eAH3uX5LdwDP/PsEPR3DeOvx/ | ||||
wM7lza9XWZXOp8nJ5Id07V71H1ldw7H2fYHe/JpOPJ27I43HV1kxWZv93P72 | ||||
6d5efJ7epFdAA2U63XY7uf2yGcUnWTrNtv1mHux98/ix3cztk7Raz+GGbXd2 | ||||
Uhb2t8UM5nfw70Wdjq7KmwjI/Vn82+9RUVYLmOBNhrfm7OXhwf7+t/Lj00eP | ||||
nsiPjw4efy0/Pjl4tK9f2P/mkfz4+ODpHv54nLwY+Yu7Tosrur2T67SqgKrp | ||||
U/7FfhkIAb5T1rf5tDtIWk2u8yabNKsqkxHwI/ze0dFR8nTvINkfn+FzcNP5 | ||||
UsJnI/gsOQCqixP6XnyODCitpjHQZfyqnMCBwAewtU1VLst5Dn+Ox3D1HNXH | ||||
CQ0Z87llekWPp1kBr1kPedhDYAoruIbxeTmBOa/pGb2J+LNQ0MkIxkkXaSGD | ||||
EmlsHmGaNrAOnH+y9xQ+uRifygrT6gpJ5rpplvWz3V1ioNl0QoMAe7hC7jCC | ||||
0XerrC5X1STbbSZwCOkyQfZIh10WyQIIab5r92z74vC7+IJHi8fEWOmr8WlV | ||||
AgMt5/EOTGIArMCNEp/gKLShwAZlYS/TRT7PszreHx3QDh+M9ui/L44Pj/iv | ||||
a/jb3hAZYo2j0C9nsLv0297oa+IT7V2kDdP5HepyhRu2tmx/Dz45TIuygIs5 | ||||
T45u4MiSV+VVQCTb7gsxfQGI4ip+SWuzU/MzGz3aHwKvvKxWcNnig8dDeNnB | ||||
wfbHHsvEzS+j+QEvTXhrd+NPWf/BXrJ/AJ+cHiaHcBAw8vPjN+cJCio4io+m | ||||
ouUkmfBw9TKboCRLlvMUufwimeXV4hbkVrKsylk+z9xXiEwCMjs9jHlW8bl8 | ||||
Jz6VYYCD8jBIcjiM+wpTm9DOFqxiayjU9gr2bh7vmVOCI3vsfzv4egiSZh1/ | ||||
Q4e1/0n7up/sPQ729ejlMW0rUPonXc5slvu93Lx1eEHhlX6/wu2Ra+iv2D6s | ||||
DW/hMPyi7Jwn8YMDc/32H3/S3XuU7OEmnx2fPOswl7NsllUg+axSdJIW+QxY | ||||
TbwDj/Qwl2F802YP+0+G8evyJt4/oDPd++gLiFtf6ZyAO8qckoXMKanyxSam | ||||
+bH7822y9ySgIb9TH7cAfy3vXMpmqqKj8bfyzkMK6IiP5hEfxiN7Fh+/Ocy4 | ||||
9CqAxD1+0WJcOmkgdBQsP2Trmii/JZ1J4hgp1roDG2TPxzNzVHIOkr3kLcwH | ||||
ubhaKLnMJ4H5iLlijuDjOfzet3ajZJc+iQ/BAtzkHTNy08dP8Sv7sMqDkCvB | ||||
SbhTcKzJnYNypS4fCs5AmJI7ia8/iZAes9J0/vPxi/4Nub29HeV1SVtQi2K4 | ||||
++TxkydPRtfNYh6QmuVJxuo5L2cNCatxDSYM3hFQ3hd4hcAeauKDZ/4bvBkt | ||||
/nuRXoEKef5m9/joMN7/9ptv9pKDzdfnOhNrT42JN9UV3MpfPetX/VY+2w2/ | ||||
fjQHBRoUOZw/6hwyiRj3cZHXtc7LbCEpUccn4+DiGaaQpTWoxbTisVHRe/eb | ||||
iQymeZWh1ba73J3nxepdki/S3dv8bb77fbnI+u4EvEJ8AnU6E4sS/9GubOuH | ||||
2+1vv53Wv2TNKviyfNb57uLXEgyS4Kv8UeebVZYXQLNgT2Xh9+0fOk/VGaz6 | ||||
l+t0Pl8Hyv+2/cN2j5hwoscZZ0+e7qsZ9vU3j57qp/sHj9Ui+/Zb/fGbbx/v | ||||
6aePvzlQu+oyr95el/Nf2bYKZUaVTryc0wfAkIa9mNbwOT0CBvskrbO6f8Bm | ||||
NU37/9Jy3dSry3pS5Ut8Ydfmy9IGP0TD5/TkU9kaGMDFnQIQ2NMJfKfFnli1 | ||||
PLCKktWT9j/RSgFt8mte36do5bi+eX5ZgUVy5xJlRo4/g3K1AgX7FT/aFuyB | ||||
pu10bKuF7Y8ef/vJwn7fyrDDrBIeybT18RqRjgjitsovwbROJlVGLBhsLbFQ | ||||
elQg3ZqxPhYfusfUItkgwuRah8rEpxLIU1al4c08IHztY42422UyKeGCF83u | ||||
ajkv02m9C0um0W5guCR4x3erfJoiSzhdXc7z+jqbJjf71f5oOZ21rRG8OThA | ||||
MMlYB9hk4cNvnyrdv46M+2e0/+eu9+fPCepJH+38SZLTsgLLOfDsjieTrK5h | ||||
cgU8Nu8XdPKiGphZloX6BczrF5mX1zLsJjzYK4QK4EGwA+OjHgfYUXwyPvRu | ||||
xx34DZj3oHfi+zRhfI7mLM/sknct7RXNn+bWwgN89erFac+0n6Pf7sk9R7ew | ||||
R4cu87hwfjt8hq4nn/E0T1tHh/8tQF3Jb3BfXqC39yar1h93ojLfTzzS/SdC | ||||
1XCvzsqLz3PDfzkry6b+pZz9Qhfrl4B5/XKztzzY++X0x+evjg9/OTv66fjo | ||||
5/Yl335xNn55wZedxorLGV/SkBF+Fofd+enTvb1k/9uv+xdf3MyXoDSMirxu | ||||
0IW9iz/gJ7s0lXRO/IrnU+++Pj6/GJ2fjmTIzsLw77E8GJsnY51Dj1vqLKvR | ||||
tVlM1sTjMtBhOTjUu3Tn9z8uangrChSrp9dEnd6g6DD/R35LHj/u35JJXU38 | ||||
fuBvuwsk992l3Yp6uSuj7FJkbXdaTlaot9f8OygO8vdfptkEVZP2bqEDcYPq | ||||
7zci3qEw1OAD9gOI6WHbsc+eAWDER3//JOXgSoUbczgQd6qXZn9f5UtcUsfn | ||||
pvKMj0+ec0LhSJ/bJO4Ovv0cagDSa3J8Btz+yQbxv/l+5NUuMhi+E8dnIxyj | ||||
fcTmHHGZzTWpP3wl4JjImiyXYCJcol+237KNd9DiHqBpW/9LbsUTvhXjH5Kj | ||||
Atj4HLf9k8gBTKwqreHLZLomtxxiTejbSZpMFhPn0kYPSJq/TSZeT00yN4sO | ||||
0RwHI4fBW9iLcXx4cuj83LgD4+MfYqMDx36FIkj6qeubTzdCxFOSfJcV/Zt5 | ||||
lTfXq0uMh+6+Si/rJ492MVIHdtVNVoC6vbrKC7t8pI6fiTpebKKOGN4FtNTA | ||||
undOcBjgtjjMRubB7x3GJ6sC7NEhPA+WcbGOkiSJ4U8Nmq5RdHGd17Fyt3ia | ||||
oYV5CRSdxniys3l5S1tdcWjeuOOQxJHknecUP9CoBpFkLSQPVjk8M5/DzsJj | ||||
wjxiNmprGCNtYhTEaE5uMLrq+Lff2Kr9/fch/wwqNP6cwuSzGdzBaXy5jiOc | ||||
0IZTjHeAxgaDIXr4kXHdpHNcMRrqNON8sZwTf2YRwPPKi8l8Nc1ooUvyBeHI | ||||
k3SZXoJYa/KspiksUZef8hxgbvUool1e5NPpPIuiL5AXVLAS8hXgnme4RfD/ | ||||
eCAwAMhU0BOaEvehhoEqeDHsZTaf4vTTWK5m7O6m7N4wmlXlIiYmQx/XHKzH | ||||
odLl0smzUQwCaHKdAnvjP+KEM1pilMpYsT8lWHgaT+CV5SKrtuu4zuHogUyQ | ||||
yJA8J/FOPspGw7goGw6dZ9Usy5sBHft1WkeXGdAnLGaWX8FVnsa3cB2ERvNf | ||||
M08asHvzOe0gOgCBgPxa6xUsYB3DrHMwr3Gz/oY6VBrPslulvWD7bq+BzIG8 | ||||
4FlY4WXmNpM2rgAZVMHkYUj46zVcIJ7flBz3dNh+J2qcBX4T5wLU2lyv4UjH | ||||
8RVeQVi+ja9vuh6wDTFtg9InHOlvv22O0//+O5zSeDrNmdnP18N4VcMk0XFk | ||||
3gGz4rfgcctd8gRR00ZNQTtf1bXsO3ppMqK8+AluHE9ik4+KpvF9eZuBdj/E | ||||
TYY5OOUHfqIzF3qHM5oBq6IgyJWV+HrHnYIQA7+alhWLKiZX/A1OAjhOfgUH | ||||
fLnK59Mh/X2agTq+Jsbi5aesb0S3h/5WNEwGln/ljrp5ekAQOrFRfAz8rSSO | ||||
A1+Dm1quGpDeuHlIS3cmH2Gs7acBDgxzWfA08S7EuUhzGDZj9iGcA88B7CWw | ||||
oNBZBJMC8UDvwTs8zxog/RoMM1qbJRt4xSSbIl3pydLdgafgLpLmbQ59yUyl | ||||
5pUCwQGjg00DpgTSpplcZ7zhwJWzWyAp5APxuIhXBdyK+Zp4S12vFuRRhPfA | ||||
VbxkXpfepPmcedxaiQg/lwtCF3WTg6yfVXN6WJPjeifVetmUtNK6Rs2pjLOC | ||||
dgLfYS6du1dAzHW9cEeuE0HepHoVsx5m5kAlX3xxhtRXyZkA1aaO+cZvszVu | ||||
L6hOWyc/nl9sDfm/8es39PPZ0X/+eHx29AJ/Pv9+/OqV+4G/EcEvb358JX/H | ||||
n/yTh29OTo5ev+CH4dO49dHJ+H9sEf1EW29OL47fvB6/2oppdy0d44KYidEt | ||||
WFYZ7jQJOxbQyE6i54en8f4j2GRJQoJdpp8xyQh+vgUCZVItC2Ab/Cts3hpl | ||||
Q5aSkAGqiECc5cD5WZTV1+UtMK9MNhH0ymqRi2IJHLBYLS5BPOEpwB+Y3VTZ | ||||
CnkNiaJ7OdwFcRSRq8/i8XJZpXmNBmUJ4oqDX0c3zJaHQVINmJKreaOfIXfy | ||||
3/Mh2J/S+Yo+YPrGwNJ6KHcZn8Ht0N/iN7fAz5GzB2y3aalEM1LxkepmoF6W | ||||
t8QxYPXP4EE/v2eqJJDXBDboivU1+PYQRc1NxhcO3p/youHXaDJP8wXs/GU6 | ||||
ecv6Q+YWlV7CbdYr528FzqZGuYgKHKwERMEERuAtJSXASE5+bhjlLgVLxiMN | ||||
oGCfo7tDKrHFp81fjfDmlnXOnxH7yonTA4Hi6uF9cMIwg9mqmIilQqsE1lLR | ||||
FzPQtVasiQzjrJnAjtM1vCrhq8hLzCnnqG4sliymaQi82nE6BSrMUWlFBRj+ | ||||
L11RqiYzW8OagiWEaih99RZofJ7CTK9RPCILNw/zH3FJoM/jjQuUHhwMdJ10 | ||||
sUSdIkG2OKJ1TLOGbonTiz1T0oeRj+a1CE9zh0NiQzEIQqwBvtaslxh0xH1I | ||||
3+Isy3iRpQWoa27wfIG5j0JmTDy4U6xlNWunScHnxNPtFg6dyDDLB3VqNUvp | ||||
ruKt+Nnz/Tt1atLes3cNMReQaiCze07VL6hIqwoUjKmIf9qL4PJcriNW5mA5 | ||||
OciqJSgPeBXdvZ3AH8pLshhYllxV6RKewBHwzaQFkHEiZB8FYgP3/e8r1KFK | ||||
