SUIT B. Moran Internet-Draft Arm Limited Intended status: Standards Track H. Tschofenig Expires: 12 June 2025 H. Birkholz Fraunhofer SIT K. Zandberg Inria Ø. Rønningstad Nordic Semiconductor 9 December 2024 A Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)-based Serialization Format for the Software Updates for Internet of Things (SUIT) Manifest draft-ietf-suit-manifest-32 Abstract This specification describes the format of a manifest. A manifest is a bundle of metadata about code/data obtained by a recipient (chiefly the firmware for an Internet of Things (IoT) device), where to find the code/data, the devices to which it applies, and cryptographic information protecting the manifest. Software updates and Trusted Invocation both tend to use sequences of common operations, so the manifest encodes those sequences of operations, rather than declaring the metadata. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on 12 June 2025. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 1] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. How to use this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1. IoT Firmware Update Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2. SUIT Workflow Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Metadata Structure Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.1. Envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.2. Authentication Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.3. Manifest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.3.1. Critical Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.3.2. Common . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.3.3. Command Sequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.3.4. Integrity Check Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.3.5. Human-Readable Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.4. Severable Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.5. Integrated Payloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6. Manifest Processor Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.1. Manifest Processor Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.2. Required Checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.3. Interpreter Fundamental Properties . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6.3.1. Resilience to Disruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6.4. Abstract Machine Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6.5. Special Cases of Component Index . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6.6. Serialized Processing Interpreter . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6.7. Parallel Processing Interpreter . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7. Creating Manifests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7.1. Compatibility Check Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7.2. Trusted Invocation Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7.3. Component Download Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 7.4. Install Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 7.5. Integrated Payload Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 2] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 7.6. Load from Nonvolatile Storage Template . . . . . . . . . 27 7.7. A/B Image Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 8. Metadata Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 8.1. Encoding Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 8.2. Envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 8.3. Authenticated Manifests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 8.4. Manifest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 8.4.1. suit-manifest-version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 8.4.2. suit-manifest-sequence-number . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 8.4.3. suit-reference-uri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 8.4.4. suit-text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 8.4.5. suit-common . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 8.4.6. SUIT_Command_Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 8.4.7. Reporting Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 8.4.8. SUIT_Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 8.4.9. SUIT_Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 8.4.10. SUIT_Directive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 8.4.11. suit-command-custom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 8.4.12. Integrity Check Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 8.5. Severable Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 9. Access Control Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 10. SUIT Digest Container . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 11.1. SUIT Envelope Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 11.2. SUIT Manifest Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 11.3. SUIT Common Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 11.4. SUIT Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 11.5. SUIT Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 11.6. SUIT Text Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 11.7. SUIT Component Text Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 11.8. Expert Review Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 11.9. Media Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Appendix A. Full CDDL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Appendix B. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 B.1. Example 0: Secure Boot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 B.2. Example 1: Simultaneous Download and Installation of Payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 B.3. Example 2: Simultaneous Download, Installation, Secure Boot, Severed Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 B.4. Example 3: A/B images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 B.5. Example 4: Load from External Storage . . . . . . . . . . 90 B.6. Example 5: Two Images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Appendix C. Design Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 3] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 C.1. C.1 Design Rationale: Envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 C.2. C.2 Byte String Wrappers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Appendix D. D. Implementation Conformance Matrix . . . . . . . 99 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 1. Introduction A firmware update mechanism is an essential security feature for IoT devices to deal with vulnerabilities. The transport of firmware images to the devices themselves is important security aspect. Luckily, there are already various device management solutions available offering the distribution of firmware images to IoT devices. Equally important is the inclusion of metadata about the conveyed firmware image (in the form of a manifest) and the use of a security wrapper to provide end-to-end security protection to detect modifications and (optionally) to make reverse engineering more difficult. Firmware signing allows the author, who builds the firmware image, to be sure that no other party (including potential adversaries) can install firmware updates on IoT devices without adequate privileges. For confidentiality protected firmware images it is additionally required to encrypt the firmware image and to distribute the content encryption key securely. The support for firmware and payload encryption via the SUIT manifest format is described in a companion document [I-D.ietf-suit-firmware-encryption]. Starting security protection at the author is a risk mitigation technique so firmware images and manifests can be stored on untrusted repositories; it also reduces the scope of a compromise of any repository or intermediate system to be no worse than a denial of service. A manifest is a bundle of metadata about the firmware for an IoT device, where to find the firmware, and the devices to which it applies. This specification defines the SUIT manifest format. It is intended to meet several goals: * Meet the requirements defined in [RFC9124]. * Simple to parse on a constrained node. * Simple to process on a constrained node. * Compact encoding. * Comprehensible by an intermediate system. * Expressive enough to enable advanced use cases on advanced nodes. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 4] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 * Extensible. The SUIT manifest can be used for a variety of purposes throughout its lifecycle, such as: * a Network Operator to reason about compatibility of a firmware, such as timing and acceptance of firmware updates. * a Device Operator to reason about the impact of a firmware. * a device to reason about the authority & authenticity of a firmware prior to installation. * a device to reason about the applicability of a firmware. * a device to reason about the installation of a firmware. * a device to reason about the authenticity & encoding of a firmware at boot. Each of these uses happens at a different stage of the manifest lifecycle, so each has different requirements. It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the high-level firmware update architecture [RFC9019] and the threats, requirements, and user stories in [RFC9124]. The design of this specification is based on an observation that the vast majority of operations that a device can perform during an update or Trusted Invocation are composed of a small group of operations: * Copy some data from one place to another * Transform some data * Digest some data and compare to an expected value * Compare some system parameters to an expected value * Run some code In this document, these operations are called commands. Commands are classed as either conditions or directives. Conditions have no side- effects, while directives do have side-effects. Conceptually, a sequence of commands is like a script but the language is tailored to software updates and Trusted Invocation. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 5] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 The available commands support simple steps, such as copying a firmware image from one place to another, checking that a firmware image is correct, verifying that the specified firmware is the correct firmware for the device, or unpacking a firmware. By using these steps in different orders and changing the parameters they use, a broad range of use cases can be supported. The SUIT manifest uses this observation to optimize metadata for consumption by constrained devices. While the SUIT manifest is informed by and optimized for firmware update and Trusted Invocation use cases, there is nothing in the SUIT Information Model [RFC9124] that restricts its use to only those use cases. Other use cases include the management of trusted applications (TAs) in a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE), as discussed in [RFC9397]. 2. Conventions and Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. Additionally, the following terminology is used throughout this document: * SUIT: Software Update for the Internet of Things, also the IETF working group for this standard. * Payload: A piece of information to be delivered. Typically Firmware for the purposes of SUIT. * Resource: A piece of information that is used to construct a payload. * Manifest: A manifest is a bundle of metadata about the firmware for an IoT device, where to find the firmware, and the devices to which it applies. * Envelope: A container with the manifest, an authentication wrapper with cryptographic information protecting the manifest, authorization information, and severable elements. Severable elements can be removed from the manifest without impacting its security, see Section 8.5. * Update: One or more manifests that describe one or more payloads. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 6] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 * Update Authority: The owner of a cryptographic key used to sign updates, trusted by Recipients. * Recipient: The system, typically an IoT device, that receives and processes a manifest. * Manifest Processor: A component of the Recipient that consumes Manifests and executes the commands in the Manifest. * Component: An updatable logical block of the Firmware, Software, configuration, or data of the Recipient. * Component Set: A group of interdependent Components that must be updated simultaneously. * Command: A Condition or a Directive. * Condition: A test for a property of the Recipient or its Components. * Directive: An action for the Recipient to perform. * Trusted Invocation: A process by which a system ensures that only trusted code is executed, for example secure boot or launching a Trusted Application. * A/B images: Dividing a Recipient's storage into two or more bootable images, at different offsets, such that the active image can write to the inactive image(s). * Record: The result of a Command and any metadata about it. * Report: A list of Records. * Procedure: The process of invoking one or more sequences of commands. * Update Procedure: A procedure that updates a Recipient by fetching dependencies and images, and installing them. * Invocation Procedure: A procedure in which a Recipient verifies dependencies and images, loading images, and invokes one or more image. * Software: Instructions and data that allow a Recipient to perform a useful function. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 7] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 * Firmware: Software that is typically changed infrequently, stored in nonvolatile memory, and small enough to apply to [RFC7228] Class 0-2 devices. * Image: Information that a Recipient uses to perform its function, typically firmware/software, configuration, or resource data such as text or images. Also, a Payload, once installed is an Image. * Slot: One of several possible storage locations for a given Component, typically used in A/B image systems * Abort: An event in which the Manifest Processor immediately halts execution of the current Procedure. It creates a Record of an error condition. * Pull parser: A parser that traverses the data and extracts information on an as-needed basis. * Severable element: An element of the manifest that supports elision of hashed data. If a hash of the data is included in the manifest and the data is included in the envelope, then that data may be elided. 3. How to use this Document This specification covers five aspects of firmware update: * Section 4 describes the device constraints, use cases, and design principles that informed the structure of the manifest. * Section 5 gives a general overview of the metadata structure to inform the following sections * Section 6 describes what actions a Manifest processor should take. * Section 7 describes the process of creating a Manifest. * Section 8 specifies the content of the Envelope and the Manifest. To implement an updatable device, see Section 6 and Section 8. To implement a tool that generates updates, see Section 7 and Section 8. The IANA consideration section, see Section 11, provides instructions to IANA to create several registries. This section also provides the CBOR labels for the structures defined in this document. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 8] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 The complete CDDL ([RFC8610]) definition is provided in Appendix A, examples are given in Appendix B and a design rationale is offered in Appendix C. Finally, Appendix D summarizes the mandatory-to- implement features of this specification. Additional specifications describe functionality needed to implement all of the requirements of [RFC9124], such as: * Firmware encryption [I-D.ietf-suit-firmware-encryption] * Update management [I-D.ietf-suit-update-management] * Dependency manifests [I-D.ietf-suit-trust-domains] * Secure reporting of the update status [I-D.ietf-suit-report] A technique to compress firmware images may be standardized in the future. 4. Background Distributing software updates to diverse devices with diverse trust anchors in a coordinated system presents unique challenges. Devices have a broad set of constraints, requiring different metadata to make appropriate decisions. There may be many actors in production IoT systems, each of whom has some authority. Distributing firmware in such a multi-party environment presents additional challenges. Each party requires a different subset of data. Some data may not be accessible to all parties. Multiple signatures may be required from parties with different authorities. This topic is covered in more depth in [RFC9019]. The security aspects are described in [RFC9124]. 4.1. IoT Firmware Update Constraints The various constraints of IoT devices and the range of use cases that need to be supported create a broad set of requirements. For example, devices with: * limited processing power and storage may require a simple representation of metadata. * bandwidth constraints may require firmware compression or partial update support. * bootloader complexity constraints may require simple selection between two bootable images. * small internal storage may require external storage support. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 9] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 * multiple microcontrollers may require coordinated update of all applications. * large storage and complex functionality may require parallel update of many software components. * extra information may need to be conveyed in the manifest in the earlier stages of the device lifecycle before those data items are stripped when the manifest is delivered to a constrained device. Supporting the requirements introduced by the constraints on IoT devices requires the flexibility to represent a diverse set of possible metadata, but also requires that the encoding is kept simple. 