YZB66XqNGrfh6CQkI4ZJSYmG9ABPM6ul0Q9ucMprptJb+J9t2nDS/Fk+49si | ||||
UmemrKd66gVu+bJPmYLh7VYsVU7DroDiHWfAoadTpi7nnbfBdnX17rw+OR/g | ||||
YHC7SZOdAHsTTbHOKlQAI7xsOGE3CxhmvkaOA1uMCY5KRoYuU4ruL/wL63K+ | ||||
or3G4UDDv0YvCd2aibulC+AvVzwvHJj5xGAU/3yN1r7EdZF6KP4K9y8i/mCp | ||||
rM25Z/ADKs/4hlgjfZiVjtNrEWiT1pi0rbo6G2i1KIXRXUrhCFO3fuqKcLy2 | ||||
uC0dZ1kygf9BKwLYCJkumAVurU3aTJ7iUhJJWY9zuiEbBMp2SEm8zuiY0ggt | ||||
qXyymqdVyNWU5aklxjzNG2JEvjgUyXHyXEfquYY18jk0oeV6m67Z1pywWKiv | ||||
w/PAjYGVwECrJjiDvtXhsYvyTJQGO5oVN3lVFqzCoQqMikw0A4uTqLtzM+Qs | ||||
SMtn2/QmUwJW+RDKzUjcD6v5FLUtnj1s0042ugID9ypzrGVeaqh3YiIhf4ij | ||||
Osvutanwms2BL6+urpFV0ATVSrG8Bw+eMqdDLxvSOhAHXJuaOeWc4svIrCiw | ||||
AHtx1yLdsiK0euiLKEtqXSV8esSpR1bfuihB7tQdjQ6uLqwHxMNxEaPzkynq | ||||
br2P71UuGkB4T+iKkt4PxAzzQDMxI5uAbrpy8ggLNJg60GCsHWtnXcPM23gb | ||||
65g0UxGAXnG8JWJuKY2szOLg8AjuVNr+BsdswXZCPVbF2VA9EU508kGGfi4g | ||||
aSWxySRbijYfXcJp0PNu3biaTa81RESW5HUp3grQi0EZIOcACGXZsY6Wi+r8 | ||||
C912mwzF2liFZQ9oGfaa1SV/n8QKvKBG/wBobzWz8Bp04S/j/lHkK3wZa1L6 | ||||
+MJXxkAbxsv5Chkf2IUJUzerBkvVqeBij/Ql5yJQ4jcw5E2e3bqXsE0PZwlm | ||||
zD0mPUU+/ZDOm446TlkQy9FRYci3xID0Dzwf3GlXDBL7qCeOeVrlN+mEqdOF | ||||
k9G44qk5VjiD+0QcXYZEXUpyKeQc25q/qChd04jeew7Kf8mMHCmiQo8BHALq | ||||
AgXZfcU0fxeLzgy/CF18h6cSRaoteBfNJaiXM2BZJBXSwDi3l26h7kW+osLb | ||||
6sgbAaqo516XwA0FFpVZJdtqOexMVLXL6fGzKiNm+bZAU/VmNUcFWP2xoqUb | ||||
XyMr7LAhcGsDnoU7UBIZz70pgvPFzXMa4DBkLrCLcImJrbCBkjP/bSs9w2Bi | ||||
TAfedoq8R0MoP7Rb/Dji8ELSsPNwznkh+K4twacueiVZD+KA8kbsdX51LZeN | ||||
buUzJtzyhnwx7fTgJKZYQZAypXdYnV6FY7LqIibLwzksmRkOnKYTxehpDlR4 | ||||
51Gr4BhzUNPJPZSClskPwykezWasNqF1hHNiadYyBUHV5hKbBYpIOLRaPIMY | ||||
BII9mfJBh9wbP5msJ/OML5ML2hVYb1JWa4pDofuICIbdjTJjFjJOC66yOYrr | ||||
nXrgPeswmbJoySJWfbragFuNG7GGCXifLtyMYhsDXeRkBsGQ6R9J2RL6Z0MC | ||||
18K8T8kxCXlhYLMWLTsk9LkxE4P3difoPgmtdXMXUW1FrzaqpLjfpNGrbso6 | ||||
RSq+GNYe81o8xEzEzJdgl3LSYsjCIXU6ndP4RmH0Fi6rvPo9ayDjfPmq1cGy | ||||
WXF3rq5WyIpCSNvLLKuSpkzwv9uoUmTk8Q2DW8Z6hYWKMQjUB29jPQxpG4jj | ||||
knVnUeeAdNhbcp0vgdx3zknDtC8Eleoyg1s8iKLfnsVfwE4lKC5/JxHfkpv3 | ||||
+7UDP5a50rclux9B9SV388LHkC5hoVkW0nJb5REj2CkixF46JYF0/5z04GtA | ||||
91JcDt5zhbwXVWDyCcm78HrTAVbm/jvh6mOMcGPLimNBLMk8TVrVjQwrZEpN | ||||
AxyH7biyJbWY0sta6P02q0zsTE1/nsmaxHleEBOjq0reH+LORTjsKB77KFi4 | ||||
Jz21Gpj83+f5UPeF8mwfJ/PaKfq05rXjONOQ09lElbxuzYTWVWWoYPCfkGZI | ||||
Fi9WDQkN40pUZckzPQla8lVLC+fes9yiNptHUTqS8kOvIURx11/JzKFaFd1t | ||||
jaIfa2HzeGKbSdrxm9TPXRgMOVLZXlX7m81GswZHHqo6eXL0UbAcPUeBBsTq | ||||
BFx44MzAIZzws4TUtdZhMlGq+o/kOJC4N3H2lsg0c6BJ6QycJA7i8Yv0bUam | ||||
hP1mU2fz2fDBsaYockSl6tJlWZowqyzer5k8mLzd6HpYeFLE2ATICJJ/esnR | ||||
X8FPoLPCZ9nhdbFUvMMGOtyPJilnCfEVsshph/glqggU2Tty5F1lYqFMgGvo | ||||
HyvSsmkDSaVM4IMctf6GRDM8NOTacBRqqGezX4b3myPzxnkLrGZF0o+021E0 | ||||
tuslM5TDivY+D41jEuenZw9rx8VE3dtH5e611w2sisYK0sbUiroU8ovIZQaa | ||||
GMVxjfDgjcJjVFcUTHUW6AQm98P60odAXCjLMKuGKV2Veq+tRxH71cQnphbn | ||||
Iv0bHLC4ilEY16BTN/0CyQZ7QPrsjzSJRjZNA0jK6dQBTcKc3eluLPWz1yHj | ||||
jZjx7uhQAxyXozphAGdJsWw0UUZohng3HYnASD3T1quRN/WG2AwJIXIe4NuA | ||||
HqgmO18gZ6ZgdxQdjEKhYVT2WVY5D7ln7s70wekE8bN4xzsYhobVBYx70Cd8 | ||||
NjEVzwKHkRWY8HkojnGdxOdgRV+PMAn5Jlun4i3TPY88A4W5FLWXT+LRBupz | ||||
R03i350q2nDeU4K/oXEEn1n3tfqIS3TZoiM6wi+AzQE7BJdY43l4AkV83mTL | ||||
+NGInApuNlEYAZmkVYX8DsnjJk/D1znJJT5XdGSKTjaVRBBabBb6WlN0lxJp | ||||
YhwBzrTI8LKsjbkaOSvDWrcmREWarabFYBEHHSPuWiuYo0kMMMnjBi0CcW7B | ||||
XDM5TUeV9tEsOAWKLAEHopjfVaECAM0rlm0Ut4Zthy8xl+AQWhT7mFBJy14v | ||||
xTr3+xokFbktcycC9PQIEUok5uvj0JYtlJPJqqopao3iNWQS8EVW6FU+uMdA | ||||
bGRgneJyyMB19OVWHZp/q5ojw91oOEXIwM4tlzHVC/TFw1W4cowEvj8hCzeB | ||||
6+acHkuqU0Pdy9jLlJGBN56MuczKBSt6ReFjj6Vbo/Og9MZds3dLunao864D | ||||
IwDmc+7EiXpP78wCiBf51XVDij6oGeYiUxggvUpRxHSduTvp2zT+rpzDl606 | ||||
UA+GkikGyxJdXNbficKh00kVXOYm5PhH3wHrVWA4zeedzMHau+BotykK0uc1 | ||||
YUnJ39Z3mBSDaxSJjeb15ljjhSJMbYBnyt8dwwXuIzoswyvBm6iKQrBdOh6d | ||||
HaoWH6Dz3sDCgOzHNNJJuVrOVWuAi5Uhp+PUgoQ1YsOz5JCDADLleuBIx+j5 | ||||
h7Olt8U7x/JW46fX/E+KfOGObxqUWYuzmMmB1GvxqAlaY7hlns3E9QXDlNUa | ||||
abBcZEGKJK0TRwNeDGpmwhzuHcVGEzOFMLtCAijsph9T1BWuZQZCpwJCi6iW | ||||
hXdwms+IQNE3yp5hzEnMKgyIIJe+TdnWRO8IOXMK9iobmxsvhVbqRZLzS5xb | ||||
THn8e/YuxXkP46A+zxYKwmn3FhCiygcD4MCdNYsS5/QmrilScoIzfcVnOmC9 | ||||
w9YF2sQ2cgkH8a6On8mpO5pNR/MJbGZv1BBXphe1orlqWejFJEbE54Dyxu9L | ||||
8PozUZWBd5weniGj+M8VZZ8Bm0GgG2srMgtRcRpohCThzdlkPr2AqLUUhkr5 | ||||
AH7B6BLTFILAXkZG4GI+ZEGxgxIZKZVokQrS58CBXcA3rorLCmN5QrPiyceR | ||||
EtDqQFyJ+cTOJ30besXn6Rq3w54L5teKMeesJp1nqW+UhGRKBaL7jIaL7BlZ | ||||
XWI5cHUXi9XrtGZtNoiyhEbZkJMqVstpqo/ZhQOXpMNSpgBnzVyITh2Jgh6X | ||||
7deXcuwFl8v6MImKqf4pdbqJo9uJZEnTe5hExMYkQY6gD7//TrcV01Q0QoX2 | ||||
KczCbQ3dNm970cRNuiQ+TjF25EZoX6X5vB6wFnzOE+oXeb1oJFb+OX84J6Wp | ||||
R6y57kREXeAx3uFoEVsmJoAZuH+dY5UZ36wRc6wdG7VOBQ0ItGKWnHvownw2 | ||||
lRPMwjs9mrS6dDqtUEfDMbdekYZ2VEyXJYj4rchl8TqaBJMd9N9yZcwtSktB | ||||
K54eIhYNZjAcJhGOz9jRpDfW5MSxRuhUGmHjAWiPmfIovMQJDTCVRQ6iGrEe | ||||
m1Xtnb1aTYolirWQw2xVkc/YhRMPJcFdkvwHbDG3VHXrPscgCDHFiBRLSrNG | ||||
HgQUDfyE9BRW5elstlCNlvO6LN9t4YHP0oo067KuMZV3KIkryBFVIZxlt5gV | ||||
qF/xMRfKTQTrqHZWhmO9cJ9T1FnqSPiLD1BiFoUWIYxil89knGq10JozkmBx | ||||
W+irSpwitzWMiO+KlVgRE8LlabwEaZTstwYTnwpn71GdBB6WNcwjX3AhqVPC | ||||
mKZgtKA/h55AA6aVUJkaDwPLj0y8G/BTEkjZViYYU4UAUzjuEom4p6pAThz5 | ||||
n1kF9lKJPjpbYS5h3nNMzuOIIhVK0DAuRGv5vLUQ+TKxeSaXL8AJIqcpVgOL | ||||
k2SuifKxya5Jl5LUuYAtc1lRXqVu17bUYR1CENls+4R8Fru4Gub5Ihc3IaUj | ||||
YqC+QziivN3jxxxIagMaqcqPWO0gXQ3TkMDYEqUuIVUFGD7ac1a7DJQzYI8+ | ||||
iR+RQqfAsyhSf1xeYKrQTZlPvUtSz8nlFBi1DW1CF8/aIfaj4qkI1K/D8YBH | ||||
MZ8heBFQVVAbCLSF8ENGe4RXPEx/HLmN8nnseDCYjCWb7zO+XJEEp3X1pnM5 | ||||
V/P/GL/+jskfIVpEWL4+ujh88/olf44Qm2y4YAYtukyEFDElpubwOEfcgroo | ||||
zf5AD04pPGFDOH2B2R2qdeDJcxHEHQ5UOrPNZQ8k476I3zCTlZv5ZXy2KpIL | ||||
VMuC3HKc5CvE/3kAnBDacydj3CUaoWaVSzmPRlvRMzEjJ6kpe1IFdEecLbAL | ||||
fIGQdCTNUTZ2wMnKEuBC2VnBzEmhbFUJ8rzZtpDsM/QnJpQHSgm1rfo1792V | ||||
KeKWvzmnZBCdoRZ3ET/P3i1hwrW58CK2hA8hEO8JKlN4OzE1TV2LWkhDCjfn | ||||
rbBqgEvr1AFwkNGNKgaMLB/ViWQB3JFAEfr2gqjthJb+E5VDxUeaqisgu89M | ||||
ARgMTbEHzfdQDxvLRw5TBu5VmNkCpN5NVrvEGl/daBPhWRehM0DZIaVZeHeY | ||||
6acmaTwj9xRZ82PNPRO1wBNGK4edQm04Glx+yaqjBNFFOaWh7y+EkzwUKQ86 | ||||
n2fZkrAN62c98t+7VV3e51aNj2xhDAPDhfQ8ZRPll2RYg05aTmVqnCeqlYKb | ||||
1gnDmCvQWvCm7PjA6UPFc6BbIz+Aa9gzKZwqGkvOvHRpqSDwygpUR9k+UmU6 | ||||
BYf9hXdiM89WrKZc5Vg5zGwpm8+5iFBiwD/lFWZkKEIazu2Q/TKZZpI8I29i | ||||
SiLvRr+ObjKiX3bmXaN8h9ua1xFctyVu7aUUbPtgG7GkHzHh8XyZojMPPd0+ | ||||
rqNWaLliKW4Nynk+y/BqaU4/v1uS5buTqsNZkXngsvLh8/US5XWNJRER33ox | ||||
W/xf+CF2d3nVTqPCodmMT8ok4IkJ5uzB1FpbG0mySbC3gasvZh2MUn5hv4wU | ||||
6ykHwGlHXVruUCopgd3kSdIMkbJdvDb0i1g1gl3VmFdFtsY4tDXa+m0rW85H | ||||
CdsuO581tSpQXY2CnH283IkJExsHUNajkKqRgaWuLjPmdw6ZsSOErhBsY7S8 | ||||
TjmGSFVvsF8vyVyI9zlXhWlVQ7coebC4AwiC3DD0sISRp5hpDZagMSAv/wb8 | ||||
DHdlS30KW+1MZC4f4m9u1ybMS84QyaAL8zym+RU8OgjCvwZwVQryMGytFSBA | ||||
UKPoe/FmIC9GJTF7J/Yrb4W4SDa4McgFAWNv81OUOkjjbQ+G/I7bdO1TIsyJ | ||||
3wDNI9OnN6B7hkofslrOzka8lXKc3haxK5xFLnmiOLAFYlbD+MTG5+5qnKjv | ||||
5jkcj6ZkeX9TyDD05bX3MZWFBKN5nTXddTtHu1nD6BLRGTNRqNioR6ecKwfY | ||||
JN6GLq9465Usy1LvkSl6GG6pH8kMkc5NPn2kada0FcTH33D6YGb0OrlWLqXW | ||||
8lOfjevLGoZhoJ9cZxi9Xc5TunhjWMIyrVhomepKfU9eOD6peVxBah7VGpOx | ||||
XZVXSh8+pcs7FKsM6eXGERAbZyi/lt7XT1eiNsHeyzURKIe2mADCazm0Acei | ||||
VYANRlbDNcJcjIHfYiZboL2pmZ30cdT2NJKpwmRpa3U7JNHC+ceblk4wN1Ns | ||||
jNwc0kgT9Dn/xGS6BRVxRqq5DFjHZC8xZJFR0lPEYSfaCDKesBOBGFW4LZSQ | ||||
7mJe3SiNWqaw6O063DvCUMKtc0leUcACwlTRoDDpct0KpwIPA0bW2Jx3IgBc | ||||
iUYundcpkvNUWrDx5aFLvuZn9DuiGiFbouBP25+K+agbgtt20WQqOe8QiW3g | ||||
HxVsGZomWDqQTf+g8zsK0ntTkwZik3mCoICkv5ObC4ZrmnmGm7rKnPPqAzIB | ||||
XeIDQwcoNei0YMn/Df8IRuar5OP+fUVPvzfPfxUM91X7l+Cb7+Xp9z8ibjui | ||||
aL2Hz//0Pn6F21DF7+mXH7CJyzzmP6EaiY088KnP8m7/v/Lv/Yafg3+f7+lg | ||||
578Kfv7q/qdb/1AWxqeoqmx8+x1P238/ffTT4ZZ/6NPvCfK191uf691n5APc | ||||
/P7ejx92S973f/xVdNekWy+5/2txGASh837wo+EqHjizr/haOgn00Km6h/37 | ||||
6EGMmzetTcIKF1L2wNxLuF4jQdV7NBq57/yJOZamwRtNKuFeKwSx9cdtVbXa | ||||
Zgt9aRsYNzukQVpdFX/cwpSBrd+pIAH543Oj7we5Mcikt1SZ3iLbgFTj6TDU | ||||
rBkkSpxaZEmAuelCJiLZnVjHJ0gBXS2t0L03WjmKX6WUVVSqCii6bh6ofENb | ||||
+xLQjSxRiyBVUrJRwZrYNMzdQvW0nM3gWN5xbXid1+LZ/BmX8wJ9Mn7P/y9Q | ||||
ZXA7QruRK7Up7v3g2Dzb6piGX7m/ceCOKi1AEs6lTppVGNIrIq5UTgsOCTqo | ||||
DRcKzYuWmXLs0uBl98NveD92aFHhJNUCIf8LJprhp/ENx2ojl/qt26qeGs1n | ||||
iD0Unos4U7S5pbyOQ49+K3Uu1E7Fb+18fzhNrvWv3RORg0/CHBlfwQIUpUm2 | ||||
PpllMqdKNhzUadaSN4xlLvRn/8fa2YdLdgU6DeYa1GGlyMhtJZnBM4dBIC+z | ||||
PjpagDU62VxagypaLctaE9465aGNs7tri28UGe+xdf5qmJiyKXttZy5eEuN1 | ||||
SIWBV4UiFgUsQ6hD/CWc7yalvAtQcdRH0IPJgYajWDiU72dri/hGSdJY51TI | ||||
nXEInG6oXgUMNlYMSFcPJDacvQN7R5FE4sPTH0f8mL2ICTvS1fNcIiFgqVRW | ||||
YQiglCDchEGD5zwWeQtLDGzO24mCN6CSY2Km9Rjl1DMwtGM0Hq4BV4ckhL3w | ||||
gHBqOhwqGGF/NprIKZB5zZyCI8RCKERtssyg9gRvbBmkY4lNRUm6Fi5COXUn | ||||
00UVbTMvzFpsKLfZZQ3QV3l3HWA6ojCPw1IYmglWht0zE293SR2bGRRIHv2B | ||||
nN8RFErQbqHLkCoIxSCkHLRN5bM7z9fG9TDkFwouoquSCLKJYMe3KdmE/Ql0 | ||||
aQzZYs4C5ecEDXUe2t3qt9/6G3aBLYt+7toGiTSHBmXMLecsCNVHTogaqegd | ||||
fFT4oxMSH6Bm7MbOSIl3sD/KCvYGEVOdeMpcnagHNZLXxRlFzC9z2q0I2xT6 | ||||
CyjsyKQaO3gOfy0QDqBUGxgvZXi1rFeQKgqZbbRv0jCeZykFrKOijK/SJYe2 | ||||
C7crNDMOOaDHG8HjGAdzCEM0TGZzlx3jrHd01AHJRNHLsnLsorNvw7sOkVOi | ||||
epuHyRHLocIsfR2+hRXgDjsgdVd1epVJjICFSeQO1XrnnNBGitwwpkeSFDjE | ||||
7B1cWQ4zcBUc+XvE1J4mb1jOOKpEduiHDoATcapGdNDlFpkCl1ECnFrdGElW | ||||
GHu6N+0icJnna1ZwCr61lIBBIkjQelibyLEoJa9c9InCfwhXy4Ww8A3eSC0n | ||||
FyomkqVVT0i+UAIescbp9O5H8RqSQw2zf3rKjmV25SR3uoImlEwzp5pp0UsT | ||||
RwTH0Ihvhdx++Fpkooovy4q2uIem5a8IcLKDmRk3FPQBEYZxZCplAT6VgxpE | ||||
cRwjvjGGgvbGx3pHAsPnXpO7Y6iN9bRwZV/gpzDIS8lBe9AgqAXQf8xWv48+ | ||||
fTVJgjNRhk0YU5NQ4DjdQ5ezp6va9/ODQXLJFyceHCAKT7FjbgXnE+xJx0L/ | ||||
bMt5we9jFx/PyvaPYm0HZspTONCZfB0sBxVSuAp54bjg3Uf8r1sOiCnxohFP | ||||
79w4c0AwhUc6k8fBctg1O80Cz62eEmmSlAEHmtbG5bzvZny8JYfeSJQ6Yk4c | ||||
xbpjELrhXFIKrHaxFMiQtLAYEnhOd83Em2hz3hp0uXJpyf/LpyM5Ia7Hp03a | ||||
VdWEVktTeKIzefL5ZyKphOw5JANFk+2R6/C51Kz82T35JtjYLj/vDQoCTd5x | ||||
OnImD/n3Lz6d4DSsneYvlZnJU53Jt8FyKOMw/u7sx+cH3JsFM6MGcd+//y+W | ||||
g2os50RKqtnJeEBT2N9TRr3nZ/JZJKC67trKknrt9PNYPt/oqPviiy9elw2j | ||||
/SGVjucK2FZTGCfQFEibnZRXCGjF2gI88l9/2fsr1TZK4aK4TIC1YaC5HQU2 | ||||
DzBAp5BDtxY9Mns9ZNZJChbhrllrCmwltsa8sQTfMG/WW2gnE5liKK94ewOM | ||||
/CHzeWxquAN1BtQoNlh1QXZwPyOJ4rKSyzE9E1VCblvpq2GCy5XskqJsgtb0 | ||||
QjIkyD/wXBxJ8tIh/3CgPzz6K7EP+vnpXxmXbbVYpGyREvIJYxXJnH0KmCvq | ||||
YxyHAgv0qW5dSjAqGIsL2MgD8D2pwmoIcHGNqz8ZcjEw8t2gkAk5Irn+yHxU | ||||
yMiVwkyAPcX4vPAG0YvbFS1UhZqT+i9mMltLjsdGfkWubqp3PWQl6vyr7Cqt | ||||
pnOxGDFtzzuMxDMzctt28Nc2QpQviEzjf/7j/9DzjoPDQrZsDN8ITvritVSD | ||||
KMAQlVJr7mZktsA5TJ2B6e/TwV9HvtTWpPUVGftquB3CNF02FPIGKcQ4oeJs | ||||
x4kkKdVEUcpZdHp4HDuDr56XTO8Fm5+uVwJj3ItuJj4+UwKKjJHLi8/enNT9 | ||||
02arx/rPcNnOyvW7/uiOXe8GyBWbyNJMWQRYB3r4//zH/wbSqbLkjVOtOKk0 | ||||
jhgpQ9F4nJcqVd3LhSE6j8rMjPQPfA60osdwaQ0KPgWdRYGPOmqeyHORMigI | ||||
jRz0u/SUdsliN4Joss/SowPl49U09LDKvUDfYrlq4/YZr52bFxXyGmTF0B3l | ||||
vMBieYc54I2TERnWKbPuSq4dKZplrw9Ymispq5CmBnxPonSB++k88pF3KWli | ||||
LoEL92UhOKRfRzXaZsE5Q4M0acrjms2zdzm/fORTd2rLcrSHBkYSxBlgQx6C | ||||
RiHiJBe4b0FslizEHSn/WbdcwXOqHFUWOuDUxSCTBaeOI7QmoRa9TmQtRexY | ||||
X3u9xi0iTLHaFzsFyRVwKtj84AUXQ+EOAduNWkoABTzo/NhngL6JbqzHDuvz | ||||
b2Sfa4N7gMD7xHnaY/TmaqpyQgEUDrAQAIcPGenOlIpxJBVG2hQq5QwfFvkG | ||||
1UHcXq40mDL2DAsc8sLTru/ZtaNBySgYBYw6LkWkmIbMaIFkmvNIDSXDhUmI | ||||
xDpYYKbeBXmTl3OxPBmSlfar5op//3YOJ6mn3YCcozaA76Hr5tCZUNnw5wzL | ||||
SFkXzOzJUYkeyXDnT+OoTMFAYQxrfE25Z8GRc0AFRTfxQCboKIDiEPbmtIfU | ||||
dPVAVsBigoLFnEsmX7LIzZTTIyG9IcfmcuTZnMCNVCGonvIJsfUBe8V4zXUp | ||||
NdDGPTZ1+2KbDSl4NJx9li4oJ7w0gDHA5Mh9J1W3mE6olXY7Hvz4wa2LET04 | ||||