4.2. SUIT Workflow Model There are several fundamental assumptions that inform the model of Update Procedure workflow: * Compatibility must be checked before any other operation is performed. * In some applications, payloads must be fetched and validated prior to installation. There are several fundamental assumptions that inform the model of the Invocation Procedure workflow: * Compatibility must be checked before any other operation is performed. * All payloads must be validated prior to loading. * All loaded images must be validated prior to execution. Based on these assumptions, the manifest is structured to work with a pull parser, where each section of the manifest is used in sequence. The expected workflow for a Recipient installing an update can be broken down into five steps: 1. Verify the signature of the manifest. 2. Verify the applicability of the manifest. 3. Fetch payload(s). 4. Install payload(s). Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 10] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 5. Verify image(s). When installation is complete, similar information can be used for validating and invoking images in a further three steps: 1. Verify image(s). 2. Load image(s). 3. Invoke image(s). If verification and invocation is implemented in a bootloader, then the bootloader MUST also verify the signature of the manifest and the applicability of the manifest in order to implement secure boot workflows. Because signature verifications can be costly in constrained applications, the bootloader may add its own authentication, e.g. a Message Authentication Code (MAC), to the manifest in order to prevent further signature verifications and save energy, provided that the bootloader can protect its authentication key. 5. Metadata Structure Overview This section provides a high level overview of the manifest structure. The full description of the manifest structure is in Section 8.4 The manifest is structured from several key components: 1. The Envelope (see Section 5.1) contains the Authentication Block, the Manifest, any Severable Elements, and any Integrated Payloads. 2. The Authentication Block (see Section 5.2) contains a list of signatures or MACs of the manifest. 3. The Manifest (see Section 5.3) contains all critical, non- severable metadata that the Recipient requires. It is further broken down into: 1. Critical metadata, such as sequence number. 2. Common metadata, such as affected components. 3. Command sequences, directing the Recipient how to install and use the payload(s). 4. Integrity check values for severable elements. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 11] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 4. Severable elements (see Section 5.4). 5. Integrated payloads (see Section 5.5). The diagram below illustrates the hierarchy of the Envelope. +-------------------------+ | Envelope | +-------------------------+ | Authentication Block | | Manifest --------------> +------------------------------+ | Severable Elements | | Manifest | | Integrated Payloads | +------------------------------+ +-------------------------+ | Structure Version | | Sequence Number | | Reference to Full Manifest | +------ Common Structure | | +---- Command Sequences | +-------------------------+ | | | Digests of Envelope Elements | | Common Structure | <--+ | +------------------------------+ +-------------------------+ | | Components IDs | +-> +-----------------------+ | Common Command Sequence ---------> | Command Sequence | +-------------------------+ +-----------------------+ | List of ( pairs of ( | | * command code | | * argument / | | reporting policy | | )) | +-----------------------+ 5.1. Envelope The SUIT Envelope is a container that encloses the Authentication Block, the Manifest, any Severable Elements, and any integrated payloads. The Envelope is used instead of conventional cryptographic envelopes, such as COSE_Envelope because it allows modular processing, severing of elements, and integrated payloads in a way that avoids substantial complexity that would be needed with existing solutions. See Appendix C.1 for a description of the reasoning for this. See Section 8.2 for more detail. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 12] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 5.2. Authentication Block The Authentication Block contains a bstr-wrapped SUIT Digest Container, see Section 10, and one or more [RFC9052] CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) authentication blocks. These blocks are one of: * COSE_Sign_Tagged * COSE_Sign1_Tagged * COSE_Mac_Tagged * COSE_Mac0_Tagged Each of these objects is used in detached payload mode. The payload is the bstr-wrapped SUIT_Digest. See Section 8.3 for more detail. 5.3. Manifest The Manifest contains most metadata about one or more images. The Manifest is divided into Critical Metadata, Common Metadata, Command Sequences, and Integrity Check Values. See Section 8.4 for more detail. 5.3.1. Critical Metadata Some metadata needs to be accessed before the manifest is processed. This metadata can be used to determine which manifest is newest and whether the structure version is supported. It also MAY provide a URI for obtaining a canonical copy of the manifest and Envelope. See Section 8.4.1, Section 8.4.2, and Section 8.4.3 for more detail. 5.3.2. Common Some metadata is used repeatedly and in more than one command sequence. In order to reduce the size of the manifest, this metadata is collected into the Common section. Common is composed of two parts: a list of components referenced by the manifest, and a command sequence to execute prior to each other command sequence. The common command sequence is typically used to set commonly used values and perform compatibility checks. The common command sequence MUST NOT have any side-effects outside of setting parameter values. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 13] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 See Section 8.4.5 for more detail. 5.3.3. Command Sequences Command sequences provide the instructions that a Recipient requires in order to install or use an image. These sequences tell a device to set parameter values, test system parameters, copy data from one place to another, transform data, digest data, and run code. Command sequences are broken up into three groups: Common Command Sequence (see Section 5.3.2), update commands, and secure boot commands. Update Command Sequences are: Payload Fetch, Payload Installation and, System Validation. An Update Procedure is the complete set of each Update Command Sequence, each preceded by the Common Command Sequence. Invocation Command Sequences are: System Validation, Image Loading, and Image Invocation. An Invocation Procedure is the complete set of each Invocation Command Sequence, each preceded by the Common Command Sequence. Command Sequences are grouped into these sets to ensure that there is common coordination between dependencies and dependents on when to execute each command (dependencies are not defined in this specification). See Section 8.4.6 for more detail. 5.3.4. Integrity Check Values To enable severable elements Section 5.4, there needs to be a mechanism to verify the integrity of the severed data. While the severed data stays outside the manifest, for efficiency reasons, Integrity Check Values are used to include the digest of the data in the manifest. Note that Integrated Payloads, see Section 5.5, are integrity-checked using Command Sequences. See Section 8.4.12 for more detail. 5.3.5. Human-Readable Text Text is typically a Severable Element (Section 5.4). It contains all the text that describes the update. Because text is explicitly for human consumption, it is all grouped together so that it can be Severed easily. The text section has space both for describing the manifest as a whole and for describing each individual component. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 14] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 See Section 8.4.4 for more detail. 5.4. Severable Elements Severable Elements are elements of the Envelope (Section 5.1) that have Integrity Check Values (Section 5.3.4) in the Manifest (Section 5.3). This is a form of elision of hashed data. The elements in the envelope are verified by Integrity Check Values and therefore cannot be replaced with other elements even if they are authenticated elements. Because of this organisation, these elements can be discarded or "Severed" from the Envelope without changing the signature of the Manifest. This allows savings based on the size of the Envelope in several scenarios, for example: * A management system severs the Text sections before sending an Envelope to a constrained Recipient, which saves Recipient bandwidth. * A Recipient severs the Installation section after installing the Update, which saves storage space. See Section 8.5 for more detail. 5.5. Integrated Payloads In some cases, it is beneficial to include a payload in the Envelope of a manifest. For example: * When an update is delivered via a comparatively unconstrained medium, such as a removable mass storage device, it may be beneficial to bundle updates into single files. * When a manifest transports a small payload, such as an encrypted key, that payload may be placed in the manifest's envelope. See Section 7.5 for more detail. 6. Manifest Processor Behavior This section describes the behavior of the manifest processor and focuses primarily on interpreting commands in the manifest. However, there are several other important behaviors of the manifest processor: encoding version detection, rollback protection, and authenticity verification are chief among these. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 15] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 6.1. Manifest Processor Setup Prior to executing any command sequence, the manifest processor or its host application MUST inspect the manifest version field and fail when it encounters an unsupported encoding version. Next, the manifest processor or its host application MUST extract the manifest sequence number and perform a rollback check using this sequence number. The exact logic of rollback protection may vary by application, but it has the following properties: * Whenever the manifest processor can choose between several manifests, it MUST select the latest valid, authentic manifest. * If the latest valid, authentic manifest fails, it MAY select the next latest valid, authentic manifest, according to application- specific policy. Here, valid means that a manifest has a supported encoding version and it has not been excluded for other reasons. Reasons for excluding typically involve first executing the manifest and may include: * Test failed (e.g. Vendor ID/Class ID). * Unsupported command encountered. * Unsupported parameter encountered. * Unsupported Component Identifier encountered. * Payload not available. * Application crashed when executed. * Watchdog timeout occurred. * Payload verification failed. * Missing required component from a Component Set. * Required parameter not supplied. These failure reasons MAY be combined with retry mechanisms prior to marking a manifest as invalid. Selecting an older manifest in the event of failure of the latest valid manifest is one possible strategy to provide robustness of the firmware update process. It may not be appropriate for all Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 16] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 applications. In particular Trusted Execution Environments MAY require a failure to invoke a new installation, rather than a rollback approach. See [RFC9124], Section 4.2.1 for more discussion on the security considerations that apply to rollback. Following these initial tests, the manifest processor clears all parameter storage. This ensures that the manifest processor begins without any leaked data. 6.2. Required Checks The RECOMMENDED process is to verify the signature of the manifest prior to parsing/executing any section of the manifest. This guards the parser against arbitrary input by unauthenticated third parties, but it costs extra energy when a Recipient receives an incompatible manifest. When validating authenticity of manifests, the manifest processor MAY use an ACL (see Section 9) to determine the extent of the rights conferred by that authenticity. Once a valid, authentic manifest has been selected, the manifest processor MUST examine the component list and check that the number of components listed in the manifest is not larger than the number in the target system. For each listed component, the manifest processor MUST provide storage for the supported parameters. If the manifest processor does not have sufficient temporary storage to process the parameters for all components, it MAY process components serially for each command sequence. See Section 6.6 for more details. The manifest processor SHOULD check that the shared sequence contains at least Check Vendor Identifier command and at least one Check Class Identifier command. Because the shared sequence contains Check Vendor Identifier and Check Class Identifier command(s), no custom commands are permitted in the shared sequence. This ensures that any custom commands are only executed by devices that understand them. If the manifest contains more than one component, each command sequence MUST begin with a Set Component Index Section 8.4.10.1. If a Recipient supports groups of interdependent components (a Component Set), then it SHOULD verify that all Components in the Component Set are specified by one update, that is: Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 17] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 1. the manifest Author has sufficient permissions for the requested operations (see Section 9) and 2. the manifest specifies a digest and a payload for every Component in the Component Set. 6.3. Interpreter Fundamental Properties The interpreter has a small set of design goals: 1. Executing an update MUST either result in an error, or a correct system state that can be checked against known digests. 2. Executing a Trusted Invocation MUST either result in an error, or an invoked image. 3. Executing the same manifest on multiple Recipients MUST result in the same system state. NOTE: when using A/B images, the manifest functions as two (or more) logical manifests, each of which applies to a system in a particular starting state. With that provision, design goal 3 holds. 6.3.1. Resilience to Disruption As required in Section 3 of [RFC9019] and as an extension of design goal 1, devices must remain operable after a disruption, such as a power failure or network interruption, interrupts the update process. The manifest processor must be resilient to these faults. In order to enable this resilience, systems implementing the manifest processor MUST make the following guarantees: One of: 1. A fallback/recovery image is provided so that a disrupted system can apply the SUIT Manifest again. 2. Manifest Authors MUST construct Manifests in such a way that repeated partial invocations of any Manifest always results in a correct system state. Typically this is done by using Try-Each and Conditions to bypass operations that have already been completed. 3. A journal of manifest operations is stored in nonvolatile memory. The journal enables the parser to re-create the state just prior to the disruption. This journal can, for example, be a SUIT Report or a journaling file system. AND Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 18] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 1. Where a command is not repeatable because of the way in which it alters system state (e.g. swapping images or in-place delta) it MUST be resumable or revertible. This applies to commands that modify at least one source component as well as the destination component. 6.4. Abstract Machine Description The heart of the manifest is the list of commands, which are processed by a Manifest Processor -- a form of interpreter. This Manifest Processor can be modeled as a simple abstract machine. This machine consists of several data storage locations that are modified by commands. There are two types of commands, namely those that modify state (directives) and those that perform tests (conditions). Parameters are used as the inputs to commands. Some directives offer control flow operations. Directives target a specific component. A component is a unit of code or data that can be targeted by an update. Components are identified by Component Identifiers, but referenced in commands by Component Index; Component Identifiers are arrays of binary strings and a Component Index is an index into the array of Component Identifiers. Conditions MUST NOT have any side-effects other than informing the interpreter of success or failure. The Interpreter does not Abort if the Soft Failure flag (Section 8.4.8.15) is set when a Condition reports failure. Directives MAY have side-effects in the parameter table, the interpreter state, or the current component. The Interpreter MUST Abort if a Directive reports failure regardless of the Soft Failure flag. To simplify the logic describing the command semantics, the object "current" is used. It represents the component identified by the Component Index: current := components[component-index] As a result, Set Component Index is described as current := components[arg]. The following table describes the semantics of each operation. The pseudo-code semantics are inspired by the Python programming language. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 19] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 +========================+========================================+ | pseudo-code operation | Semantics | +========================+========================================+ | assert(test) | When test is false, causes an error | | | return | +------------------------+----------------------------------------+ | store(dest, source) | Writes source into dest | +------------------------+----------------------------------------+ | expression0 for-each e | Performs expression0 once for each | | in l else expression1 | element in iterable l; performs | | | expression1 if no break is encountered | +------------------------+----------------------------------------+ | break | halt a for-each loop | +------------------------+----------------------------------------+ | now() | return the current UTC time | +------------------------+----------------------------------------+ | expression if test | performs expression if test is true | +------------------------+----------------------------------------+ Table 1 The following table describes the behavior of each command. "params" represents the parameters for the current component. Most commands operate on a component. +=========================+======================================+ | Command Name | Semantic of the Operation | +=========================+======================================+ | Check Vendor Identifier | assert(binary-match(current, | | | current.params[vendor-id])) | +-------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Check Class Identifier | assert(binary-match(current, | | | current.params[class-id])) | +-------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Verify Image | assert(binary-match(digest(current), | | | current.params[digest])) | +-------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Check Content | assert(binary-match(current, | | | current.params[content])) | +-------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Set Component Index | current := components[arg] | +-------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Override Parameters | current.params[k] := v for-each k,v | | | in arg | +-------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Invoke | invoke(current) | +-------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Fetch | store(current, | Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 20] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 | | fetch(current.params[uri])) | +-------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Write | store(current, | | | current.params[content]) | +-------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Use Before | assert(now() < arg) | +-------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Check Component Slot | assert(current.slot-index == arg) | +-------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Check Device Identifier | assert(binary-match(current, | | | current.params[device-id])) | +-------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Abort | assert(0) | +-------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Try Each | (break if (exec(seq) is not error)) | | | for-each seq in arg else assert(0) | +-------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Copy | store(current, current.params[src- | | | component]) | +-------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Swap | swap(current, current.params[src- | | | component]) | +-------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Run Sequence | exec(arg) | +-------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | Invoke with Arguments | invoke(current, arg) | +-------------------------+--------------------------------------+ Table 2 6.5. Special Cases of Component Index Component Index can take on one of three types: 1. Integer 2. Array of integers 3. True Integers MUST always be supported by Set Component Index. Arrays of integers MUST be supported by Set Component Index if the Recipient supports 3 or more components. True MUST be supported by Set Component Index if the Recipient supports 2 or more components. Each of these operates on the list of components declared in the manifest. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 21] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 Integer indices are the default case as described in the previous section. An array of integers represents a list of the components (Set Component Index) to which each subsequent command applies. The value True replaces the list of component indices with the full list of components, as defined in the manifest. When a command is executed, it 1. operates on the component identified by the component index if that index is an integer, or 2. it operates on each component identified by an array of indicies, or 3. it operates on every component if the index is the boolean True. This is described by the following pseudocode: if component-index is True: current-list = components else if component-index is array: current-list = [ components[idx] for idx in component-index ] else: current-list = [ components[component-index] ] for current in current-list: cmd(current) Try Each and Run Sequence are affected in the same way as other commands: they are invoked once for each possible Component. This means that the sequences that are arguments to Try Each and Run Sequence are not invoked with Component Index = True, nor are they invoked with array indices. They are only invoked with integer indices. The interpreter loops over the whole sequence, setting the Component Index to each index in turn. 6.6. Serialized Processing Interpreter In highly constrained devices, where storage for parameters is limited, the manifest processor MAY handle one component at a time, traversing the manifest tree once for each listed component. In this mode, the interpreter ignores any commands executed while the component index is not the current component. This reduces the overall volatile storage required to process the update so that the only limit on number of components is the size of the manifest. However, this approach requires additional processing power. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 22] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 In order to operate in this mode, the manifest processor loops on each section for every supported component, simply ignoring commands when the current component is not selected. When a serialized Manifest Processor encounters a component index of True, it does not ignore any commands. It applies them to the current component on each iteration. 6.7. Parallel Processing Interpreter To enable parallel or out-of-order processing of Command Sequences, Recipients MAY make use of the Strict Order parameter. The Strict Order parameter indicates to the Manifest Processor that Commands MUST be executed strictly in order. When the Strict Order parameter is False, this indicates to the Manifest Processor that Commands MAY be executed in parallel and/or out of order. To perform parallel processing, once the Strict Order parameter is set to False, the Recipient MAY add each command to an issue queue for parallel processing or an issue pool for out-of-order processing. The Manifest Processor then executes these pending commands in whatever order or parallelism it deems appropriate. Once there are no more commands to add to the issue queue/pool, the Manifest Processor drains the issue queue/pool by issuing all pending commands and waits for every issued command to complete. The Manifest Processor MAY issue commands before it has completed adding all remaining commands to the issue queue/pool. While adding commands to the issue queue or pool, if the Manifest Processor encounters any of the following commands, it MUST treat the command as a barrier, draining the issue queue/pool and waiting for all issued commands to complete. * Override Parameters. * Set Strict Order = True. * Set Component Index. Extensions MAY alter this list. Once all issued commands have completed, the Manifest Processor issues the barrier command, after which it may resume parallel processing if Strict Order is still False. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 23] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 A Component MUST NOT be both a target of an operation and a source of data (for example, in Copy or Swap) in a Command Sequence where Strict Order is False. This would cause a race condition if the Component is written to, then later read from. The Manifest Processor MUST issue an Abort if it detects this exception. To perform more useful parallel operations, a manifest author may collect sequences of commands in a Run Sequence command. Then, each of these sequences MAY be run in parallel. There are several invocation options for Run Sequence: * Component Index is a positive integer, Strict Order is False: Strict Order is set to True before the sequence argument is run. The sequence argument MUST begin with set-component-index. * Component Index is true or an array of positive integers, Strict Order is False: The sequence argument is run once for each component (or each component in the array); the Manifest Processor presets the component index and Strict Order = True before each iteration of the sequence argument. * Component Index is a positive integer, Strict Order is True: No special considerations * Component Index is True or an array of positive integers, Strict Order is True: The sequence argument is run once for each component (or each component in the array); the Manifest Processor presets the component index before each iteration of the sequence argument. These rules isolate each sequence from each other sequence, ensuring that they operate as expected. When Strict Order = False, any further Set Component Index directives in the Run Sequence command sequence argument MUST cause an Abort. This allows the interpreter that issues Run Sequence commands to check that the first element is correct, then issue the sequence to a parallel execution context to handle the remainder of the sequence. 7. Creating Manifests Manifests are created using tools for constructing COSE structures, calculating cryptographic values and compiling desired system state into a sequence of operations required to achieve that state. The process of constructing COSE structures and the calculation of cryptographic values is covered in [RFC9052]. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 24] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 Compiling desired system state into a sequence of operations can be accomplished in many ways. Several templates are provided below to cover common use-cases. These templates can be combined to produce more complex behavior. The author MUST ensure that all parameters consumed by a command are set prior to invoking that command. Where Component Index = True, this means that the parameters consumed by each command MUST have been set for each Component. This section details a set of templates for creating manifests. These templates explain which parameters, commands, and orders of commands are necessary to achieve a stated goal. NOTE: On systems that support only a single component, Set Component Index has no effect and can be omitted. NOTE: *A digest MUST always be set using Override Parameters.* 7.1. Compatibility Check Template The goal of the compatibility check template ensure that Recipients only install compatible images. In this template all information is contained in the shared sequence and the following sequence of commands is used: * Set Component Index directive (see Section 8.4.10.1) * Override Parameters directive (see Section 8.4.10.3) for Vendor ID and Class ID (see Section 8.4.8) * Check Vendor Identifier condition (see Section 8.4.8.2) * Check Class Identifier condition (see Section 8.4.8.2) 7.2. Trusted Invocation Template The goal of the Trusted Invocation template is to ensure that only authorized code is invoked; such as in Secure Boot or when a Trusted Application is loaded into a TEE. The following commands are placed into the shared sequence: * Set Component Index directive (see Section 8.4.10.1) * Override Parameters directive (see Section 8.4.10.3) for Image Digest and Image Size (see Section 8.4.8) Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 25] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 The system validation sequence contains the following commands: * Set Component Index directive (see Section 8.4.10.1) * Check Image Match condition (see Section 8.4.9.2) Then, the run sequence contains the following commands: * Set Component Index directive (see Section 8.4.10.1) * Invoke directive (see Section 8.4.10.7) 7.3. Component Download Template The goal of the Component Download template is to acquire and store an image. The following commands are placed into the shared sequence: * Set Component Index directive (see Section 8.4.10.1) * Override Parameters directive (see Section 8.4.10.3) for Image Digest and Image Size (see Section 8.4.8) Then, the install sequence contains the following commands: * Set Component Index directive (see Section 8.4.10.1) * Override Parameters directive (see Section 8.4.10.3) for URI (see Section 8.4.8.10) * Fetch directive (see Section 8.4.10.4) * Check Image Match condition (see Section 8.4.9.2) The Fetch directive needs the URI parameter to be set to determine where the image is retrieved from. Additionally, the destination of where the component shall be stored has to be configured. The URI is configured via the Set Parameters directive while the destination is configured via the Set Component Index directive. 7.4. Install Template The goal of the Install template is to use an image already stored in an identified component to copy into a second component. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 26] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 This template is typically used with the Component Download template, however a modification to that template is required: the Component Download operations are moved from the Payload Install sequence to the Payload Fetch sequence. Then, the install sequence contains the following commands: * Set Component Index directive (see Section 8.4.10.1) * Override Parameters directive (see Section 8.4.10.3) for Source Component (see Section 8.4.8.11) * Copy directive (see Section 8.4.10.5) * Check Image Match condition (see Section 8.4.9.2) 7.5. Integrated Payload Template The goal of the Integrated Payload template is to install a payload that is included in the manifest envelope. It is identical to the Component Download template (Section 7.3). An Author MAY choose to place a payload in the envelope of a manifest. The payload envelope key MUST be a string. The payload MUST be serialized in a bstr element. The URI for a payload enclosed in this way MAY be expressed as a fragment-only reference, as defined in [RFC3986], Section 4.4, for example: "#device-model-v1.2.3.bin". An intermediary, such as a Network Operator, MAY choose to pre-fetch a payload and add it to the manifest envelope, using the URI as the key. 7.6. Load from Nonvolatile Storage Template The goal of the Load from Nonvolatile Storage template is to load an image from a non-volatile component into a volatile component, for example loading a firmware image from external Flash into RAM. The following commands are placed into the load sequence: * Set Component Index directive (see Section 8.4.10.1) * Override Parameters directive (see Section 8.4.10.3) for Source Component (see Section 8.4.8) * Copy directive (see Section 8.4.10.5) Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 27] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 As outlined in Section 6.4, the Copy directive needs a source and a destination to be configured. The source is configured via Component Index (with the Set Parameters directive) and the destination is configured via the Set Component Index directive. 7.7. A/B Image Template The goal of the A/B Image Template is to acquire, validate, and invoke one of two images, based on a test. The following commands are placed in the common block: * Set Component Index directive (see Section 8.4.10.1) * Try Each - First Sequence: o Override Parameters directive (see Section 8.4.10.3, Section 8.4.8) for Slot A o Check Slot Condition (see Section 8.4.9.4) o Override Parameters directive (see Section 8.4.10.3) for Image Digest A and Image Size A (see Section 8.4.8) - Second Sequence: o Override Parameters directive (see Section 8.4.10.3, Section 8.4.8) for Slot B o Check Slot Condition (see Section 8.4.9.4) o Override Parameters directive (see Section 8.4.10.3) for Image Digest B and Image Size B (see Section 8.4.8) The following commands are placed in the fetch block or install block * Set Component Index directive (see Section 8.4.10.1) * Try Each - First Sequence: o Override Parameters directive (see Section 8.4.10.3, Section 8.4.8) for Slot A o Check Slot Condition (see Section 8.4.9.4) Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 28] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 o Set Parameters directive (see Section 8.4.10.3) for URI A (see Section 8.4.8) - Second Sequence: o Override Parameters directive (see Section 8.4.10.3, Section 8.4.8) for Slot B o Check Slot Condition (see Section 8.4.9.4) o Set Parameters directive (see Section 8.4.10.3) for URI B (see Section 8.4.8) * Fetch If Trusted Invocation (Section 7.2) is used, only the run sequence is added to this template, since the shared sequence is populated by this template: * Set Component Index directive (see Section 8.4.10.1) * Try Each - First Sequence: o Override Parameters directive (see Section 8.4.10.3, Section 8.4.8) for Slot A o Check Slot Condition (see Section 8.4.9.4) - Second Sequence: o Override Parameters directive (see Section 8.4.10.3, Section 8.4.8) for Slot B o Check Slot Condition (see Section 8.4.9.4) * Invoke NOTE: Any test can be used to select between images, Check Slot Condition is used in this template because it is a typical test for execute-in-place devices. 8. Metadata Structure The metadata for SUIT updates is composed of several primary constituent parts: Authentication Information, Manifest, Severable Elements and Integrated Payloads. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 29] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 For a diagram of the metadata structure, see Section 5. 