9mZuZG8HAbvjWlEJFjNxqphC7rIJvkYtLnTPElIGhnR4TfPsBldOxAfbYYuw | ||||
BjF1PuLtEILToI/mNpK2OGSYTM64EqrRuqTQvmWVDxsh4OXgp8o5iA6uMcO8 | ||||
5yiQUzoM2FmuZgdT3EaM6gc3CvvLw3J+1wztH+jXbp0nVjay7YMIZyb8Q2ry | ||||
uPB5YBghRjcvg65jbIogL02Wnz1fpBKOnt+dTcbYYFhmY8AuWrVSnwBG4ePd | ||||
GyOjrdxExapkAFx2Q6saY5z58RWmJ9RzPP75mhD61iVsjEzyD7Fgh8FJUAAH | ||||
NkJyolEMszY97obgP2iDcXE0Zy4lD/o5aJaFBw0wUAI2UTAsF2UgTU488eVu | ||||
w9jBTY83JLyqkshQHfYv1B/n0nZB89MbAb9dSmJ4qXV2VHIf3A8PnzckkY+k | ||||
yiFLzKLO32asKaFNpfkFf2DR5PFXTL0zZ3uYej3Q2qItfC22V/4BB+5BTqQl | ||||
muVv2XpGWnYQOtHgZDCsUwg3P2rugJZt+xCM6xdZ097yJf0Z604c59k0Xb9h | ||||
qB0P24cZwfzinfEPA4cf9ufR471vA/ITVRJfBFrZ3J+3qeGuU9h1ht8Nkcmc | ||||
UBBzjwnFDr/jKsLdQBpapgRj/hnU7df4p518plYGIvJpGEb0cL1L2tZMqGKg | ||||
N5kkbA2M/O90dVxiksZHwzyZH1QD4ZxcGA/zi12aTOTgNjyANe4h+WlQanju | ||||
QqnJWNpEJD/+wW6A86hEumwJ5oZfo2I1jI27/IDWqJ2dZXgW+OJ6GzbDrM0r | ||||
i4rAoKw3UKoptXsu+6OtN5gxj+vybVokdbPGen1QD8oiyYsEvppwD0MGRH2r | ||||
8n6ZNwtuAgCE+7qFeWsyopYuWWVFqRrkVv4VK9QbqlAPoAFSxHrRayM5867g | ||||
HQs4hQMhKu7S858AXYIIGGvpLdAzXZmdEIUISVE/AcJAOFXOsTo2f4d7hKcZ | ||||
fBK2F+A5IVe9zFpSyiH6w9g7pptPvwCjF2FZe+1PpfViSsrR5BapdIxihyFA | ||||
kHSK5WcADEMsZgZrRI+VgPhYRtMCGCNeJ9A+DIKDjCWfkdpUUdGgS7vETE2n | ||||
pRybzIOX8AfWV4J+oj2FirbHQFoxuJfAVbhOiBF7nXrQVm/FA1raMoj+Nj4e | ||||
jhvLm0UPHXK/TVddRllmJgOgSd+VRblY+9ZnMGFWve+tZ5XKQuqSA3oHtUeQ | ||||
xDRdGGEV5QbSANtdSLtE9nwz+NfFtQWPM8TkY/bdrUnF0mEmJuCQY88ddiS9 | ||||
jZTgS7u9XRTEAUlkPgZTA+RY7wvDRKnKJ6jgaUPpcFt673BG7VejeOl8TYY5 | ||||
wkiUMRbNwnv+tppecVadwKq2sllC/C+Gyxm3u8H5VDPMM2tVODKsHjsKYZPT | ||||
ScflFmJjisoUeV8KAyQ6y75TLs2dLB714PiY2n64CDPKvd05Oz7BfFej4LYL | ||||
VSh0gJVOjIqO7kvssHSnxozl/yiOhZkar555wGAoBlik5ANggAMPVTZnVGr1 | ||||
U3F/LnROCUWzWkgtg3ZY9HY6lSgVMaq30e61+8R1XpHmgqfoSK7E/ibbwD4u | ||||
MZPV2azcbosKtFChaJz7YYszZK/KUmuEt1y7KdhbIlfaZtj4tk6BZe1k64ju | ||||
EebisfKK7mrkLM6/nDbOd0NOOXZRR7GuX9L3yDcIN48rTNdBSx/bVbRseu4l | ||||
Drckh79zP8SIFC/PqyUDa0o455TN8ONZfxscd3q4fuqhIP5J7gQu2l3otBOH | ||||
nXT7y9QGZ/6pHYtw1VwwTZtFBYUk7KVMD0fHXyepQmxgN1swftJismaFvA5C | ||||
KkSP8/mKJJzTG0AkuXUlQa4LqfX/3ZvC4ypEvrrvY19UEr1vg2a5kO17bx/T | ||||
b4QMux/7mgn/zei9g9oK47/4w47wVPrt3+TF8LEoXu+VIcEo9qutUajpq/4m | ||||
g/zpfXxSXC04pYDZGc7lxKpU4SiG3AeyogNamn7kV+QCL9259AS67cd2FAcq | ||||
NviEUT7PSfe++L5/u/91x3O0f3vdz3nW8sOHBNThXxTWw2y4BRpfR8XME3D4 | ||||
FZRVqtw7/PiNAfj4S4ys8YqGUpl/F5pcj0zysTpz6gvqoxchU9VS9IcKTGtO | ||||
CattNc+0JsqlQsq2uhWEav0dvbm4Z/I864i1aKfLfGl3t8DIugQxvEWyWPHW | ||||
+BPtrUeo2aQrXlP7JuDaaHXpXu8PW/ETZQs9HR8H6EiGdV6n8xnz1pZihG4p | ||||
2kPfZ8KCDKm2Qb0INb6Duz3sIhuHszxgkHPHD+VgHAq5vBg32XcASdUtQdY9 | ||||
HKwLvd7IRMKj0dEHjCmu2XkyR7RW8N+PJmznsHZd765AsrCEx4Nqh+1EGT89 | ||||
YSNJTVMTNcZCo0opb7OfSFAg3Z/lb5ThzHp6N32aQjdkj2HYdNiJfQYpkxi5 | ||||
IaJcUHduP1fOWgmmGYY9N2de85Q35BsP/dSsY5tV8bYzTifD+gxBSgYegDs9 | ||||
xpMQlazlNmZl1lYoMKXARGtWv63WT5XlRMQ084QBlFWF02myWdu0jxdp6TAt | ||||
yoLifkcE/oiAsfx1mJr7Y0J/TOCP1AwbT7LvVStp84gH4uPBjCqJ0Y7NR4PE | ||||
ymhkHv4Gz+OhBRZ3ZOPL0PALbN/jEbur/d5sqA/sENjF+DRwEHCR5m+/weeS | ||||
8k/b+f347Gxs0RTuBVCwTUr5LSeScJ863LnEthNuNRgkno+Z6Ao9DAR4U85v | ||||
qJaT4Fls/phPNBfuFK7ad5LMC1d+47AIunsWoqg4ICuYQQCfoOgMQwanJKzB | ||||
TNJDHB6KJK7djzihORYOw0uK5jbDkG6AHkVP4JNR15LQdSLsFbpWuIP9TBz2 | ||||
ip0BRAEM2nrV4Ve8wd5rxozv/OfjF/BX/A9j7b0+Pr9Ijs/g1j/ZY750WNKX | ||||
mvQq6FxapxNYd1nf5lNiRS6+5qI6DgNJPiDHroeVRMMjRAN82+kJX5tHA0RK | ||||
DN5MV5NM2ia8YwHCyIOMw+CMU0133ODs9O4ycQQSkyMH5H3xNUmNFqdn19UX | ||||
76C/U9hmwFqxMERwX3DGLScog2NpgYXz+bvO23EIT2TDBjsW4Onh8QKk2UFb | ||||
+LedqTpTqrIEQuKOkVkAUwRz05xkCsJxxExqbBVHkhVSrRXV6knkB4u0essy | ||||
KyUi3jrLEMYTBc0WvuoP3FiAvUEKKsuIvB4XBr7yWWNWg9GmpuHs9coNwlKA | ||||
XFpnkpI4ZKJj8BwHDhkSmvcJ42+wzekcsRzXQYNFDPoju6T6MIri0v3IiaTY | ||||
9S71dKIsWvJ1LFB7JaTuqgRBXeujIgJaSRkynh8aQNp0szF4iXS7BEVWcmmC | ||||
QR02DK1zt+P2J4Lhy455edxKDIHbuN2ygAV2fdyYoMjly+oOUyUVHtGVkx+6 | ||||
1nI7V2PCzR2woi7e2HNFh5CQezf2J2MTOCMLGCIxVFtIjykpE7Ke1Aa3CNFV | ||||
9w8eiwbg0hWdn81EmKmU3LakGLXZnJMIuCdLreq6t4XX2cUJ3PjgS7LJ59x5 | ||||
i/smdwY5c4DbO4HoQSly+nRvL9l/DAsbqPe8vJIu6lVGEaElac7Sp6CsFlaN | ||||
EVgry0VPRcvYrN94wFmfwOT7e2JnCTThaJPI7vM2ZVu2El8VAcSAAcIPSf6F | ||||
kpBNH/YInCRSC/87YTQ8xJSGR+8HryIEB8pAERguhRujvNVFTtXQ3vHPnfDc | ||||
3KlOL8DVaDX1prSYOH4uVbUuyQ6vvuK6abUskHZWYE58gHDBKV3YHYcS8Pmg | ||||
SXKY91Jm3hZZpBQMAT5Wb8Wc7gG7yPpl3jgIfe623dsPqw5epy0NKcWobLUB | ||||
1Fh5hxDkkkvLkR73A6HOxgoudedhDjn10HaEoohiuDumjZs7K+5a7Z3mQ/45 | ||||
ukynMZUK85/6c1HqFjBCwwG8StI/cnQCYF6+m7o9DjazT1r2bZZWWG8coDKq | ||||
05triimRn/OFh5g6zNVlA2qagoHpuvZly4iumTksYsX/k0Tu7F1KGQIloYSQ | ||||
ki6LpeTXCWF5xwIEKADDVGDqwiDaPIkTz1kbIIyVW2erYMZkqZC+Bgcd/0YI | ||||
GB6SkBMrfVqbyVdfMBfWpBAgLRytBzPOndMOOdM48WZoSvicaglSiuIVcAtw | ||||
LBM2cVmpPOwWE+pWt8Fpa7YezhnxYq4p5E+n1bNBJl7YSx2yx1JYP8/rRkJH | ||||
3qsnkC2SbSPhWsFZs/DyKRkgUlssnYhkLPL8LLIp1iDreB5vBFuvUGHn5eqK | ||||
8Etw6rWpjXBTYQAYHIBGZelL0avCEAl5fAJ6ZzcNVu9Tu2OfBRuAWQriD8wr | ||||
hMnGd4V9gTqOmcFQaYjIQUwUsQNWBRznFFRakkFbtIgtHNSnJfeemw8MOaCJ | ||||
rKC0HmsMSPq+IJFo1xa3ZSb1mYxrB/94F1XUGrHSbsqooas3mXkRabETBn4N | ||||
Xigvk+OFj6Xtge8B0yNch4oazH/0oD25i1CXBIVYM8I6Rc8xIhjsdlrbrTDn | ||||
G2LhaC41HZm4J2JXt87OP5c3YA0XjJyB1oKkQdFGhKiibG5zHIpaOeMos3OD | ||||
lLM+yRJ5NYFDS+SFwKgCW/R3yKJe/YhsftdqrzMth9wDwij2Nr5Xg93GT00b | ||||
x7BB4lQ0wDreuoQ5z0m2z8xoLlR7aRsdqb0msNnY97DT5l3BiI9PPAcBvp6S | ||||
Q4mDoD1BCHk4pv6lGIFHpWEI1vaqtryLQqMGj0DBsu0JK/eS3VBHApw74fV0 | ||||
bREtFaGGY8bLiAXcVNkdBzpKt2ZGEXhszYlmUEeUfm7dmN75eE+DolarPOuQ | ||||
FLcQK+uqcVofAnXtofNMTN8FccPWq5zZGPNDutzcAtq/WziA59qcd2ALuRjb | ||||
zKr9r4AvRdF/Gjdg6hpOKZaWbXrWhFVYYmCzKsmXaJGRduweuk21HB7FO/Eb | ||||
CQyh1e4G5SxICZ6rFNL0C0ld70KVoQAi3JEi8h5mTuL0ZV28545wNZhAxT35 | ||||
JelK/BXZQVkKzSiS4nVV1bhDk9QnuC7kMWfAamY0s2acCllD6l/qShEua1gQ | ||||
66Ts6qY2eV+Xa1+GQcrcBjbLSHeRxYEz+gdvrM9sBWLDOo1QSzOwfB4qDrUI | ||||