8.1. Encoding Considerations The map indices in the envelope encoding are reset to 1 for each map within the structure. This is to keep the indices as small as possible. The goal is to keep the index objects to single bytes (CBOR positive integers 1-23). Wherever enumerations are used, they are started at 1. This allows detection of several common software errors that are caused by uninitialized variables. Positive numbers in enumerations are reserved for IANA registration. Negative numbers are used to identify application-specific values, as described in Section 11. All elements of the envelope must be wrapped in a bstr to minimize the complexity of the code that evaluates the cryptographic integrity of the element and to ensure correct serialization for integrity and authenticity checks. All CBOR maps in the Manifest and manifest envelope MUST be encoded with the canonical CBOR ordering as defined in [RFC8949]. 8.2. Envelope The Envelope contains each of the other primary constituent parts of the SUIT metadata. It allows for modular processing of the manifest by ordering components in the expected order of processing. The Envelope is encoded as a CBOR Map. Each element of the Envelope is enclosed in a bstr, which allows computation of a message digest against known bounds. 8.3. Authenticated Manifests SUIT_Authentication contains a list of elements, which consist of a SUIT_Digest calculated over the manifest, and zero or more SUIT_Authentication_Block's calculated over the SUIT_Digest. SUIT_Authentication = [ bstr .cbor SUIT_Digest, * bstr .cbor SUIT_Authentication_Block ] SUIT_Authentication_Block /= COSE_Mac_Tagged SUIT_Authentication_Block /= COSE_Sign_Tagged SUIT_Authentication_Block /= COSE_Mac0_Tagged SUIT_Authentication_Block /= COSE_Sign1_Tagged Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 30] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 The SUIT_Digest is computed over the bstr-wrapped SUIT_Manifest that is present in the SUIT_Envelope at the suit-manifest key. The SUIT_Digest MUST always be present. The Manifest Processor requires a SUIT_Authentication_Block to be present. The manifest MUST be protected from tampering between the time of creation and the time of signing/MACing. The SUIT_Authentication_Block is computed using detached payloads, as described in RFC 9052 [RFC9052]. The detached payload in each case is the bstr-wrapped SUIT_Digest at the beginning of the list. Signers (or MAC calculators) MUST verify the SUIT_Digest prior to performing the cryptographic computation to avoid "Time-of-check to time-of-use" type of attack. When multiple SUIT_Authentication_Blocks are present, then each SUIT_Authentication_Block MUST be computed over the same SUIT_Digest but using a different algorithm or signing/MAC authority. This feature also allows to transition to new algorithms, such as post- quantum cryptography (PQC) algorithms. The SUIT_Authentication structure MUST come before the suit-manifest element, regardless of canonical encoding of CBOR. The algorithms used in SUIT_Authentication are defined by the profiles declared in [I-D.ietf-suit-mti]. 8.4. Manifest The manifest contains: * a version number (see Section 8.4.1) * a sequence number (see Section 8.4.2) * a reference URI (see Section 8.4.3) * a common structure with information that is shared between command sequences (see Section 8.4.5) * one or more lists of commands that the Recipient should perform (see Section 8.4.6) * a reference to the full manifest (see Section 8.4.3) * human-readable text describing the manifest found in the SUIT_Envelope (see Section 8.4.4) The Text section, or any Command Sequence of the Update Procedure (Image Fetch, Image Installation and, System Validation) can be either a CBOR structure or a SUIT_Digest. In each of these cases, Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 31] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 the SUIT_Digest provides for a severable element. Severable elements are RECOMMENDED to implement. In particular, the human-readable text SHOULD be severable, since most useful text elements occupy more space than a SUIT_Digest, but are not needed by the Recipient. Because SUIT_Digest is a CBOR Array and each severable element is a CBOR bstr, it is straight-forward for a Recipient to determine whether an element has been severed. The key used for a severable element is the same in the SUIT_Manifest and in the SUIT_Envelope so that a Recipient can easily identify the correct data in the envelope. See Section 8.4.12 for more detail. 8.4.1. suit-manifest-version The suit-manifest-version indicates the version of serialization used to encode the manifest. Version 1 is the version described in this document. suit-manifest-version is REQUIRED to implement. 8.4.2. suit-manifest-sequence-number The suit-manifest-sequence-number is a monotonically increasing anti- rollback counter. Each Recipient MUST reject any manifest that has a sequence number lower than its current sequence number. For convenience, an implementer MAY use a UTC timestamp in seconds as the sequence number. suit-manifest-sequence-number is REQUIRED to implement. 8.4.3. suit-reference-uri suit-reference-uri is a URI where a full version of this manifest can be found. This is convenient for allowing management systems to show the severed elements of a manifest when this URI is reported by a Recipient after installation. This document is only concerned with the transport of a URI which is intended for machine readable uses, not human readable uses. The encoding is the same as CBOR Tag 32, however the tag is omitted because it is implied by context. 8.4.4. suit-text suit-text SHOULD be a severable element. suit-text is a map of language identifiers (identical to Tag38 of RFC9290, Appendix A) to language-specific text maps. Each language-specific text map is a map containing two different types of pair: * integer => text * SUIT_Component_Identifier => map The SUIT_Text_Map is defined in the following CDDL. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 32] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 tag38-ltag = text .regexp "[a-zA-Z]{1,8}(-[a-zA-Z0-9]{1,8})*" SUIT_Text_Map = { + tag38-ltag => SUIT_Text_LMap } SUIT_Text_LMap = { SUIT_Text_Keys, * SUIT_Component_Identifier => { SUIT_Text_Component_Keys } } Each SUIT_Component_Identifier => map entry contains a map of integer => text values. All SUIT_Component_Identifiers present in suit-text MUST also be present in suit-common (Section 8.4.5). suit-text contains all the human-readable information that describes any and all parts of the manifest, its payload(s) and its resource(s). The text section is typically severable, allowing manifests to be distributed without the text, since end-nodes do not require text. The meaning of each field is described below. Each section MAY be present. If present, each section MUST be as described. Negative integer IDs are reserved for application- specific text values. The following table describes the text fields available in suit-text: +================================+==================================+ | CDDL Structure | Description | +================================+==================================+ | suit-text-manifest-description | Free text description of | | | the manifest | +--------------------------------+----------------------------------+ | suit-text-update-description | Free text description of | | | the update | +--------------------------------+----------------------------------+ | suit-text-manifest-json-source | The JSON-formatted document | | | that was used to create the | | | manifest | +--------------------------------+----------------------------------+ | suit-text-manifest-yaml-source | The YAML-formatted document | | | [YAML] that was used to | | | create the manifest | +--------------------------------+----------------------------------+ Table 3 Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 33] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 The following table describes the text fields available in each map identified by a SUIT_Component_Identifier. +=================================+===============================+ | CDDL Structure | Description | +=================================+===============================+ | suit-text-vendor-name | Free text vendor name | +---------------------------------+-------------------------------+ | suit-text-model-name | Free text model name | +---------------------------------+-------------------------------+ | suit-text-vendor-domain | The domain used to create the | | | vendor-id condition (see | | | Section 8.4.8.2) | +---------------------------------+-------------------------------+ | suit-text-model-info | The information used to | | | create the class-id condition | | | (see Section 8.4.8.2) | +---------------------------------+-------------------------------+ | suit-text-component-description | Free text description of each | | | component in the manifest | +---------------------------------+-------------------------------+ | suit-text-component-version | A free text representation of | | | the component version | +---------------------------------+-------------------------------+ Table 4 suit-text is OPTIONAL to implement. 8.4.5. suit-common suit-common encodes all the information that is shared between each of the command sequences, including: suit-components, and suit- shared-sequence. suit-common is REQUIRED to implement. suit-components is a list of SUIT_Component_Identifier (Section 8.4.5.1) blocks that specify the component identifiers that will be affected by the content of the current manifest. suit- components is REQUIRED to implement. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 34] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 suit-shared-sequence is a SUIT_Command_Sequence to execute prior to executing any other command sequence. Typical actions in suit- shared-sequence include setting expected Recipient identity and image digests when they are conditional (see Section 8.4.10.2 and Section 7.7 for more information on conditional sequences). suit- shared-sequence is RECOMMENDED to implement. Whenever a parameter or Try Each command is required by more than one Command Sequence, placing that parameter or command in suit-shared-sequence results in a smaller encoding. 8.4.5.1. SUIT_Component_Identifier A component is a unit of code or data that can be targeted by an update. To facilitate composite devices, components are identified by a list of CBOR byte strings, which allows construction of hierarchical component structures. Components are identified by Component Identifiers, but referenced in commands by Component Index; Component Identifiers are arrays of binary strings and a Component Index is an index into the array of Component Identifiers. A Component Identifier can be trivial, such as the simple array [h'00']. It can also represent a filesystem path by encoding each segment of the path as an element in the list. For example, the path "/usr/bin/env" would encode to ['usr','bin','env']. This hierarchical construction allows a component identifier to identify any part of a complex, multi-component system. 8.4.6. SUIT_Command_Sequence A SUIT_Command_Sequence defines a series of actions that the Recipient MUST take to accomplish a particular goal. These goals are defined in the manifest and include: 1. Payload Fetch: suit-payload-fetch is a SUIT_Command_Sequence to execute in order to obtain a payload. Some manifests may include these actions in the suit-install section instead if they operate in a streaming installation mode. This is particularly relevant for constrained devices without any temporary storage for staging the update. suit-payload-fetch is OPTIONAL to implement because it is not relevant in all bootloaders. 2. Payload Installation: suit-install is a SUIT_Command_Sequence to execute in order to install a payload. Typical actions include verifying a payload stored in temporary storage, copying a staged payload from temporary storage, and unpacking a payload. suit- install is OPTIONAL to implement. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 35] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 3. Image Validation: suit-validate is a SUIT_Command_Sequence to execute in order to validate that the result of applying the update is correct. Typical actions involve image validation. suit-validate is REQUIRED to implement. 4. Image Loading: suit-load is a SUIT_Command_Sequence to execute in order to prepare a payload for execution. Typical actions include copying an image from permanent storage into RAM, optionally including actions such as decryption or decompression. suit-load is OPTIONAL to implement. 5. Invoke or Boot: suit-invoke is a SUIT_Command_Sequence to execute in order to invoke an image. suit-invoke typically contains a single instruction: the "invoke" directive, but may also contain an image condition. suit-invoke is OPTIONAL to implement because it not needed for restart-based invocation. Goals 1,2,3 form the Update Procedure. Goals 3,4,5 form the Invocation Procedure. Each Command Sequence follows exactly the same structure to ensure that the parser is as simple as possible. Lists of commands are constructed from two kinds of element: 1. Conditions that MUST be true and any failure is treated as a failure of the update/load/invocation 2. Directives that MUST be executed. Each condition is composed of: 1. A command code identifier 2. A SUIT_Reporting_Policy (Section 8.4.7) Each directive is composed of: 1. A command code identifier 2. An argument block or a SUIT_Reporting_Policy (Section 8.4.7) Argument blocks are consumed only by flow-control directives: * Set Component Index * Set/Override Parameters Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 36] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 * Try Each * Run Sequence Reporting policies provide a hint to the manifest processor of whether to add the success or failure of a command to any report that it generates. Many conditions and directives apply to a given component, and these generally grouped together. Therefore, a special command to set the current component index is provided. This index is a numeric index into the Component Identifier table defined at the beginning of the manifest. To facilitate optional conditions, a special directive, suit- directive-try-each (Section 8.4.10.2), is provided. It runs several new lists of conditions/directives, one after another, that are contained as an argument to the directive. By default, it assumes that a failure of a condition should not indicate a failure of the update/invocation, but a parameter is provided to override this behavior. See suit-parameter-soft-failure (Section 8.4.8.15). 8.4.7. Reporting Policy To facilitate construction of Reports that describe the success or failure of a given Procedure, each command is given a Reporting Policy. This is an integer bitfield that follows the command and indicates what the Recipient should do with the Record of executing the command. The options are summarized in the table below. +=============================+==================================+ | Policy | Description | +=============================+==================================+ | suit-send-record-on-success | Record when the command succeeds | +-----------------------------+----------------------------------+ | suit-send-record-on-failure | Record when the command fails | +-----------------------------+----------------------------------+ | suit-send-sysinfo-success | Add system information when the | | | command succeeds | +-----------------------------+----------------------------------+ | suit-send-sysinfo-failure | Add system information when the | | | command fails | +-----------------------------+----------------------------------+ Table 5 Any or all of these policies may be enabled at once. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 37] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 At the completion of each command, a Manifest Processor MAY forward information about the command to a Reporting Engine, which is responsible for reporting boot or update status to a third party. The Reporting Engine is entirely implementation-defined, the reporting policy simply facilitates the Reporting Engine's interface to the SUIT Manifest Processor. The information elements provided to the Reporting Engine are: * The reporting policy * The result of the command * The values of parameters consumed by the command * The system information consumed by the command The Reporting Engine consumes these information elements and decides whether to generate an entry in its report output and which information elements to include based on its internal policy decisions. The Reporting Engine uses the reporting policy provided to it by the SUIT Manifest Processor as a set of hints but MAY choose to ignore these hints and apply its own policy instead. If the component index is set to True or an array when a command is executed with a non-zero reporting policy, then the Reporting Engine MUST receive one set of information elements for each Component, in the order expressed in the Components list or the Component Index array. This specification does not define a particular format of Records or Reports. This specification only defines hints to the Reporting Engine for which information elements it should aggregate into the Report. When used in a Invocation Procedure, the output of the Reporting Engine MAY form the basis of an attestation report. When used in an Update Process, the report MAY form the basis for one or more log entries. 8.4.8. SUIT_Parameters Many conditions and directives require additional information. That information is contained within parameters that can be set in a consistent way. This allows reuse of parameters between commands, thus reducing manifest size. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 38] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 Most parameters are scoped to a specific component. This means that setting a parameter for one component has no effect on the parameters of any other component. The only exceptions to this are two Manifest Processor parameters: Strict Order and Soft Failure. The defined manifest parameters are described below. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 39] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 +==============+==================================+=================+ | Name | CDDL Structure | Reference | +==============+==================================+=================+ | Vendor ID | suit-parameter-vendor-identifier | Section 8.4.8.3 | +--------------+----------------------------------+-----------------+ | Class ID | suit-parameter-class-identifier | Section 8.4.8.4 | +--------------+----------------------------------+-----------------+ | Device ID | suit-parameter-device-identifier | Section 8.4.8.5 | +--------------+----------------------------------+-----------------+ | Image | suit-parameter-image-digest | Section 8.4.8.6 | | Digest | | | +--------------+----------------------------------+-----------------+ | Image | suit-parameter-image-size | Section 8.4.8.7 | | Size | | | +--------------+----------------------------------+-----------------+ | Content | suit-parameter-content | Section 8.4.8.9 | +--------------+----------------------------------+-----------------+ | Component | suit-parameter-component-slot | Section 8.4.8.8 | | Slot | | | +--------------+----------------------------------+-----------------+ | URI | suit-parameter-uri | Section | | | | 8.4.8.10 | +--------------+----------------------------------+-----------------+ | Source | suit-parameter-source-component | Section | | Component | | 8.4.8.11 | +--------------+----------------------------------+-----------------+ | Invoke | suit-parameter-invoke-args | Section | | Args | | 8.4.8.12 | +--------------+----------------------------------+-----------------+ | Fetch | suit-parameter-fetch-arguments | Section | | Arguments | | 8.4.8.13 | +--------------+----------------------------------+-----------------+ | Strict | suit-parameter-strict-order | Section | | Order | | 8.4.8.14 | +--------------+----------------------------------+-----------------+ | Soft | suit-parameter-soft-failure | Section | | Failure | | 8.4.8.15 | +--------------+----------------------------------+-----------------+ | Custom | suit-parameter-custom | Section | | | | 8.4.8.16 | +--------------+----------------------------------+-----------------+ Table 6 CBOR-encoded object parameters are still wrapped in a bstr. This is because it allows a parser that is aggregating parameters to reference the object with a single pointer and traverse it without understanding the contents. This is important for modularization and Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 40] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 division of responsibility within a pull parser. The same consideration does not apply to Directives because those elements are invoked with their arguments immediately. 8.4.8.1. CBOR PEN UUID Namespace Identifier The CBOR PEN UUID Namespace Identifier is constructed as follows: It uses the OID Namespace as a starting point, then uses the CBOR absolute OID encoding for the IANA PEN OID (1.3.6.1.4.1): D8 6F # tag(111) 45 # bytes(5) # Absolute OID encoding of IANA Private Enterprise Number: # 1.3. 6. 1. 4. 1 2B 06 01 04 01 # X.690 Clause 8.19 Computing a version 5 UUID from these produces: NAMESPACE_CBOR_PEN = UUID5(NAMESPACE_OID, h'D86F452B06010401') NAMESPACE_CBOR_PEN = 47fbdabb-f2e4-55f0-bb39-3620c2f6df4e 8.4.8.2. Constructing UUIDs Several conditions use identifiers to determine whether a manifest matches a given Recipient or not. These identifiers are defined to be RFC 4122bis [RFC4122bis] UUIDs. These UUIDs are not human- readable and are therefore used for machine-based processing only. A Recipient MAY match any number of UUIDs for vendor or class identifier. This may be relevant to physical or software modules. For example, a Recipient that has an OS and one or more applications might list one Vendor ID for the OS and one or more additional Vendor IDs for the applications. This Recipient might also have a Class ID that must be matched for the OS and one or more Class IDs for the applications. Identifiers are used for compatibility checks. They MUST NOT be used as assertions of identity. They are evaluated by identifier conditions (Section 8.4.9.1). A more complete example: Imagine a device has the following physical components: 1. A host MCU 2. A WiFi module This same device has three software modules: 1. An operating system 2. A WiFi module interface driver 3. An application Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 41] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 Suppose that the WiFi module's firmware has a proprietary update mechanism and doesn't support manifest processing. This device can report four class IDs: 1. Hardware model/revision 2. OS 3. WiFi module model/revision 4. Application This allows the OS, WiFi module, and application to be updated independently. To combat possible incompatibilities, the OS class ID can be changed each time the OS has a change to its API. This approach allows a vendor to target, for example, all devices with a particular WiFi module with an update, which is a very powerful mechanism, particularly when used for security updates. UUIDs MUST be created according to versions 3, 4, or 5 of [RFC4122bis]. Versions 1 and 2 do not provide a tangible benefit over version 4 for this application. The RECOMMENDED method to create a vendor ID is: Vendor ID = UUID5(DNS_PREFIX, vendor domain name) In this case, the vendor domain name is a UTF-8 encoded string. Since UUID version 5 applies a digest, internationalization considerations are not applied. The native UTF-8 domain name is used. If the Vendor ID is a UUID, the RECOMMENDED method to create a Class ID is: Class ID = UUID5(Vendor ID, Class-Specific-Information) If the Vendor ID is a CBOR PEN (see Section 8.4.8.3), the RECOMMENDED method to create a Class ID is: Class ID = UUID5( UUID5(NAMESPACE_CBOR_PEN, CBOR_PEN), Class-Specific-Information) Class-specific-information is composed of a variety of data, for example: Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 42] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 * Model number. * Hardware revision. * Bootloader version (for immutable bootloaders). 8.4.8.3. suit-parameter-vendor-identifier suit-parameter-vendor-identifier may be presented in one of two ways: * A Private Enterprise Number * A byte string containing a UUID [RFC4122bis] Private Enterprise Numbers are encoded as a relative OID, according to the definition in [RFC9090]. All PENs are relative to the IANA PEN: 1.3.6.1.4.1. 8.4.8.4. suit-parameter-class-identifier A RFC 4122 UUID representing the class of the device or component. The UUID is encoded as a 16 byte bstr, containing the raw bytes of the UUID. It MUST be constructed as described in Section 8.4.8.2 8.4.8.5. suit-parameter-device-identifier A RFC 4122 UUID representing the specific device or component. The UUID is encoded as a 16 byte bstr, containing the raw bytes of the UUID. It MUST be constructed as described in Section 8.4.8.2 8.4.8.6. suit-parameter-image-digest A fingerprint computed over the component itself, encoded in the SUIT_Digest Section 10 structure. The SUIT_Digest is wrapped in a bstr, as required in Section 8.4.8. 8.4.8.7. suit-parameter-image-size The size of the firmware image in bytes. This size is encoded as a positive integer. 8.4.8.8. suit-parameter-component-slot This parameter sets the slot index of a component. Some components support multiple possible Slots (offsets into a storage area). This parameter describes the intended Slot to use, identified by its index into the component's storage area. This slot MUST be encoded as a positive integer. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 43] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 8.4.8.9. suit-parameter-content A block of raw data for use with Section 8.4.10.6. It contains a byte string of data to be written to a specified component ID in the same way as a fetch or a copy. If data is encoded this way, it should be small, e.g. 10's of bytes. Large payloads, e.g. 1000's of bytes, written via this method might prevent the manifest from being held in memory during validation. Typical applications include small configuration parameters. The size of payload embedded in suit-parameter-content impacts the security requirement defined in [RFC9124], Section 4.3.21 REQ.SEC.MFST.CONST: Manifest Kept Immutable between Check and Use. Actual limitations on payload size for suit-parameter-content depend on the application, in particular the available memory that satisfies REQ.SEC.MFST.CONST. If the availability of tamper resistant memory is less than the manifest size, then REQ.SEC.MFST.CONST cannot be satisfied. If suit-parameter-content is instantiated in a severable command sequence, then this becomes functionally very similar to an integrated payload, which may be a better choice. 8.4.8.10. suit-parameter-uri A URI Reference [RFC3986] from which to fetch a resource. The encoding is the same as CBOR Tag 32, however the tag is omitted because it is implied by the context. This document is only concerned with the transport of a URI which is intended for machine readable uses, not human readable uses. 8.4.8.11. suit-parameter-source-component This parameter sets the source component to be used with either suit- directive-copy (Section 8.4.10.5) or with suit-directive-swap (Section 8.4.10.9). The current Component, as set by suit-directive- set-component-index defines the destination, and suit-parameter- source-component defines the source. 8.4.8.12. suit-parameter-invoke-args This parameter contains an encoded set of arguments for suit- directive-invoke (Section 8.4.10.7). The arguments MUST be provided as an implementation-defined bstr. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 44] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 8.4.8.13. suit-parameter-fetch-arguments An implementation-defined set of arguments to suit-directive-fetch (Section 8.4.10.4). Arguments are encoded in a bstr. 8.4.8.14. suit-parameter-strict-order The Strict Order Parameter allows a manifest to govern when directives can be executed out-of-order. This allows for systems that have a sensitivity to order of updates to choose the order in which they are executed. It also allows for more advanced systems to parallelize their handling of updates. Strict Order defaults to True. It MAY be set to False when the order of operations does not matter. When arriving at the end of a command sequence, ALL commands MUST have completed, regardless of the state of SUIT_Parameter_Strict_Order. If SUIT_Parameter_Strict_Order is returned to True, ALL preceding commands MUST complete before the next command is executed. See Section 6.7 for behavioral description of Strict Order. 8.4.8.15. suit-parameter-soft-failure When executing a command sequence inside suit-directive-try-each (Section 8.4.10.2) or suit-directive-run-sequence (Section 8.4.10.8) and a condition failure occurs, the manifest processor aborts the sequence. For suit-directive-try-each, if Soft Failure is True, the next sequence in Try Each is invoked, otherwise suit-directive-try- each fails with the condition failure code. In suit-directive-run- sequence, if Soft Failure is True the suit-directive-run-sequence simply halts with no side-effects and the Manifest Processor continues with the following command, otherwise, the suit-directive- run-sequence fails with the condition failure code. suit-parameter-soft-failure is scoped to the enclosing SUIT_Command_Sequence. Its value is discarded when the enclosing SUIT_Command_Sequence terminates and suit-parameter-soft-failure reverts to the value it had prior to the invocation of the SUIT_Command_Sequence. Nested SUIT_Command_Sequences do not inherit the enclosing sequence's suit-parameter-soft-failure. It MUST NOT be set outside of suit-directive-try-each or suit-directive-run- sequence, modifying suit-parameter-soft-failure outside of these circumstances causes an Abort. When suit-directive-try-each is invoked, Soft Failure defaults to True in every SUIT_Command_Sequence in the suit-directive-try-each argument. An Update Author may choose to set Soft Failure to False if they require a failed condition in a sequence to force an Abort. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 45] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 When the enclosing SUIT_Command_Sequence terminates, suit-parameter- soft-failure reverts to the value it held before the SUIT_Command_Sequence was invoked. When suit-directive-run-sequence is invoked, Soft Failure defaults to False. An Update Author may choose to make failures soft within a suit-directive-run-sequence. 8.4.8.16. suit-parameter-custom This parameter is an extension point for any proprietary, application specific conditions and directives. It MUST NOT be used in the shared sequence. This effectively scopes each custom command to a particular Vendor Identifier/Class Identifier pair. suit-parameter-custom MAY be consumed by any command, in an application-specific way, however if a suit-parameter-custom is absent, then all standardised suit-commands MUST execute correctly. In this respect, suit-parameter-custom MUST be treated as a hint by any standardised suit-command that consumes it. 8.4.9. SUIT_Condition Conditions are used to define mandatory properties of a system in order for an update to be applied. They can be pre-conditions or post-conditions of any directive or series of directives, depending on where they are placed in the list. All Conditions specify a Reporting Policy as described Section 8.4.7. Conditions include: Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 46] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 +===================+==================================+===========+ | Name | CDDL Structure | Reference | +===================+==================================+===========+ | Vendor Identifier | suit-condition-vendor-identifier | Section | | | | 8.4.9.1 | +-------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+ | Class Identifier | suit-condition-class-identifier | Section | | | | 8.4.9.1 | +-------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+ | Device Identifier | suit-condition-device-identifier | Section | | | | 8.4.9.1 | +-------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+ | Image Match | suit-condition-image-match | Section | | | | 8.4.9.2 | +-------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+ | Check Content | suit-condition-check-content | Section | | | | 8.4.9.3 | +-------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+ | Component Slot | suit-condition-component-slot | Section | | | | 8.4.9.4 | +-------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+ | Abort | suit-condition-abort | Section | | | | 8.4.9.5 | +-------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+ | Custom Condition | suit-command-custom | Section | | | | 8.4.11 | +-------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+ Table 7 The abstract description of these conditions is defined in Section 6.4. Conditions compare parameters against properties of the system. These properties may be asserted in many different ways, including: calculation on-demand, volatile definition in memory, static definition within the manifest processor, storage in known location within an image, storage within a key storage system, storage in One- Time-Programmable memory, inclusion in mask ROM, or inclusion as a register in hardware. Some of these assertion methods are global in scope, such as a hardware register, some are scoped to an individual component, such as storage at a known location in an image, and some assertion methods can be either global or component-scope, based on implementation. Each condition MUST report a result code on completion. If a condition reports failure, then the current sequence of commands MUST terminate. A subsequent command or command sequence MAY continue Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 47] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 executing if suit-parameter-soft-failure (Section 8.4.8.15) is set. If a condition requires additional information, this MUST be specified in one or more parameters before the condition is executed. If a Recipient attempts to process a condition that expects additional information and that information has not been set, it MUST report a failure. If a Recipient encounters an unknown condition, it MUST report a failure. Condition labels in the positive number range are reserved for IANA registration while those in the negative range are custom conditions reserved for proprietary definition by the author of a manifest processor. See Section 11 for more details. 8.4.9.1. suit-condition-vendor-identifier, suit-condition-class- identifier, and suit-condition-device-identifier There are three identifier-based conditions: suit-condition-vendor- identifier, suit-condition-class-identifier, and suit-condition- device-identifier. Each of these conditions match a UUID [RFC4122bis] that MUST have already been set as a parameter. The installing Recipient MUST match the specified UUID in order to consider the manifest valid. These identifiers are scoped by component in the manifest. Each component MAY match more than one identifier. Care is needed to ensure that manifests correctly identify their targets using these conditions. Using only a generic class ID for a device-specific firmware could result in matching devices that are not compatible. The Recipient uses the ID parameter that has already been set using the Set Parameters directive. If no ID has been set, this condition fails. suit-condition-class-identifier and suit-condition-vendor- identifier are REQUIRED to implement. suit-condition-device- identifier is OPTIONAL to implement. Each identifier condition compares the corresponding identifier parameter to a parameter asserted to the Manifest Processor by the Recipient. Identifiers MUST be known to the Manifest Processor in order to evaluate compatibility. 