XIQm3ZIZnHlXl2wX1xJIyoW8GxWmP0jtAxVBarKo25rIlXkRghMjNYlN7ZCo | ||||
DZj3gPMnRP92KR3+1HlT6xDuTBpUshy8yVN/peqgWeq9HZhFUhrfSTusxj3Y | ||||
jS35t5VimrHDdEM8REIT5ETbeWCoY3BHrOMh78IQC70Lv+PeEgJU6Xdfposc | ||||
uNP+aD8mJR+eHaIvnb70zWBzPEcn0hdd2hBWYox/F888dPFM7gB1WmV0xbCd | ||||
Vq3paJznHjJmzXxj+YxfPLzGrMniKkvOuK9DJrGrHgj+nb6iIKewJbl/QULy | ||||
HYgzsn1LhUfSIiQXMvDe3Nk+xGr2vp/KMli5vza+gN5oDq2gLzpggDKDbE3T | ||||
8tXJwvAd2kdLS30dsOJqNsP6x4LNDYSetwqPAigGijRnK4orFO1BzbIKdN8A | ||||
Aj0Ix7PY+pFS+tv+5Sgaa3L2pqqcNjhlN9jQKgNox2Ody8R6iPOQW3BDeoUP | ||||
RW84E2YnUqEFDp0wRCBV5CVlmyV9lsj8sfdluk53amf2u1TcmZrl9lZ2gGJC | ||||
kje28RQBkUXpxpvNWe2+PkkqxRQ17QMid84zKLkprODc1ZIZCKYWv7NLt6MM | ||||
8N978gI5lbAbHCRNSbUTSStkY1Iv7bCvJpX9os59OqTGgIkr4pQiPCkTp03K | ||||
uSjL9RgcWF1ZwCbDYjrNAB5zjZ56rZx2jR4u2BR0qmH/xprCfJgNu7jMr1Zc | ||||
f6HikAqYujmWhI7Tbk4vBUdu+4jCOGW0pzl40CS7nXiJmgtdDVE6CbTTZVLa | ||||
CXowV29QuyxPzESV7/m/3vg1hA3dnYXOMfFR5ALyVeYYQM9S2g3+XPCHj3Xt | ||||
eA/WAVemzoGrWG8yn+5PvHYpoxZaKuGrEte2ozIwSZ83r647CWm4PgQC0aq9 | ||||
6laFNPUVFTdIoZI2i/6475KeUeQ6dSz7pLKgZCCsVZBbrjlmKg6OgjNwiMDa | ||||
gttEqKd5elWlC5MvW5Pv66dA/lCRhp66ebWE+3z5QQRsJHcZH06fQS1n1lsV | ||||
fKcCYBxJMk/prcO6F/mjgP1FeYHwMuThWDX4IxYhLDICgM5raeUDrHKLlKId | ||||
+npC36kHf/zTDj9UD7ZGEetSaG7pYz5n0BpjFD+2cVtBDB4vqerxXTz2C96k | ||||
lDyTvEwPXJ6M7kkdHW3I8BxFJrP4nmzU9yF97rrDfB9t+xG37x5ke8NEkm0M | ||||
cMMG7fz0XT+K1b3/3kda73o4T/NFvcOMGCZs2uDcOTblyb6P//gnRD3OMd+J | ||||
6AWN8gfPIf7QrN7POgLt4OvzAQ/yb0mi6ZBGO9gBljVF/y1KPrhpxy/QDMUF | ||||
nxPCD1XmfJaF0GyOPvY8YQQRa3Keeijtud45Bz1QFZA81oes4pP3QclSmWv/ | ||||
AYQTHAQj6CqciPzgOXzsKugIz74bno2FpjIHdO/vxoOSyf/0r7ocKWsAfnt7 | ||||
poj5yDPWlwYfMgujy3ExV/xvf/xc6/jvTxnhvz9lDnyofx749P7jo4uXQb8L | ||||
41ZPsO5Sk/zxi4Gp0S7Q3JjU/6UWrewomx88i9+YVPyxsmtXKSAWpMMXds5G | ||||
EuAt7DlUPRzAWVFKSTYVaDsNJHJiOG1a0MQNhcdqTk9zuaMssslX17gGVRTa | ||||
VYwnD3QSNHKqvW/hA9BM2CwYuc06kM0Cjj7gxr1O6CpTQa2Lq+vjCmYNylNB | ||||
8budLUlqkm4Yk2xrMBQgibcZl49yojzBz5pzoO3u0f9e9iSvi7bt9PEJB485 | ||||
JNRKwMb9pCTcFxjI+Dhf0KnDffDtI+sH5fNKJjMlMFPmsWSgkYuGtoxcp/O0 | ||||
uso0tVDiFDfq0wVL6NdM8/YO9nDHvj4AzR/mx0Vxf+G3/JU0pNg45h6PHtOr | ||||
/8Lv7n5hf2/0aPRo4I/+azn6I7kngbk/jFv1C5vaqoTukJEHLeHUUPTVO24Z | ||||
tQo3ldS2a96fYad3SF73lk20vSsd3G1JhoNTkUhHOPvAq/Jx2dvjxrs7cBuH | ||||
od9GhG3NeD82OUUtNdlW49prdepgoE94VdjjkrPE6R75JgEYZ6R7Ihk6nC7I | ||||
CRhixbgwhw/6amNXDZxKcjiik5z6FOfak8yjZ/Fhxw9AGJopxZ47VNGuLnIj | ||||
PRbiY8HfZj1VhpCRfEWObPk1c1Bx9qa1xD3Z+aFGdbsKulsBbe3TvoLnoWYI | ||||
FIyZqZYU9qIsMurYOsI+UF8qHKlvREjwXsI2gh1iBDVqEhiUwp9//+bHVy/i | ||||
128uDHJpODqzW5eiwhysB5Kje52CByRCgmwZRNBaY8x3zYLyN4NVhpkO0lLA | ||||
T6HOaDctShYLQc6qUApvo9196I50cO5C77ODt/NFEMFMTW6QFmfd+/44/jkz | ||||
dRQ2hY9SLoM0QsYDcBCr5ZXSUom5hR4kjLOSepKPyHMiWcqSxZX4+baIr7vn | ||||
Wnldk1OkphruJceTlY/e5Z/7oOPgWzxIVI2gpG2q6CcsvOL+121TB+0MmONc | ||||
WiJhPyASvjP8GJtqDkNeEIIWIEIG84dNkyUv8QUmdxIuFX71CMs8CJ+spwZR | ||||
C5zwzjhMCEP/rD646bCm8Pro4vDN65cotM+Ozvlnkkf3yxPM9BFABM5LMjEb | ||||
AZAiDQjImFIVuOJQwiDNqiiomy4G2tycumU72I0HqYSY5CydZHUbwebeaZIq | ||||
j5X6SVMm+F8qRTlEupM+5jd1fCp/x/9SOu59qj/GAS7Lm4wLUXrvNOYEKqqz | ||||
T0b0kG7EYMUhH0wgzPgWDDvM5qyoiyKKkKuyyTk8LllYkgMDu36dL6VVCjyB | ||||
62WpQJ6+tH7LOhwn53LEzBbtalzf+AoDgDMWWC1XpvRvQ72CkycYagAjcci1 | ||||
Sa0u8R6TbllbDVq6DeuewWuPqNu3NlauVwzMrNqwpI+a77QrXWlp23XwSO37 | ||||
j//226khhZ5jhSnYb/hx4D57CcBokVrc4iKcvafhHfx8fENXcuGgJ0rEsq3W | ||||
khFE+a93puBx3vgoFmNQUTjhnpHQcuPdHdJwqU8uwGYALVyU1G42prcRJiRD | ||||
kEoKF5ctkFkSJIRp87lrbn9E2Yg18jICj53wDQySB/txIzb0ZOV/nS9H6JJF | ||||
t4Z+457ep60vw+Oujn78gMfdl5/r4y4R4iFvb305ajWOue/x1pfRca3b+ZC3 | ||||
t77c6ZdzX9vY8PdPPbgHvLM7iY97imEUnrce/qp38u1P269s9SJ2KCTBp/T7 | ||||
f3WeNAAmijwS9HzVJ+9+p3+y+873rvmurvar/m87rJGeMRLvj6gVNoO3cNzf | ||||
ifnumYxbnWzDbyd3rab9ZOLGjJP36iTwnz7HT+nJ3TvfuXHe/4qnHkAh/mNL | ||||
C/6cQ7r5Kn747m6iFfpP3znfsYYutcTBTJ5/1O7Rfx6yhuQhT7Zur1BI303f | ||||
NcgudyoJ6vYNdLaPcv/26lhW4Frcp05Vn1YlIYwWhaublnYlSG+oF9yb38CK | ||||
WK0BJNfgBF7AZY7Ud9JWaQ59NpexvcxErFqHKL7Uxo8qOdH9PMd+0Q44wOm5 | ||||
lPH0Z5PeBL9x6TnnQh0FfxofOSQKkydJyajFZF6SlxdR5lNuhMrdYo/Gp1x2 | ||||
+fU3j57y2K9evcDP8D+o2VONmGQzc/UQJw3wJHElnAaDwLyuRaC1MSyaOqPo | ||||
hh6bIB2DywcxdZAqhVsZRN7YM7XGultOpaxhDybXkjQyA+XyFk4GPr+mg8D0 | ||||
HFLBUeWfU2lDfLVKxZ9IfgF+ddCXrzY9V8RDDyfZmY2pd06nmInC9buKs0h5 | ||||
zGxqYLBeX8X9ZdLJ26xhXxy/qXLYtHoDUJ2WJjncxaPVP3VK8RGXJ2iQ+J+x | ||||
xX8mVhO3qBXilCtwhDd1wgb0aZlTUxpO6zblABKOuFS4e+pwm03eZlpTprNx | ||||
VTcMQOdxHjFZ2A1ChcytyhCzSKlZmHYWStYHYWLjqrrHkOsSxSO9Wgpk3ryc | ||||
vNUp+YMg60LykNgLGryNS6nxkM5KLpczE/YESAahQS1PhSTBAiPbcxisDVb2 | ||||
tmdlBXb2uCzlfcczg/MzxIusUP3s/XO/EotKMdXTxVrQ7MkFExIx27Eth1rf | ||||
po9uXyNfeLf2eRRrvkWxnG6qTg72rWplPLfOII4Gv13DzXIAQUHHmYjjTFiL | ||||
4C8VZQ4JniZIhDlXxpKnrO5pt9rqB2yuLp2ZZtzL4EP7i6eWiHZMChDWgrk4 | ||||
dKjW0qkp6BbqoUSdD5arLMICOO9rHQwjMcrdazFcaFMOpZs5XDjyAANZoIRJ | ||||
4SKuibpKLu2daQNOKxsRULfVkbc2lOOtYCCGEIwor6XUiBK3+bAFjApnGyL6 | ||||
+t4yzsUjuxm5yKphFoTdlZFk43NBPguCJ8vqLv62+jkY8TLEsIwjLpHGFi0Z | ||||
KC1Ud6E3rYZbkKHg4BoEYAZHfxcAAal747RnhZ+fEMvv0Fvtaq5tnDZw8CBj | ||||
UOpRf4XEBjykvFaPdLAuNFYjrbO4C7KMRtTam4KqVU607jBzlFsj0inLxSV+ | ||||
e1PmU0q/BJmPL5EaVLoMkbuBVLHcwZ+zyxXkWspDnaUTDOemjaJzA9VcYeFZ | ||||
I974m9W80KAvM2ZUHcPEYKwV6M8MhrOztQy+WwWjcj969AQOdOfi1flAMo7h | ||||
02++fYw4PDsY+Bu4XQ+6cKdTIinKd84IZESD6/C1gvm+uorZGas1gbVqfloJ | ||||
6HJ+q7x+y/xyASu9kvmantfmjLDVkzkxp5U5wFPF+ePMBOnagq/3/dFTxR5B | ||||
gcJbT+oC4beYguwKk4PRWf4lmH9waOQkzvLGas/SuhSHzRcMvU48q16W5Wzg | ||||
6s1dPx/HiUE72QzU7qbh6/zNhKwu7F8/BXkEdBlpdEukDMjAq5zmlLvWO+2Z | ||||
nFH4q/1uGXvzBCjRn3ftx5od5liMQtAaQBLoxJNgULvfCYN4YZlzVRZXXPgn | ||||
0R/XmJCEqMO3cnhEbWQJrr3WZBSOhmLXLqRUuOeILYKQIlTPt3SXqc12XTxa | ||||
olI+TnJxi8omR4NhSonvZ+CiUzBWa4HctsVn+tNTDq/rnq4syrULky2D86e6 | ||||
WoE+H3Ubl/ygr6EEAFTJe96X9t2dHdHotjnavS3NOHy4GyStDtQpiNRKG4fT | ||||
HlTIBrwQNhOWsaRoNMMhrqTpI/urVQBKW42gk8iQTT6EWEN9CI+ONRRq6SUm | ||||
QiIAaASoIYqYaYLpwKLwbtJdMLtBa+cCc9ICfDG8tlFR2E38TLaXLzd1PBJV | ||||
xGHEuddGPtyE0d6qYLQsktV0sdQOJlxs5JYBaW5LW1CcThTU1npoJJ3iriBR | ||||
h3TqO9K0sewczgErnwXaVFH2Drdw2loFzh0PDkYRbLnNCFZgbf7AwoHPsU5n | ||||
mShFivtCAC/MgZuQXXCIhzK/qHpQVWB7VioD/0AHgO/hm+JKcC4RCFa1Q3+f | ||||
tJ0pToYGT21AnPljt0emaaNT+32KZZ+citP4ykws1vD4rxhCdZUsXFosdT8b | ||||
t3AoSf2EcFVHUsLJmLO+/8ZW2IBjhzwxIm9q6tORcJ+OsrgsWT0aMMYAdUqI | ||||
VN8S7BVpG/0/L06HtnXHQOmElmByFyy0BIellpSm1ki8PbJVXCGSPdecU6O3 | ||||
AG9KREhsSwkf0nVKkqzC0nOnPrsS6rmDpfHcWZiPSelzHaBcAEtVOU61Swtp | ||||
7QvU0oHoGjrALCYawq/ydcpOIlBUs2Tgg7LyyXpea8SGIHD7tH+eW41VTmkL | ||||
NJ3tyehg9LhTuDfgmqQulpjDOdDt8dC5Ht2Q+YkFaFu5EkRZiO3ZyOiXYj8J | ||||
wL4PcZL7xyGLmb5mjLmI4HvC0rdrfY/c4RBmOugREbuWs9TtQ5q0RCHKnJ+8 | ||||
Q9Ljdhm+4jAno5sQCObpZTYPZddIdqRTshg0jmFXGDLKzCJJ29lv1+zqhC8i | ||||
65DkPBB5Sp021YRQCs3KyeAPFib6iiv1F8I0yTZRt7iTACpIqmiz6QAmJ8DK | ||||
m2cp2VWX2D9o83qisIXSuI4D3EQGwANrA72h5+ffx2ItoKaP9VFBGm13X40O | ||||
kRc+f4sDvS4SzwwH5ooB56zWVjy+5tJw8hE3tVnVmUW0bEx3+7R/unEoVbRt | ||||
ciCd+NWXGSjeNRXyi4VWziLGaZU0Ka6/EveYeZvKt2EreTPoIuKQJwKCGBoA | ||||
bviJ6F6Bo2ReXNCacrP1KCi80yvFEt7ZiSIPHh08/ppSXrzVNetJ7mCMTDJG | ||||
PF9zlccCxhCeLUi+yPmIOky2jVja6hUY4JVuRCtF9LlskiqmiU3yxN95Vnfi | ||||
/q6d/hYtyqmXMztBailDTEtCQmqqMwlKhv88ECCtIOnCAkEgZhThd11qsy8Q | ||||
17gagoiAwUcU8VgVl1WJ3201jUcEPcVIc5aOU5fJYSs5elPRusmBmKLrJtow | ||||
Kd/TntHSGGON1q/o+D8FKU0ngguAN41kbAuspa+bs/Nlln18tVfbJg4eUSNb | ||||
ucoa0JI+JZaZ9rxqR1pGEpFSH2gLKCPUe3Zxwsnm1Lt+8AekhkhLlS1WytBo | ||||
2wbqyrSCVDJfpFNKPQSJlU+oz7VLjOGZUfGu4CwuU0RvNRzYYXIwmWzCmVYZ | ||||
psZNNPYq+CxLbcclk+wdANw+CIaaWKDvHM9+UcqYRqJ36dUKqQK6FdiXiSJC | ||||
8KXwCT2VIxe8dK1tNoPx9QZVO/PXln34ynxMj0tFF9eORz7yxvigN1R/T5OW | ||||
pG9205Hbg9wYNLMpGBZsLJhoBSZoTvHd0i9aHfVqhnKcS7kHKdKS6xbgUHCC | ||||
YgALjtORUYYeWEK5AO6PhpNiTycGyMVTnCuvCSApDH/RVEbsDShIIwp6jCBb | ||||
aDNrMm/ouTphz9WYvUdRFD5YuwdbTs5AZIrHkHJ869IbZVwCLXaVU1QJHsl0 | ||||
QHb6Kr7WJb75en+aA2YsH7c6EVP7WOTTUs6GIWr1SvooNwKGam81tHkq13PE | ||||
8ndTtROJx7DjseMZiQOerqwKdjR6CXBZe4GblpjkRCw039lbCPA2hPBE9E24 | ||||
EERpqOsAkxwyUntwjREH+On+1wJiOw6AoUPv3ptzmSiPC3+dpZeVlM3zvLyS | ||||
IXvb61kaBe067uscnHuSdcaOBqNQmAvdqDeEtQl9ve4K9voMpF2rDCDQslgf | ||||
4kbcqM861Ug64VIOOp28c3iediekU/h7gCBmt5dP2qsoaBVd5iGG4Chqt3l2 | ||||
BV62MQ0DnQNbROhV3AJWmWFJAmI1s4zPQzdJYQvjnjbogHK3o4Wh3j5r9khJ | ||||
lNct1jat5SrNodGjNrmcuqp9lDpU9+3a3CbbkJAUXymD6vg8yd0JB/Mdt1HX | ||||
Brz2W7h2D7rCrWwuc0ZjDVCvfnBMknRKmyJgkWnw6yUYG1zCmN7dcZV9Kzjm | ||||
NrdpFUa5ba8kI3uxFRvU84k/RBMXfC/ulkocdv510I9WAY526G8t261lPIT6 | ||||
St8DsIUDZldeDY8CJUssd5ihd0dabuXNLf/3ES+/fSoep74N4Y7WpWoylPk7 | ||||
Z2SzMFTk+j87aJIPxep/UI/o6M3xCx7NPnkYQM67IDCt/3DMvkFEnRYvSoiE | ||||
yLou68FR2mlR7jrpSRNudfeGoEq+07TDRneikrfWhAhahq+1eLtcMRQeiqls | ||||
m7XLa7iFQ8hi2l73+g6j1Xw58kGacmE7tpjLOhL8FopnOY0kjG+pP9MCxqDW | ||||
dUNaeFBRTIlal1qhFHoeUFozN3V9t4YR7zeHNYRB8HXKg+bAob/DVTtxbbC3 | ||||
bSIq/XFsmGoXXAWxrt4XhIi7mPKCbt0r2E+0k/LLBtyDlteOV3eDOR4AKfMO | ||||
SwWdw2MMXm6hsiJToySFu+483YtFUiA0ppUWwRa3ZLcPGPMeANe8yBdZ8pxc | ||||
xT8WecK6GfubwkvcLQpvVlO0XpyqgfEgYxsIyBAGEaQjsVtVn6Gic9p185+s | ||||
J3OhxzfY4TSRdrGMizbWWvaePnpS2RT0wXbJEXTlwEJFQEJnk2/kk1E+s4GA | ||||
IF6gCQFdPZEd/8ZFrRCSFAdkHo6tJkx6kyZtLBDzrykrKvGxnnugzrKCUYQb | ||||
kscmVSw639ubeDHIKm5RMhjGPUGEsLcsZ5ZyN2w3gPa9HvQ9Tw1n2RlnvMgU | ||||
wqVMiI0Mn6s1hZlP8Dosqeedw1w2a+ltz8O91WiqVoGiv1N37lCO+3iKD5XQ | ||||
5LnmiqB/i7UC0Gt0lp1819ohPMxB+zIUh3dJN2obcC0CK+8uK6KAkAdTDwLN | ||||
YdtxUrywYZq3BlpfMPlRU7NQvH6McAxaBfkQfY6SL9qeVGXt/CcM9kTs0UGk | ||||
hrdrxwLz3abriIVzEW+NaywdvUivtpzUIhcN+v7QQ76scjE9XWqb7+8Lhwhz | ||||
puZFZosj2GJz68wGk0rp2OzVCqRvwak1wTXlU7SWgatHp15ub5ggBKGWwcIs | ||||
CXG0nRpTinbl7oruPxPkD6ouBiGHWxm2avWzH1FumMaeQgxDorOAXodISAzp | ||||
aSmX/SUGD8712EDjupYgeLaos/mNKlHzYD+ijroDm5lVjQcN6Li3LRbA8npd | ||||
kw4JTy3VrisI6BcRzBBjJKJQnBSW4svZ56PAvkuqofNZYohlQtKRPbFFZ0cT | ||||
hUzmSxFFh3PqiDGUlemt2vY5C5QbLtFZjP5edJj5HzQ1JGgu4AeMcNfJc6od | ||||
roGuCdpQYxG0t9WqqNXBa0PnJvMkaI3k0tCHcYStRGrR4BQvxKfxoriQzC+S | ||||
M8/LssGkPGpUpagjEoFGdnhczKrUX/Gd52fnPxwPRDx9++1jIjJB6GAqyopp | ||||
GBmM5/lMxLARIwZynlywmAOaL+1eoXpYOAs+omgGIgcyUCRBW5eUkjlJbe27 | ||||
36uijBHVI6NSSy92PAcRYL/QsopUcoRX3eOusltwOnR+T03QK8qwLQPb0iiN | ||||
fVsvjW6GploYS1xiwp1oLLSlL2FymDRJOMguTWMdv9Fjp3QZhft0Pnf5VsDF | ||||
JKGLExs0/YuCrT5Cy+c4My+1wzlaY/ANJhW3V2ZIAxDJXRbJTIenExcww+xW | ||||
3l6SE1zSYVP++IBQBXf6oQBgLNXPTflI3ZZV0tCKnWw9KW/EYHoiNzYyMmSs | ||||
dS73FzUfy2IlQGFDNH044TQPjBZcVdoQOUi8ki5WmPjcDXjULjJB0SHxu1AQ | ||||
5K4eX7bbo/IXSWyKXENbn+pACeCzeVoj0PmJPzDKMMb8bBPfa7r5hBKTMcUv | ||||
UQuuhB0UhBArfeLyxWIlDQRkPs7dsVpOueKIzC1OTvGQtJpuH7G6LVG/BiZN | ||||
jg6CgeQzwEB4Us4SmnHvOeA3aheoc+3ErMqjiA0ObRq59ByIeE5VQCqwQOek | ||||
3gEKWuz02OOZJBkRZ6ICHeECFMdTyQbnwta7TQl1TgE4qXnGojCUp2lPIuww | ||||
MJrVejffi0zC7CXyUq5/oWqtVV5f86kI+lU3QZUi9aQtmUvkPD7dllppbZq/ | ||||
uHzgk6BJSSZKu0w5cglMKrqYkk7qzYg46isMDi9HlpKRWFElRwBojYslShWi | ||||
pL8Af2RbBKrn0fcJ1IoT3BbbpCL1myLiScWB99Fo2HMJZIl5aez8xqkGaRa6 | ||||
OsV1kW8jNXE+oOlXQAGSvKu7Y2YIG8O5Dw228LRzl9/IQEDuTUrWpnSRCOHE | ||||
ZGhLrwc4Hbx0lwQpi24Q+nHY7ixpPUmq9PQ0dh9Imzqr5oiOr44jn/Lgc1i1 | ||||
0StJBYy3Ja4hRCRrGjI9be572gpeykJa7Z0wo4ag58OLz1suANQ2jbqdeq1e | ||||
LxdqK2ZzaoU2le7tHutNLDpCrulcM3Ik+obNeL8k0OgQyobS+S4hIVcrY+M6 | ||||
Kuy9hfs2qbD8i+q0ekphDNJaRPA9Pot/Vbg2L7CJ+XI117S/nMtqJG5KWCMU | ||||
JkzaIUiScIQpzr3WVzkGfGmyEV8SA8iBYkCyhxsxcGiZlVsYlTy6wSkegyhI | ||||
rHbKu9HRcGfPRq6xQ0gz20KIIfKkGVTEZZSZS+QhjDzqNUKYgkzvrphKe9+K | ||||
pU5YVxMt8sUeUgv4AAgqK66AXLPKJXpjq5PIWZI4G1bfNDNlVWhUimPIbHVq | ||||
EDOnHm0CAUh5Vuffj5N9XRUaI0ObToo8JWIgFfU61ehgyeUd7a3kwdGXT/PR | ||||
1iwShaPF4QsPHj8ZuvY3oFxSoIww+kk3YQvFnc1hECKjVNSwVYSeNXJM1009 | ||||
+gIs4tfjVgVO/NsX+Onv7d7TzET5CQZmo5YJ+LT4iLnZF2kYJVZzSlMzdmIX | ||||
JmWZ+JvYmK1cAur6hVZV5KnsJ6PAoOLouoyw2lW4/H2fCmpAWKKeN5BgZu2C | ||||
yq+57Fa7qTjtXEjvQTm9FJlczoVAqY8rMYuAmUhaNe1nDyel+3nIgVVtvylM | ||||
SKYibgOqRKW8D+w6o/MOIjfGRWY/N81gqZ/s+NT4MewKHpBB0/KhOXgty7cz | ||||
H1P/stuPwBWoqlD0wREVVg4IR2KS0r49aLwdB40e+ruQShoOt+90RSqBbkwX | ||||
ErPYXONxgrAlHNDD7+DF1LINf5VGfCRldzY1fB+q5jagVCFWGICWcm0NiT9I | ||||
CSfdpPEEtR04gCtpC0tSkTcAWUN9LcnKxVs0P7MKAz+MsJiJ5UkxCYoH1cgp | ||||
0iL0G/0MK8zTRfw8m2OfWjhX4I0nGM57nq7q67fw5ddwCucLIIBh9H0GL3ou | ||||
0YdhfAFH8yqdzTKg9RfI+sAWm6Nr7Ocsj0/TAkaCLU1B4T+avM3m8MB1uQCm | ||||
8T3c1b+VRTmEsWCDz1fzXzP4Ms4FBc/OCWgc6wH8XmdwqsPoB5jVHDW1Ezh3 | ||||
LC6BScFC1vFhukh+hmlnjPt2fn2bwWbEz6+JH+Qx7aGA43NWkLcu0Tvwo6Ct | ||||
oZXRjnpGMQddpajF3akTajkmPeErMogoKQoOmUlJtVhqF8UJyZhzwF0525Vb | ||||
JHjEJaZIg/jyctZqaZEqdJTqtf6SB7W9Zxl2/ybvMGLxImwvA6X6W62hBu1r | ||||
RDqL6+c0goVTgA43hayuBnOn4VpmnGhOdWugxWGE7xYeWiezclUx8u8OGzYm | ||||
wLrkLlf0mDR0nVyXqIUOBMIDRT2rBZF0VYOdIcBA/AtpHwymuENyd+iloe8u | ||||
ye1p51fIF64XzBwj4UTDOJgULkvKXlFFpmnD1//5j/+tKMRsb3EIbr7m7Qfd | ||||
3OV/TAg6Trtt4niRw90zYTiq8YKl/PMf/4fjLf/8x/8tIU3Niw48FtJYE21T | ||||
EGAEnZk6r2bQIcQBhPC+RL5RG+qspJcYuNw7X+itP+nQKzoV5Wg6xzPpTYxY | ||||
64OuceTrw7FfCLaWvSLHIPWTWqCHcFNjur751C2YXCIOXBOMoq3q+IZxG8Ia | ||||
C7tjbJ6BiHCEy61boAMNuRCqqdbGW5pOp1rkkZlGGzhVfwli6qboPJPBnKPO | ||||
qVEdgnNd3rj+9pTFhANf55rFUso5sjPPR4w37cqI2ZBvt+aNEw9Q4VIRJxNS | ||||
VdJ5YEpoKRoZydSfOUfCZrs3YT7TAJ3+L6K80D2kBIg3CvWjjRPlnXDimsGR | ||||
2QnIraQzr5ERuQjxckLXYpk6c0nADJgUVkvThxBdVJz6WGVwYQWqXZsJrV1D | ||||
QoKvdd4EBDOZrCibKkLRiIRIb0A6Enp3pI5viaLXARqsnzOuEW100f21FyZO | ||||
kRgJ+liqKXlokeWQP9FnCuS2yZHtKoztgdwfIhpBfM3u9omfRbpnclcpJoqx | ||||
xMrY8OXPnsdrpsC0742kMcB37HPjwShCTJhWH3IyLdVfQMCUxICkhyezDoRi | ||||
xCmTdTvL39G9C3tvmZwcfoGfDHMgLWdAstHEeOy+U5QUNF2A2CJ8X6KvttZo | ||||
G+2128OybWwcHGB+F4nanMhHJwSIXthEy0oRpbA+8tLMesvjC2/5JdzTelqa | ||||
Y5oMDEdZhNlae/Ro2dFCKp8yabkrGqo+EbifciwMQmOY+53X6noUzBg6Ki4H | ||||
TsM6JhRcVuExBaO8gq5TXbVz8qz7bvD2/uCo3mUeq8eUTmHn4U74s4sTCkD3 | ||||
O/eFmRMitzCkK/oDwlj4YhCEq1+hmSkFYYi85Bq/wxuGXqYWOr6WXrwTr4qO | ||||
LMFEGE/yk4eCWhNT0BBZvyRObChmcQEOsBzOyguLQoIZ8+LSv6njY+ff7zjZ | ||||
L9ppxZqpbyy2AGZfPNiWdwMnJG7AnEBYDHfJwHixuC0xWD2M70f1F186JgO4 | ||||
OENYK2GrX8L0P1PFNhS3btQqihmZDn+MI0ypPQ9sKjhkt6x3MzRlC+ebN6k1 | ||||
Yd+ZIEz6Fe2HPexcYUJSWOKZuEKxeFXt+U9thCzKIFWVak+5TbUuuO0fDN/M | ||||
U/Nr8P6PBaOWT31CmknGs6YgptybSQT5bD6fbqhGPgGQw9zCthVfm64UT0aP | ||||
h2HjCvenp6NHo4OR2liOVboqRt44zum4cjmfskr+Y5DXF0po6/3hLunkCgM2 | ||||
hHbVRuUFHeOd/EEE6BI6bWVCyWxwgm4uqagEinUVqIq9zBLGx8uHzvq1KEpK | ||||
Pd1FqfocxljtzaT8CCdlbDGj7IlTJLsoS306JvmqaU80b1PMFPVqEwFP48g/ | ||||
PGFg+ELRZ1IFmQpUbefzFh3IKdkNe/xafiF4PnLXpaTymbn33SgaN9DTGKxy | ||||
oPlKMPp8NoFiEdKFYpQdl72plaudNi9C6zMKe9JFvBifoiNHKfmRQhvSuKZi | ||||
8xJjbY6t9vGZum90mgF7ingKdLfPKG+DiQcVgEj7XmtMeHML6aHkAvb2aJZS | ||||
qTDcS4nHd0lnlkOB5WYQrsMYTQiIojEezlPQhkhoR4aInX35CGGMXjugU1DZ | ||||
ZFdENgdLRJ81PzZWRrYqT7X9e+RQm2KP8l0rGo8QoDaUh3VoJuvwrpwKTSaO | ||||
VGEiTw17TIl7eHu8VmdNMBjlU58RYJBDDCdgDfPgJjwPKdMB/r6kaAreNtUz | ||||
eKY7RklBQjw/fbq3l+w/fhz8+u3XBKmBefs6FCH3CfqfxyKh3dU6pzAp3SXx | ||||
d49FDs3Hve8mCNLFKCsjik0BFnDXjacw9IVJ1JtAwWNFGVevuHaMFfgY59Yh | ||||
B8SGqek5+/zqhJKmMAsvvn85pHmKurdZCbc7FOi81sRnNfwPnOUHp9Oz0SLO | ||||
V5c3lB6B3Wp98A2+JIwy7O+dFpHtoCJQOoZSBtia+m7l6458GEnZUcwezqCk | ||||
lbo7Iy3tKSiCukOS8FOM/KjBX1eraswT2kAHN0gfR7WHNtBJSA/dV1gEixvg | ||||
m44ppuiRwxQN+jT4jkhnrA6mc4sYEreRvxgdknQf3HkP9YvBPMmRUPAlHqoj | ||||
Hulha+uLHNWxCPGV8B6jx5IQ3QqPgTZazm+oera3ucAGrPpNX+MGA/3/3t/5 | ||||
q/2LG8LgeIfQ1i2Aa4MC3h5ih8Nzrjfm+2AEwvneMW1izvlwBn1w/62Z94LN | ||||
txZyz3b2Iuu3tnPj6PoO80vfCL0f2oce3BvgfbRxmvKqDVMIX/2+Q8bBS8Ip | ||||
WeX7s88k+vIz/ANxof86jS7DWKS2MXshbbD9vy8/z0zoVEeb/vnXbfwKD9Ab | ||||
QsXP/QAxBYx3Ti/OQdscEKI7fS4D0D8Nutqn/I/MVimGqipqe4DOv1H7R7Q7 | ||||
XnJfdv380/eARti4yebQNp4D/ZURKSg8LLFDfsoMwF/pkLgO0BdNbg1gRzaf | ||||
R603hX+1P4YOho8YoOWTCAf4pE38XOfw55NXw/g/zt+8HsaHz9+cxTtZMxmE | ||||
i9jwlc8xg8+1ith1INvVrmTto9jwlf8fHQX/u3h1PiQEgz562vCVT5+B716B | ||||
SD+noiEl55xSJz0rMCFI/xTznzZ3p0Bu7zBGydKapMtm5VLE31EFCecKiCcU | ||||
lRlECx6FAKVkPbkmXH1PTktMq41YNz0OE5kwalVjW7ZD1etwVc0KXaTsFcl/ | ||||
pSZYPkFK8rbUgCc3jTjNQm9txLauIHlhZ4pa6tUZO9a3FFWAmtaOlEVTYYLD | ||||
NMKKHUFAqV3mVlldgZj4VR23mgiGDlCdo9rkfTlclBgk3rFWsq6mEW5E3htG | ||||
q2JOBgiayrcIn0IeZ+N8HjL/BrvfeW28c9TBZHKclXR47RTWlCV5if+Czyfw | ||||
zF/v0a8/4F9bw3anHm/+955SA+kk0Ka5S7u9a5AAkvsBatiD/sFMTjDXKtWi | ||||
GA/NZcFMW8uhC3RWXsgHtJxyY8WK5tpUYn/rID8evTweAQ2aQWJxBVGYxhjM | ||||
NhWEEdXquEd51kFuM8RwriWYQxVw4h1gp7w6ceK7BukEIu48nd5BSknYxVvL | ||||
W3aHB2K0eZDXx+cX8flpLE4gTr52ASms/swYFv2O5eBRtJxOH7Kcz0Rsp0GR | ||||
MUGwtYrI5YV/6a8t/isvJ2Dgdx8NLSfI0PzYCxjb3M7PuScrrLHg8hkgiSCT | ||||
1AIbhcvBT/gZXU6JuepYaHlXKbn4ge7YE9eD22GG2TGQE3P5Jsy6Z0+U2JjZ | ||||
gzS9f2P79oSW43096nFiz76Usdt2DO/DtGAzEye0OmX+QHnKKPwRh1PTQTog | ||||
A3fTSWuQz0Qnh4yq4uhB3Wuvztlt1Z3JT5z8h98wyym5lh6flZqtwo7paqj4 | ||||
RGXsHcpDt3tCVmgAxWoBeU3kAQcR6zuvWxv7Af/euwYqlHP96vzDB3mvpVV+ | ||||
7R8zCCJ/o0OWYj/00UcMYmrP2T/2eQW6JEeT9oSCBiNUu6+wyUi1+0NWFVgR | ||||
KLUd79l3Ik/Elk7G0419Ximg6t8Bg5y/2T0+Ooz3v/3mm73kwA9yYrVASSMh | ||||
MB88BT8C7QpJuuMzuMhP9oKZaK48llthuZBiFmP2dkX5GH5r23vtTsc4qX1x | ||||
km9VF5zPxkG8jm2xtSWFBfP2MBB63yB+U20Es59SOoN8JjqhFmeSeGLOQaKB | ||||
kjjsSgBi6kcrxQV8YLQc6QnWO/fe5dD4nT1BYsNhE9HxMaQwX2EzMqqyMc/3 | ||||
eWZ0Y1PV+r8DrT8ojeiZSXtLPo4pkRg9jA+FGXzcICHxfcYjRkbvZ2dVal/C | ||||
WtuZ9C2Hct9mXHeZKY4cxdk3LAeZTbAcGGQnVdSin3OgrFt4GL6E6WLS6+O1 | ||||
7wAVb7o7R77NIFoP/CJOmRi0H+gf5HNuLApAW3IT8Md7Z+LZ4xJHIXfk3f/e | ||||
85fE7whs473OxLtxu17Znpk8T+t80prJB/3DJwLX6cffHeOB/tiZBGv+fGp5 | ||||
WVNa16EvETnHpDPEQ2vZLCQ/+4/4fHx4UsdHh6cDFX0Oqu26h2n2DxKE8Cm1 | ||||
jDNVTQ3BvYOgADWxNlMb7QFqJYlyir6w/pk0vnumAyCVvg+bTqc7iHB73WCe | ||||
VaW7++BB4J/2RKMTqrWfk89MoJAr5fHeMUhKSUKXDxBidyznTUFhcNqUMR9P | ||||
pWBfIIbmZflWbK87tQKur+ZGqVcrQai45Wp3SpkWa/dfxdmcn7btzlQnrXd4 | ||||
8ecbPbT0D4akspbo/wGgYHS91FwBAA== | ||||
c) FYI, there is an issue with xml2rfc that is cutting off text in Table 2 in th e txt output. We have asked the Tools Team to fix this issue <https://github.com /ietf-tools/xml2rfc/issues/1155> | ||||
--> | --> | |||
<table anchor="Component-Status"> | ||||
<name>Component Status</name> | ||||
<thead> | ||||
<tr> | ||||
<th>Component</th> | ||||
<th>Controlling Specification</th> | ||||
</tr> | ||||
</thead> | ||||
<tbody> | ||||
<tr> | ||||
<td> | ||||
<t>Make a Secure execution environment:</t> | ||||
<ul> | ||||
<li>Attestation depends on a secure RTM outside the TPM, as well as Ro | ||||
ots for Storage and Reporting inside the TPM.</li> | ||||
<li>Refer to "TCG Roots of Trust Specification" <xref target="TCG-RT" | ||||
format="default"/>.</li> | ||||
<li><xref target="SP800-193" format="default"/> also provides guidelin | ||||
es on Roots of Trust.</li> | ||||
</ul> | ||||
</td> | ||||
<td> | ||||
<t><xref target="TCG-RT" format="default"/></t> | ||||
<t><eref target="www.uefi.org" brackets="angle"/></t> | ||||
</td> | ||||
</tr> | ||||
<tr> | ||||
<td>Provision the TPM as described in the TCG documents.</td> | ||||
<td> | ||||
<t><xref target="PLATFORM-DEVID-TPM-2.0" format="default"/></t> | ||||
<t><xref target="PLATFORM-CERTS" format="default"/></t> | ||||
</td> | ||||
</tr> | ||||
<tr> | ||||
<td rowspan="2" colspan=""> | ||||
<t>Put a DevID or Platform Certificate in the TPM:</t> | ||||
<ul> | ||||
<li>Install an IAK at the same time so that Attestation can work out o | ||||
f the box.</li> | ||||
<li>Equipment suppliers and owners may want to implement LDevID as wel | ||||
l as IDevID.</li> | ||||
</ul> | ||||
</td> | ||||
<td> | ||||
<t><xref target="PLATFORM-DEVID-TPM-2.0" format="default"/></t> | ||||
<t><xref target="PLATFORM-CERTS" format="default"/></t> | ||||
</td> | ||||
</tr> | ||||
<tr> | ||||
<td><xref target="IEEE-802-1AR" format="default"/></td> | ||||
</tr> | ||||
<tr> | ||||
<td> | ||||
<t>Connect the TPM to the TLS stack:</t> | ||||
<ul> | ||||
<li>Use the DevID in the TPM to authenticate TAP connections, identify | ||||
ing the device</li> | ||||
</ul> | ||||
</td> | ||||
<td>Vendor TLS stack (This action configures TLS to use the DevID as its c | ||||
lient certificate)</td> | ||||
</tr> | ||||
<tr> | ||||
<td> | ||||
<t>Make CoSWID tags for BIOS/Loader/Kernel objects:</t> | ||||
<ul> | ||||
<li>Add reference measurements into SWID tags.</li> | ||||
<li>Manufacturer should sign the SWID tags.</li> | ||||
<li>The TCG RIM-IM <xref target="RIM" format="default"/> identifies fu | ||||
rther procedures to create signed RIM documents that provide the necessary refer | ||||
ence information.</li> | ||||
</ul> | ||||
</td> | ||||
<td> | ||||
<t><xref target="RFC9393" format="default"/></t> | ||||
<t><xref target="SWID" format="default"/></t> | ||||
<t><xref target="NIST-IR-8060" format="default"/></t> | ||||
</td> | ||||
</tr> | ||||
<tr> | ||||
<td rowspan="2"> | ||||
<t>Package the SWID tags with a vendor software release:</t> | ||||
<ul> | ||||
<li>A tag-generator plugin such as <xref target="SWID-GEN" format="def | ||||
ault"/> can be used.</li> | ||||
</ul> | ||||
</td> | ||||
<td>Retrieve tags with <xref target="RFC9393" format="default"/>.</td> | ||||
</tr> | ||||
<tr> | ||||
<td><xref target="PC-CLIENT-RIM" format="default"/></td> | ||||
</tr> | ||||
<tr> | ||||
<td>Use PC Client measurement definitions to define the use of PCRs (altho | ||||
ugh Windows OS is rare on Networking Equipment, UEFI BIOS is not).</td> | ||||
<td><xref target="PC-CLIENT-BIOS-TPM-2.0" format="default"/></td> | ||||
</tr> | ||||
<tr> | ||||
<td> | ||||
<t>Use TAP to retrieve measurements:</t> | ||||
<ul> | ||||
<li><t>Map to YANG.</t></li> | ||||
<li><t>Use Canonical Log Format.</t></li> | ||||
</ul> | ||||
</td> | ||||
<td> | ||||
<t><xref target="RFC9684" format="default"/></t> | ||||
<t><xref target="CEL" format="default"/></t> | ||||
</td> | ||||
</tr> | ||||
<tr> | ||||
<td> | ||||
<t>A Verifier (as described in <xref target="RFC9334" section="3" sectio | ||||
nFormat="comma"/>) should request the attestation and analyze the result. The Ve | ||||
rifier application might be broken down to several more components:</t> | ||||
<ul> | ||||
<li>A Posture Manager Server that collects reports and stores them in | ||||
a database.</li> | ||||
<li>One or more Analyzers that can look at the results and figure out | ||||
what it means.</li> | ||||
</ul> | ||||
</td> | ||||
<td> | ||||
</td> | ||||
</tr> | ||||
</tbody> | ||||
</table> | ||||
</section> | ||||
</section> | ||||
</rfc> | <section anchor="acknowledgements" numbered="false" toc="default"> | |||
<name>Acknowledgements</name> | ||||
<t>The authors wish to thank numerous reviewers for generous assistance, i | ||||
ncluding <contact fullname="William Bellingrath"/>, <contact fullname="Mark Baus | ||||
hke"/>, <contact fullname="Ned Smith"/>, | ||||
<contact fullname="Henk Birkholz"/>, <contact fullname="Tom Laffey"/>, <contact | ||||
fullname="Dave Thaler"/>, <contact fullname="Wei Pan"/>, <contact fullname="Mich | ||||
ael Eckel"/>, <contact fullname="Thomas Hardjono"/>, <contact fullname="Bill Sul | ||||
zen"/>, <contact fullname="Willard (Monty) Wiseman"/>, | ||||
<contact fullname="Kathleen Moriarty"/>, <contact fullname="Nancy Cam-Winget"/>, | ||||
and <contact fullname="Shwetha Bhandari"/>.</t> | ||||
</section> | ||||
</back> | ||||
</rfc> | ||||
End of changes. 159 change blocks. | ||||
2854 lines changed or deleted | 1845 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. |