8.4.9.2. suit-condition-image-match Verify that the current component matches the suit-parameter-image- digest (Section 8.4.8.6) for the current component. The digest is verified against the digest specified in the Component's parameters list. If no digest is specified, the condition fails. suit- condition-image-match is REQUIRED to implement. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 48] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 8.4.9.3. suit-condition-check-content This directive compares the specified component identifier to the data indicated by suit-parameter-content. This functions similarly to suit-condition-image-match, however it does a direct, byte-by-byte comparison rather than a digest-based comparison. Because it is possible that an early stop to check-content could reveal information through timing, suit-condition-check-content MUST be constant time: no early exits. The following pseudo-code described an example content checking algorithm: // content & component must be same length // returns 0 for match int check_content(content, component, length) { int residual = 0; for (i = 0; i < length; i++) { residual |= content[i] ^ component[i]; } return residual; } 8.4.9.4. suit-condition-component-slot Verify that the slot index of the current component matches the slot index set in suit-parameter-component-slot (Section 8.4.8.8). This condition allows a manifest to select between several images to match a target slot. 8.4.9.5. suit-condition-abort Unconditionally fail. This operation is typically used in conjunction with suit-directive-try-each (Section 8.4.10.2). 8.4.10. SUIT_Directive Directives are used to define the behavior of the recipient. Directives include: Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 49] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 +===============+====================================+===========+ | Name | CDDL Structure | Reference | +===============+====================================+===========+ | Set Component | suit-directive-set-component-index | Section | | Index | | 8.4.10.1 | +---------------+------------------------------------+-----------+ | Try Each | suit-directive-try-each | Section | | | | 8.4.10.2 | +---------------+------------------------------------+-----------+ | Override | suit-directive-override-parameters | Section | | Parameters | | 8.4.10.3 | +---------------+------------------------------------+-----------+ | Fetch | suit-directive-fetch | Section | | | | 8.4.10.4 | +---------------+------------------------------------+-----------+ | Copy | suit-directive-copy | Section | | | | 8.4.10.5 | +---------------+------------------------------------+-----------+ | Write | suit-directive-write | Section | | | | 8.4.10.6 | +---------------+------------------------------------+-----------+ | Invoke | suit-directive-invoke | Section | | | | 8.4.10.7 | +---------------+------------------------------------+-----------+ | Run Sequence | suit-directive-run-sequence | Section | | | | 8.4.10.8 | +---------------+------------------------------------+-----------+ | Swap | suit-directive-swap | Section | | | | 8.4.10.9 | +---------------+------------------------------------+-----------+ | Custom | suit-command-custom | Section | | Directive | | 8.4.11 | +---------------+------------------------------------+-----------+ Table 8 The abstract description of these commands is defined in Section 6.4. When a Recipient executes a Directive, it MUST report a result code. If the Directive reports failure, then the current Command Sequence MUST be terminated. 8.4.10.1. suit-directive-set-component-index Set Component Index defines the component to which successive directives and conditions will apply. The Set Component Index arguments are described in Section 6.5. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 50] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 If the following commands apply to ONE component, an unsigned integer index into the component list is used. If the following commands apply to ALL components, then the boolean value "True" is used instead of an index. If the following commands apply to more than one, but not all components, then an array of unsigned integer indices into the component list is used. If component index is set to True when a command is invoked, then the command applies to all components, in the order they appear in suit- common-components. When the Manifest Processor invokes a command while the component index is set to True, it must execute the command once for each possible component index, ensuring that the command receives the parameters corresponding to that component index. 8.4.10.2. suit-directive-try-each This command runs several SUIT_Command_Sequence instances, one after another, in a strict order, until one succeeds or the list is exhausted. Use this command to implement a "try/catch-try/catch" sequence. Manifest processors MAY implement this command. suit-parameter-soft-failure (Section 8.4.8.15) is initialized to True at the beginning of each sequence. If one sequence aborts due to a condition failure, the next is started. If no sequence completes without condition failure, then suit-directive-try-each returns an error. If a particular application calls for all sequences to fail and still continue, then an empty sequence (nil) can be added to the Try Each Argument. The argument to suit-directive-try-each is a list of SUIT_Command_Sequence. suit-directive-try-each does not specify a reporting policy. 8.4.10.3. suit-directive-override-parameters suit-directive-override-parameters replaces any listed parameters that are already set with the values that are provided in its argument. This allows a manifest to prevent replacement of critical parameters. Available parameters are defined in Section 8.4.8. suit-directive-override-parameters does not specify a reporting policy. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 51] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 8.4.10.4. suit-directive-fetch suit-directive-fetch instructs the manifest processor to obtain one or more manifests or payloads, as specified by the manifest index and component index, respectively. suit-directive-fetch can target one or more payloads. suit-directive- fetch retrieves each component listed in component-index. If component-index is True, instead of an integer, then all current manifest components are fetched. If component-index is an array, then all listed components are fetched. suit-directive-fetch typically takes no arguments unless one is needed to modify fetch behavior. If an argument is needed, it must be wrapped in a bstr and set in suit-parameter-fetch-arguments. suit-directive-fetch reads the URI parameter to find the source of the fetch it performs. The size and digest of the payload to be fetched are typically set prior to the invokation of suit-directive-fetch. If both suit- parameter-image-digest and suit-parameter-image-size are set for the current component when suit-directive-fetch is invoked, the Manifest Processor MAY choose to optimize the fetch by: * Checking if the target component matches the digest supplied before fetching. * Checking if another component matches the digest supplied before fetching. The exact mechanisms of these optimizations are implementation defined. 8.4.10.5. suit-directive-copy suit-directive-copy instructs the manifest processor to obtain one or more payloads, as specified by the component index. As described in Section 6.5 component index may be a single integer, a list of integers, or True. suit-directive-copy retrieves each component specified by the current component-index, respectively. suit-directive-copy reads its source from suit-parameter-source- component (Section 8.4.8.11). If either the source component parameter or the source component itself is absent, this command fails. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 52] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 The size and digest of the payload to be fetched are typically set prior to the invokation of suit-directive-copy. If both suit- parameter-image-digest and suit-parameter-image-size are set for the current component when suit-directive-copy is invoked, the Manifest Processor MAY choose to optimize the copy by: * Checking if the target component matches the digest supplied before copying. * Checking if the source component matches the digest supplied before copying. The first optimization avoids a copy operation when the data is the same. The second optimization avoids a copy of a corrupted image. The exact mechanisms of these optimizations are implementation defined. 8.4.10.6. suit-directive-write This directive writes a small block of data, specified in Section 8.4.8.9, to a component. Encoding Considerations: Careful consideration must be taken to determine whether it is more appropriate to use an integrated payload or to use Section 8.4.8.9 for a particular application. While the encoding of suit-directive-write is smaller than an integrated payload, a large suit-parameter-content payload may prevent the manifest processor from holding the command sequence in memory while executing it. 8.4.10.7. suit-directive-invoke suit-directive-invoke directs the manifest processor to transfer execution to the current Component Index. When this is invoked, the manifest processor MAY be unloaded and execution continues in the Component Index. Arguments are provided to suit-directive-invoke through suit-parameter-invoke-arguments (Section 8.4.8.12) and are forwarded to the executable code located in Component Index in an application-specific way. For example, this could form the Linux Kernel Command Line if booting a Linux device. If the executable code at Component Index is constructed in such a way that it does not unload the manifest processor, then the manifest processor MAY resume execution after the executable completes. This allows the manifest processor to invoke suitable helpers and to verify them with image conditions. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 53] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 8.4.10.8. suit-directive-run-sequence To enable conditional commands, and to allow several strictly ordered sequences to be executed out-of-order, suit-directive-run-sequence allows the manifest processor to execute its argument as a SUIT_Command_Sequence. The argument must be wrapped in a bstr. This also allows a sequence of instructions to be iterated over, once for each current component index, when component-index = true or component-index = list. See Section 6.5. When a sequence is executed, any failure of a condition causes immediate termination of the sequence. When suit-directive-run-sequence completes, it forwards the last status code that occurred in the sequence. If the Soft Failure parameter is true, then suit-directive-run-sequence only fails when a directive in the argument sequence fails. suit-parameter-soft-failure (Section 8.4.8.15) defaults to False when suit-directive-run-sequence begins. Its value is discarded when suit-directive-run-sequence terminates. 8.4.10.9. suit-directive-swap suit-directive-swap instructs the manifest processor to move the source to the destination and the destination to the source simultaneously. Swap has nearly identical semantics to suit- directive-copy except that suit-directive-swap replaces the source with the current contents of the destination in an application- defined way. As with suit-directive-copy, if the source component is missing, this command fails. 8.4.11. suit-command-custom suit-command-custom describes any experimental, proprietary, or application specific condition or directive. This is encoded as a negative integer, chosen by the firmware developer. If additional information must be provided, it should be encoded in a custom parameter (as described in Section 8.4.8). Any number of custom commands is permitted. SUIT_Command_Custom is OPTIONAL to implement. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 54] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 8.4.12. Integrity Check Values When the Text section or any Command Sequence of the Update Procedure is made severable, it is moved to the Envelope and replaced with a SUIT_Digest. The SUIT_Digest is computed over the entire bstr enclosing the Manifest element that has been moved to the Envelope. Each element that is made severable from the Manifest is placed in the Envelope. The keys for the envelope elements have the same values as the keys for the manifest elements. Each Integrity Check Value covers the corresponding Envelope Element as described in Section 8.5. 8.5. Severable Elements Because the manifest can be used by different actors at different times, some parts of the manifest can be removed or "Severed" without affecting later stages of the lifecycle. Severing of information is achieved by separating that information from the signed container so that removing it does not affect the signature. This means that ensuring integrity of severable parts of the manifest is a requirement for the signed portion of the manifest. Severing some parts makes it possible to discard parts of the manifest that are no longer necessary. This is important because it allows the storage used by the manifest to be greatly reduced. For example, no text size limits are needed if text is removed from the manifest prior to delivery to a constrained device. At time of manifest creation, the Author MAY chose to make a manifest element severable by removing it from the manifest, encoding it in a bstr, and placing a SUIT_Digest of the bstr in the manifest so that it can still be authenticated. Making an element severable changes the digest of the manifest, so the signature MUST be computed after manifest elements are made severable. Only Manifest Elements with corresponding elements in the SUIT_Envelope can be made severable (see Section 11.1 for SUIT_Envelope elements). The SUIT_Digest typically consumes 4 bytes more than the size of the raw digest, therefore elements smaller than (Digest Bits)/8 + 4 SHOULD NOT be severable. Elements larger than (Digest Bits)/8 + 4 MAY be severable, while elements that are much larger than (Digest Bits)/8 + 4 SHOULD be severable. Because of this, all command sequences in the manifest are encoded in a bstr so that there is a single code path needed for all command sequences. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 55] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 9. Access Control Lists SUIT Manifest Processors are RECOMMENDED to use one of the following models for managing permissions in the manifest. First, the simplest model requires that all manifests are authenticated by a single trusted key. This mode has the advantage that only a root manifest needs to be authenticated, since all of its dependencies have digests included in the root manifest. This simplest model can be extended by adding key delegation without much increase in complexity. A second model requires an ACL to be presented to the Recipient, authenticated by a trusted party or stored on the Recipient. This ACL grants access rights for specific component IDs or Component Identifier prefixes to the listed identities or identity groups. Any identity can verify an image digest, but fetching into or fetching from a Component Identifier requires approval from the ACL. A third model allows a Recipient to provide even more fine-grained controls: The ACL lists the Component Identifier or Component Identifier prefix that an identity can use, and also lists the commands and parameters that the identity can use in combination with that Component Identifier. 10. SUIT Digest Container The SUIT digest is a CBOR array containing two elements: an algorithm identifier and a bstr containing the bytes of the digest. Some forms of digest may require additional parameters. These can be added following the digest. The values of the algorithm identifier are found in the IANA "COSE Algorithms" registry [COSE_Alg], which was created by [RFC9054]. SHA-256 (-16) MUST be implemented by all Manifest Processors. Any other algorithm defined in the IANA "COSE Algorithms" registry, such as SHA-512 (-44), MAY be implemented in a Manifest Processor. 11. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to: * allocate CBOR tag 107 (suggested) in the "CBOR Tags" registry for the SUIT Envelope. The CBOR Tag's Data Item is a SUIT_Envelope as defined in Appendix A Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 56] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 * allocate CBOR tag 1070 (suggested) in the "CBOR Tags" registry for the SUIT Manifest. The CBOR Tag's Data Item is a SUIT_Manifest as defined in Appendix A * allocate media type application/suit-envelope in the "Media Types" registry, see below. * setup several registries as described below. IANA is requested to create a new category for Software Update for the Internet of Things (SUIT) and a page within this category for SUIT manifests. IANA is also requested to create several registries defined in the subsections below. For each registry, values 0-255 are Standards Action and 256 or greater are Specification Required. Negative values -255 to 0 are Standards Action, and -256 and lower are Private Use. New entries to those registries need to provide a label, a name and a reference to a specification that describes the functionality. More guidance on the expert review can be found below. 11.1. SUIT Envelope Elements IANA is requested to create a new registry for SUIT envelope elements. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 57] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 +=======+=================+=====================================+ | Label | Name | Reference | +=======+=================+=====================================+ | 0 | Unset Detection | Section 8.1 of [TBD: this document] | +-------+-----------------+-------------------------------------+ | 1 | Reserved | Appendix C.1 of [TBD: this | | | (Delegation) | document] | +-------+-----------------+-------------------------------------+ | 2 | Authentication | Section 8.3 of [TBD: this document] | | | Wrapper | | +-------+-----------------+-------------------------------------+ | 3 | Manifest | Section 8.4 of [TBD: this document] | +-------+-----------------+-------------------------------------+ | 16 | Payload Fetch | Section 8.4.6 of [TBD: this | | | | document] | +-------+-----------------+-------------------------------------+ | 20 | Payload | Section 8.4.6 of [TBD: this | | | Installation | document] | +-------+-----------------+-------------------------------------+ | 23 | Text | Section 8.4.4 of [TBD: this | | | Description | document] | +-------+-----------------+-------------------------------------+ Table 9 11.2. SUIT Manifest Elements IANA is requested to create a new registry for SUIT manifest elements. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 58] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 +=======+==================+=======================================+ | Label | Name | Reference | +=======+==================+=======================================+ | 0 | Unset Detection | Section 8.1 of [TBD: this document] | +-------+------------------+---------------------------------------+ | 1 | Encoding Version | Section 8.4.1 of [TBD: this document] | +-------+------------------+---------------------------------------+ | 2 | Sequence Number | Section 8.4.2 of [TBD: this document] | +-------+------------------+---------------------------------------+ | 3 | Common Data | Section 8.4.5 of [TBD: this document] | +-------+------------------+---------------------------------------+ | 4 | Reference URI | Section 8.4.3 of [TBD: this document] | +-------+------------------+---------------------------------------+ | 7 | Image Validation | Section 8.4.6 of [TBD: this document] | +-------+------------------+---------------------------------------+ | 8 | Image Loading | Section 8.4.6 of [TBD: this document] | +-------+------------------+---------------------------------------+ | 9 | Image Invocation | Section 8.4.6 of [TBD: this document] | +-------+------------------+---------------------------------------+ | 16 | Payload Fetch | Section 8.4.6 of [TBD: this document] | +-------+------------------+---------------------------------------+ | 20 | Payload | Section 8.4.6 of [TBD: this document] | | | Installation | | +-------+------------------+---------------------------------------+ | 23 | Text Description | Section 8.4.4 of [TBD: this document] | +-------+------------------+---------------------------------------+ Table 10 11.3. SUIT Common Elements IANA is requested to create a new registry for SUIT common elements. +=======+=================+=====================================+ | Label | Name | Reference | +=======+=================+=====================================+ | 0 | Unset Detection | Section 8.1 of [TBD: this document] | +-------+-----------------+-------------------------------------+ | 2 | Component | Section 8.4.5 of [TBD: this | | | Identifiers | document] | +-------+-----------------+-------------------------------------+ | 4 | Common Command | Section 8.4.5 of [TBD: this | | | Sequence | document] | +-------+-----------------+-------------------------------------+ Table 11 Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 59] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 11.4. SUIT Commands IANA is requested to create a new registry for SUIT commands. +=======+===================+=====================================+ | Label | Name | Reference | +=======+===================+=====================================+ | 0 | Unset Detection | Section 8.1 of [TBD: this document] | +-------+-------------------+-------------------------------------+ | 1 | Vendor Identifier | Section 8.4.9.1 of [TBD: this | | | | document] | +-------+-------------------+-------------------------------------+ | 2 | Class Identifier | Section 8.4.9.1 of [TBD: this | | | | document] | +-------+-------------------+-------------------------------------+ | 3 | Image Match | Section 8.4.9.2 of [TBD: this | | | | document] | +-------+-------------------+-------------------------------------+ | 5 | Component Slot | Section 8.4.9.4 of [TBD: this | | | | document] | +-------+-------------------+-------------------------------------+ | 6 | Check Content | Section 8.4.9.3 of [TBD: this | | | | document] | +-------+-------------------+-------------------------------------+ | 12 | Set Component | Section 8.4.10.1 of [TBD: this | | | Index | document] | +-------+-------------------+-------------------------------------+ | 14 | Abort | | +-------+-------------------+-------------------------------------+ | 15 | Try Each | Section 8.4.10.2 of [TBD: this | | | | document] | +-------+-------------------+-------------------------------------+ | 18 | Write Content | Section 8.4.10.6 of [TBD: this | | | | document] | +-------+-------------------+-------------------------------------+ | 20 | Override | Section 8.4.10.3 of [TBD: this | | | Parameters | document] | +-------+-------------------+-------------------------------------+ | 21 | Fetch | Section 8.4.10.4 of [TBD: this | | | | document] | +-------+-------------------+-------------------------------------+ | 22 | Copy | Section 8.4.10.5 of [TBD: this | | | | document] | +-------+-------------------+-------------------------------------+ | 23 | Invoke | Section 8.4.10.7 of [TBD: this | | | | document] | +-------+-------------------+-------------------------------------+ | 24 | Device Identifier | Section 8.4.9.1 of [TBD: this | Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 60] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 | | | document] | +-------+-------------------+-------------------------------------+ | 31 | Swap | Section 8.4.10.9 of [TBD: this | | | | document] | +-------+-------------------+-------------------------------------+ | 32 | Run Sequence | Section 8.4.10.8 of [TBD: this | | | | document] | +-------+-------------------+-------------------------------------+ | < | Custom Command | Section 8.4.11 of [TBD: this | | -255 | | document] | +-------+-------------------+-------------------------------------+ Table 12 11.5. SUIT Parameters IANA is requested to create a new registry for SUIT parameters. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 61] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 +=======+=================+=========================================+ | Label | Name | Reference | +=======+=================+=========================================+ | 0 | Unset Detection | Section 8.1 of [TBD: this document] | +-------+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+ | 1 | Vendor ID | Section 8.4.8.3 of [TBD: this | | | | document] | +-------+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+ | 2 | Class ID | Section 8.4.8.4 of [TBD: this | | | | document] | +-------+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+ | 3 | Image Digest | Section 8.4.8.6 of [TBD: this | | | | document] | +-------+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+ | 5 | Component Slot | Section 8.4.8.8 of [TBD: this | | | | document] | +-------+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+ | 12 | Strict Order | Section 8.4.8.14 of [TBD: this | | | | document] | +-------+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+ | 13 | Soft Failure | Section 8.4.8.15 of [TBD: this | | | | document] | +-------+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+ | 14 | Image Size | Section 8.4.8.7 of [TBD: this | | | | document] | +-------+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+ | 18 | Content | Section 8.4.8.9 of [TBD: this | | | | document] | +-------+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+ | 21 | URI | Section 8.4.8.10 of [TBD: this | | | | document] | +-------+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+ | 22 | Source | Section 8.4.8.11 of [TBD: this | | | Component | document] | +-------+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+ | 23 | Invoke Args | Section 8.4.8.12 of [TBD: this | | | | document] | +-------+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+ | 24 | Device ID | Section 8.4.8.5 of [TBD: this | | | | document] | +-------+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+ | < | Custom | Section 8.4.8.16 of [TBD: this | | -255 | | document] | +-------+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+ Table 13 Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 62] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 11.6. SUIT Text Values IANA is requested to create a new registry for SUIT text values. +=======+=================+=====================================+ | Label | Name | Reference | +=======+=================+=====================================+ | 0 | Unset Detection | Section 8.1 of [TBD: this document] | +-------+-----------------+-------------------------------------+ | 1 | Manifest | Section 8.4.4 of [TBD: this | | | Description | document] | +-------+-----------------+-------------------------------------+ | 2 | Update | Section 8.4.4 of [TBD: this | | | Description | document] | +-------+-----------------+-------------------------------------+ | 3 | Manifest JSON | Section 8.4.4 of [TBD: this | | | Source | document] | +-------+-----------------+-------------------------------------+ | 4 | Manifest YAML | Section 8.4.4 of [TBD: this | | | Source | document] | +-------+-----------------+-------------------------------------+ | < | Custom | Section 8.4.4 of [TBD: this | | -255 | | document] | +-------+-----------------+-------------------------------------+ Table 14 11.7. SUIT Component Text Values IANA is requested to create a new registry for SUIT component text values. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 63] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 +=======+=================+=======================================+ | Label | Name | Reference | +=======+=================+=======================================+ | 0 | Unset Detection | Section 8.1 of [TBD: this document] | +-------+-----------------+---------------------------------------+ | 1 | Vendor Name | Section 8.4.4 of [TBD: this document] | +-------+-----------------+---------------------------------------+ | 2 | Model Name | Section 8.4.4 of [TBD: this document] | +-------+-----------------+---------------------------------------+ | 3 | Vendor Domain | Section 8.4.4 of [TBD: this document] | +-------+-----------------+---------------------------------------+ | 4 | Model Info | Section 8.4.4 of [TBD: this document] | +-------+-----------------+---------------------------------------+ | 5 | Component | Section 8.4.4 of [TBD: this document] | | | Description | | +-------+-----------------+---------------------------------------+ | 6 | Component | Section 8.4.4 of [TBD: this document] | | | Version | | +-------+-----------------+---------------------------------------+ | < | Custom | Section 8.4.4 of [TBD: this document] | | -255 | | | +-------+-----------------+---------------------------------------+ Table 15 11.8. Expert Review Instructions The IANA registries established in this document allow values to be added based on expert review. This section gives some general guidelines for what the experts should be looking for, but they are being designated as experts for a reason, so they should be given substantial latitude. Expert reviewers should take into consideration the following points: * Point squatting should be discouraged. Reviewers are encouraged to get sufficient information for registration requests to ensure that the usage is not going to duplicate one that is already registered, and that the point is likely to be used in deployments. The zones tagged as private use are intended for testing purposes and closed environments; code points in other ranges should not be assigned for testing. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 64] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 * Specifications are required for the standards track range of point assignment. Specifications should exist for all other ranges, but early assignment before a specification is available is considered to be permissible. When specifications are not provided, the description provided needs to have sufficient information to identify what the point is being used for. * Experts should take into account the expected usage of fields when approving point assignment. The fact that there is a range for standards track documents does not mean that a standards track document cannot have points assigned outside of that range. The length of the encoded value should be weighed against how many code points of that length are left, the size of device it will be used on, and the number of code points left that encode to that size. * Key assignments in the SUIT Parameters table, particularly those that encode to 1 CBOR byte (-24 to 23) should be reserved for SUIT Directives that match the same key value. 11.9. Media Type Registration This section registers the 'application/suit-envelope+cose' media type in the "Media Types" registry. This media type are used to indicate that the content is a SUIT envelope. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 65] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 Type name: application Subtype name: suit-envelope+cose Required parameters: N/A Optional parameters: N/A Encoding considerations: binary Security considerations: See the Security Considerations section of [[This RFC]]. Interoperability considerations: N/A Published specification: [[This RFC]] Applications that use this media type: Primarily used for Firmware and software updates although the content may also contain configuration data and other information related to software and firmware. Fragment identifier considerations: N/A Additional information: * Deprecated alias names for this type: N/A * Magic number(s): N/A * File extension(s): cbor, suit * Macintosh file type code(s): N/A Person & email address to contact for further information: iesg@ietf.org Intended usage: COMMON Restrictions on usage: N/A Author: Brendan Moran, Change Controller: IESG Provisional registration? No Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 66] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 12. Security Considerations This document is about a manifest format protecting and describing how to retrieve, install, and invoke firmware images and as such it is part of a larger solution for delivering firmware updates to IoT devices. A detailed security treatment can be found in the architecture [RFC9019] and in the information model [RFC9124] documents. The security requirements outlined in [RFC9124] are addressed by this draft and its extensions. The specific mapping of requirements and information elements in [RFC9124] to manifest data structures is outlined in the table below: +============================+===================+===================================+ |Security Requirement |Information Element|Implementation | +============================+===================+===================================+ |REQ.SEC.SEQUENCE |Monotonic Sequence |Section 8.4.2 | | |Number | | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.SEC.COMPATIBLE |Vendor ID |Section 8.4.9.1 | | |Condition, Class ID| | | |Condition | | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.SEC.EXP |Expiration Time |[I-D.ietf-suit-update-management] | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.SEC.AUTHENTIC |Signature, Payload |Section 8.3, Section 8.4.9.2 | | |Digests | | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.SEC.AUTH.IMG_TYPE |Payload Format |[I-D.ietf-suit-update-management] | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.SEC.AUTH.IMG_LOC |Storage Location |Section 8.4.5.1 | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.SEC.AUTH.REMOTE_LOC |Payload Indicator |Section 8.4.8.10 | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.SEC.AUTH.EXEC |Payload Digests, |Section 8.4.8.6, Section 8.4.8.7 | | |Size | | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.SEC.AUTH.PRECURSOR |Precursor Image |Section 8.4.8.6 | | |Digest | | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.SEC.AUTH.COMPATIBILITY |Authenticated |Section 8.4.8.3, Section 8.4.8.4 | | |Vendor and Class | | | |IDs | | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.SEC.RIGHTS |Signature |Section 8.3, Section 9 | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.SEC.IMG.CONFIDENTIALITY |Encryption Wrapper |[I-D.ietf-suit-firmware-encryption]| Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 67] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.SEC.ACCESS_CONTROL: |None |Section 9 | |Access Control | | | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.SEC.MFST.CONFIDENTIALITY|Manifest Encryption|[I-D.ietf-suit-firmware-encryption]| | |Wrapper / Transport| | | |Security | | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.SEC.IMG.COMPLETE_DIGEST |Payload Digests |Implementation Consideration | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.SEC.REPORTING |None |[I-D.ietf-suit-report], [RFC9334] | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.SEC.KEY.PROTECTION |None |Implementation Consideration | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.SEC.KEY.ROTATION |None |[I-D.tschofenig-cose-cwt-chain], | | | |Implementation Consideration | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.SEC.MFST.CHECK |None |Deployment Consideration | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.SEC.MFST.TRUSTED |None |Deployment Consideration | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.SEC.MFST.CONST |None |Implementation Consideration | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.USE.MFST.PRE_CHECK |Additional |[I-D.ietf-suit-update-management] | | |Installation | | | |Instructions | | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.USE.MFST.TEXT |Manifest Text |Section 8.4.4 | | |Information | | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.USE.MFST.OVERRIDE_REMOTE|Aliases |[RFC3986] Relative URIs, | | | |[I-D.ietf-suit-trust-domains] | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.USE.MFST.COMPONENT |Dependencies, |SUIT_Component_Identifier | | |StorageIdentifier, |(Section 8.4.5.1), | | |ComponentIdentifier|[I-D.ietf-suit-trust-domains] | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.USE.MFST.MULTI_AUTH |Signature |Section 8.3 | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.USE.IMG.FORMAT |Payload Format |[I-D.ietf-suit-update-management] | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.USE.IMG.NESTED |Processing Steps |[I-D.ietf-suit-firmware-encryption]| | | |(Encryption Wrapper), | | | |[I-D.ietf-suit-update-management] | | | |(Payload Format) | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.USE.IMG.VERSIONS |Required Image |[I-D.ietf-suit-update-management] | | |Version List | | Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 68] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.USE.IMG.SELECT |XIP Address |Section 8.4.9.4 | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.USE.EXEC |Runtime Metadata |Section 8.4.6 (suit-invoke) | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.USE.LOAD |Load-Time Metadata |Section 8.4.6 (suit-load) | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.USE.PAYLOAD |Payload |Section 7.5 | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.USE.PARSE |Simple Parsing |Section 6.4 | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ |REQ.USE.DELEGATION |Delegation Chain |[I-D.tschofenig-cose-cwt-chain] | +----------------------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------+ Table 16 13. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the following persons for their support in designing this mechanism: * Milosch Meriac * Geraint Luff * Dan Ros * John-Paul Stanford * Hugo Vincent * Carsten Bormann * Frank Audun Kvamtrø * Krzysztof Chruściński * Andrzej Puzdrowski * Michael Richardson * David Brown * Emmanuel Baccelli Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 69] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 We would like to thank our responsible area director, Roman Danyliw, for his detailed review. Finally, we would like to thank our SUIT working group chairs (Dave Thaler, David Waltermire, Russ Housley) for their feedback and support. 14. References 14.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-suit-mti] Moran, B., Rønningstad, O., and A. Tsukamoto, "Mandatory- to-Implement Algorithms for Authors and Recipients of Software Update for the Internet of Things manifests", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-suit-mti-08, 21 October 2024, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, . [RFC4122bis] Leach, P., Mealling, M., and R. Salz, "A Universally Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace", RFC 4122, DOI 10.17487/RFC4122, July 2005, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC8610] Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610, June 2019, . [RFC8949] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949, DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020, . Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 70] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 [RFC9019] Moran, B., Tschofenig, H., Brown, D., and M. Meriac, "A Firmware Update Architecture for Internet of Things", RFC 9019, DOI 10.17487/RFC9019, April 2021, . [RFC9052] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Structures and Process", STD 96, RFC 9052, DOI 10.17487/RFC9052, August 2022, . [RFC9054] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Hash Algorithms", RFC 9054, DOI 10.17487/RFC9054, August 2022, . [RFC9090] Bormann, C., "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for Object Identifiers", RFC 9090, DOI 10.17487/RFC9090, July 2021, . [RFC9124] Moran, B., Tschofenig, H., and H. Birkholz, "A Manifest Information Model for Firmware Updates in Internet of Things (IoT) Devices", RFC 9124, DOI 10.17487/RFC9124, January 2022, . 14.2. Informative References [COSE_Alg] "COSE Algorithms", 2023, . [I-D.ietf-suit-firmware-encryption] Tschofenig, H., Housley, R., Moran, B., Brown, D., and K. Takayama, "Encrypted Payloads in SUIT Manifests", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-suit-firmware- encryption-22, 7 December 2024, . [I-D.ietf-suit-report] Moran, B. and H. Birkholz, "Secure Reporting of Update Status", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- suit-report-10, 21 October 2024, . [I-D.ietf-suit-trust-domains] Moran, B. and K. Takayama, "SUIT Manifest Extensions for Multiple Trust Domains", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 71] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 draft-ietf-suit-trust-domains-09, 4 December 2024, . [I-D.ietf-suit-update-management] Moran, B. and K. Takayama, "Update Management Extensions for Software Updates for Internet of Things (SUIT) Manifests", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- suit-update-management-07, 8 July 2024, . [I-D.tschofenig-cose-cwt-chain] Tschofenig, H. and B. Moran, "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Header Parameters for Carrying and Referencing Chains of CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-tschofenig-cose-cwt-chain- 01, 8 July 2024, . [RFC7228] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228, DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014, . [RFC9334] Birkholz, H., Thaler, D., Richardson, M., Smith, N., and W. Pan, "Remote ATtestation procedureS (RATS) Architecture", RFC 9334, DOI 10.17487/RFC9334, January 2023, . [RFC9397] Pei, M., Tschofenig, H., Thaler, D., and D. Wheeler, "Trusted Execution Environment Provisioning (TEEP) Architecture", RFC 9397, DOI 10.17487/RFC9397, July 2023, . [YAML] "YAML Ain't Markup Language (YAML[TM]) version 1.2", 2021, . Appendix A. Full CDDL In order to create a valid SUIT Manifest document the structure of the corresponding CBOR message MUST adhere to the following CDDL ([RFC8610]) data definition. To be valid, the following CDDL MUST have the COSE CDDL appended to it. The COSE CDDL can be obtained by following the directions in [RFC9052], Section 1.4. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 72] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 SUIT_start = SUIT_Envelope_Tagged / SUIT_Manifest_Tagged / start SUIT_Envelope_Tagged = #6.107(SUIT_Envelope) SUIT_Envelope = { suit-authentication-wrapper => bstr .cbor SUIT_Authentication, suit-manifest => bstr .cbor SUIT_Manifest, SUIT_Severable_Manifest_Members, * SUIT_Integrated_Payload, * $$SUIT_Envelope_Extensions, } SUIT_Authentication = [ bstr .cbor SUIT_Digest, * bstr .cbor SUIT_Authentication_Block ] SUIT_Digest = [ suit-digest-algorithm-id : suit-cose-hash-algs, suit-digest-bytes : bstr, * $$SUIT_Digest-extensions ] SUIT_Authentication_Block /= COSE_Mac_Tagged SUIT_Authentication_Block /= COSE_Sign_Tagged SUIT_Authentication_Block /= COSE_Mac0_Tagged SUIT_Authentication_Block /= COSE_Sign1_Tagged SUIT_Severable_Manifest_Members = ( ? suit-payload-fetch => bstr .cbor SUIT_Command_Sequence, ? suit-install => bstr .cbor SUIT_Command_Sequence, ? suit-text => bstr .cbor SUIT_Text_Map, * $$SUIT_severable-members-extensions, ) SUIT_Integrated_Payload = (suit-integrated-payload-key => bstr) suit-integrated-payload-key = tstr SUIT_Manifest_Tagged = #6.1070(SUIT_Manifest) SUIT_Manifest = { suit-manifest-version => 1, suit-manifest-sequence-number => uint, suit-common => bstr .cbor SUIT_Common, ? suit-reference-uri => tstr, SUIT_Unseverable_Members, SUIT_Severable_Members_Choice, * $$SUIT_Manifest_Extensions, } Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 73] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 SUIT_Unseverable_Members = ( ? suit-validate => bstr .cbor SUIT_Command_Sequence, ? suit-load => bstr .cbor SUIT_Command_Sequence, ? suit-invoke => bstr .cbor SUIT_Command_Sequence, * $$unseverable-manifest-member-extensions, ) SUIT_Severable_Members_Choice = ( ? suit-payload-fetch => SUIT_Digest / bstr .cbor SUIT_Command_Sequence, ? suit-install => SUIT_Digest / bstr .cbor SUIT_Command_Sequence, ? suit-text => SUIT_Digest / bstr .cbor SUIT_Text_Map, * $$severable-manifest-members-choice-extensions ) SUIT_Common = { ? suit-components => SUIT_Components, ? suit-shared-sequence => bstr .cbor SUIT_Shared_Sequence, * $$SUIT_Common-extensions, } SUIT_Components = [ + SUIT_Component_Identifier ] ;REQUIRED to implement: suit-cose-hash-algs /= cose-alg-sha-256 ;OPTIONAL to implement: suit-cose-hash-algs /= cose-alg-shake128 suit-cose-hash-algs /= cose-alg-sha-384 suit-cose-hash-algs /= cose-alg-sha-512 suit-cose-hash-algs /= cose-alg-shake256 SUIT_Component_Identifier = [* bstr] SUIT_Shared_Sequence = [ + ( SUIT_Condition // SUIT_Shared_Commands ) ] SUIT_Shared_Commands //= (suit-directive-set-component-index, IndexArg) SUIT_Shared_Commands //= (suit-directive-run-sequence, bstr .cbor SUIT_Shared_Sequence) SUIT_Shared_Commands //= (suit-directive-try-each, SUIT_Directive_Try_Each_Argument_Shared) SUIT_Shared_Commands //= (suit-directive-override-parameters, {+ $$SUIT_Parameters}) IndexArg /= uint IndexArg /= true Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 74] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 IndexArg /= [+uint] SUIT_Directive_Try_Each_Argument_Shared = [ 2* bstr .cbor SUIT_Shared_Sequence, ?nil ] SUIT_Command_Sequence = [ + ( SUIT_Condition // SUIT_Directive // SUIT_Command_Custom ) ] SUIT_Command_Custom = (suit-command-custom, bstr/tstr/int/nil) SUIT_Condition //= (suit-condition-vendor-identifier, SUIT_Rep_Policy) SUIT_Condition //= (suit-condition-class-identifier, SUIT_Rep_Policy) SUIT_Condition //= (suit-condition-device-identifier, SUIT_Rep_Policy) SUIT_Condition //= (suit-condition-image-match, SUIT_Rep_Policy) SUIT_Condition //= (suit-condition-component-slot, SUIT_Rep_Policy) SUIT_Condition //= (suit-condition-check-content, SUIT_Rep_Policy) SUIT_Condition //= (suit-condition-abort, SUIT_Rep_Policy) SUIT_Directive //= (suit-directive-write, SUIT_Rep_Policy) SUIT_Directive //= (suit-directive-set-component-index, IndexArg) SUIT_Directive //= (suit-directive-run-sequence, bstr .cbor SUIT_Command_Sequence) SUIT_Directive //= (suit-directive-try-each, SUIT_Directive_Try_Each_Argument) SUIT_Directive //= (suit-directive-override-parameters, {+ $$SUIT_Parameters}) SUIT_Directive //= (suit-directive-fetch, SUIT_Rep_Policy) SUIT_Directive //= (suit-directive-copy, SUIT_Rep_Policy) SUIT_Directive //= (suit-directive-swap, SUIT_Rep_Policy) SUIT_Directive //= (suit-directive-invoke, SUIT_Rep_Policy) SUIT_Directive_Try_Each_Argument = [ 2* bstr .cbor SUIT_Command_Sequence, ?nil ] SUIT_Rep_Policy = uint .bits suit-reporting-bits suit-reporting-bits = &( suit-send-record-success : 0, suit-send-record-failure : 1, suit-send-sysinfo-success : 2, suit-send-sysinfo-failure : 3 ) Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 75] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 $$SUIT_Parameters //= (suit-parameter-vendor-identifier => (RFC4122_UUID / cbor-pen)) cbor-pen = #6.112(bstr) $$SUIT_Parameters //= (suit-parameter-class-identifier => RFC4122_UUID) $$SUIT_Parameters //= (suit-parameter-image-digest => bstr .cbor SUIT_Digest) $$SUIT_Parameters //= (suit-parameter-image-size => uint) $$SUIT_Parameters //= (suit-parameter-component-slot => uint) $$SUIT_Parameters //= (suit-parameter-uri => tstr) $$SUIT_Parameters //= (suit-parameter-fetch-arguments => bstr) $$SUIT_Parameters //= (suit-parameter-source-component => uint) $$SUIT_Parameters //= (suit-parameter-invoke-args => bstr) $$SUIT_Parameters //= (suit-parameter-device-identifier => RFC4122_UUID) $$SUIT_Parameters //= (suit-parameter-custom => int/bool/tstr/bstr) $$SUIT_Parameters //= (suit-parameter-content => bstr) $$SUIT_Parameters //= (suit-parameter-strict-order => bool) $$SUIT_Parameters //= (suit-parameter-soft-failure => bool) RFC4122_UUID = bstr .size 16 tag38-ltag = text .regexp "[a-zA-Z]{1,8}(-[a-zA-Z0-9]{1,8})*" SUIT_Text_Map = { + tag38-ltag => SUIT_Text_LMap } SUIT_Text_LMap = { SUIT_Text_Keys, * SUIT_Component_Identifier => { SUIT_Text_Component_Keys } } SUIT_Text_Component_Keys = ( ? suit-text-vendor-name => tstr, ? suit-text-model-name => tstr, ? suit-text-vendor-domain => tstr, ? suit-text-model-info => tstr, ? suit-text-component-description => tstr, ? suit-text-component-version => tstr, * $$suit-text-component-key-extensions ) SUIT_Text_Keys = ( Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 76] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 ? suit-text-manifest-description => tstr, ? suit-text-update-description => tstr, ? suit-text-manifest-json-source => tstr, ? suit-text-manifest-yaml-source => tstr, * $$suit-text-key-extensions ) suit-authentication-wrapper = 2 suit-manifest = 3 ;REQUIRED to implement: cose-alg-sha-256 = -16 ;OPTIONAL to implement: cose-alg-shake128 = -18 cose-alg-sha-384 = -43 cose-alg-sha-512 = -44 cose-alg-shake256 = -45 ;Unseverable, recipient-necessary suit-manifest-version = 1 suit-manifest-sequence-number = 2 suit-common = 3 suit-reference-uri = 4 suit-validate = 7 suit-load = 8 suit-invoke = 9 ;Severable, recipient-necessary suit-payload-fetch = 16 suit-install = 20 ;Severable, recipient-unnecessary suit-text = 23 suit-components = 2 suit-shared-sequence = 4 suit-command-custom = nint suit-condition-vendor-identifier = 1 suit-condition-class-identifier = 2 suit-condition-image-match = 3 suit-condition-component-slot = 5 suit-condition-check-content = 6 suit-condition-abort = 14 suit-condition-device-identifier = 24 suit-directive-set-component-index = 12 Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 77] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 suit-directive-try-each = 15 suit-directive-write = 18 suit-directive-override-parameters = 20 suit-directive-fetch = 21 suit-directive-copy = 22 suit-directive-invoke = 23 suit-directive-swap = 31 suit-directive-run-sequence = 32 suit-parameter-vendor-identifier = 1 suit-parameter-class-identifier = 2 suit-parameter-image-digest = 3 suit-parameter-component-slot = 5 suit-parameter-strict-order = 12 suit-parameter-soft-failure = 13 suit-parameter-image-size = 14 suit-parameter-content = 18 suit-parameter-uri = 21 suit-parameter-source-component = 22 suit-parameter-invoke-args = 23 suit-parameter-device-identifier = 24 suit-parameter-fetch-arguments = 25 suit-parameter-custom = nint suit-text-manifest-description = 1 suit-text-update-description = 2 suit-text-manifest-json-source = 3 suit-text-manifest-yaml-source = 4 suit-text-vendor-name = 1 suit-text-model-name = 2 suit-text-vendor-domain = 3 suit-text-model-info = 4 suit-text-component-description = 5 suit-text-component-version = 6 Appendix B. Examples The following examples demonstrate a small subset of the functionality of the manifest. Even a simple manifest processor can execute most of these manifests. The examples are signed using the following ECDSA secp256r1 key: Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 78] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 -----BEGIN PRIVATE KEY----- MIGHAgEAMBMGByqGSM49AgEGCCqGSM49AwEHBG0wawIBAQQgApZYjZCUGLM50VBC CjYStX+09jGmnyJPrpDLTz/hiXOhRANCAASEloEarguqq9JhVxie7NomvqqL8Rtv P+bitWWchdvArTsfKktsCYExwKNtrNHXi9OB3N+wnAUtszmR23M4tKiW -----END PRIVATE KEY----- The corresponding public key can be used to verify these examples: -----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY----- MFkwEwYHKoZIzj0CAQYIKoZIzj0DAQcDQgAEhJaBGq4LqqvSYVcYnuzaJr6qi/Eb bz/m4rVlnIXbwK07HypLbAmBMcCjbazR14vTgdzfsJwFLbM5kdtzOLSolg== -----END PUBLIC KEY----- Each example uses SHA256 as the digest function. Note that reporting policies are declared for each non-flow-control command in these examples. The reporting policies used in the examples are described in the following tables. +=============================+==========+ | Policy | Label | +=============================+==========+ | suit-send-record-on-success | Rec-Pass | +-----------------------------+----------+ | suit-send-record-on-failure | Rec-Fail | +-----------------------------+----------+ | suit-send-sysinfo-success | Sys-Pass | +-----------------------------+----------+ | suit-send-sysinfo-failure | Sys-Fail | +-----------------------------+----------+ Table 17 Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 79] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 +===================+==========+==========+==========+==========+ | Command | Sys-Fail | Sys-Pass | Rec-Fail | Rec-Pass | +===================+==========+==========+==========+==========+ | suit-condition- | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | vendor-identifier | | | | | +-------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ | suit-condition- | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | class-identifier | | | | | +-------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ | suit-condition- | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | image-match | | | | | +-------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ | suit-condition- | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | | component-slot | | | | | +-------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ | suit-directive- | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | | fetch | | | | | +-------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ | suit-directive- | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | | copy | | | | | +-------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ | suit-directive- | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | | invoke | | | | | +-------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ Table 18 B.1. Example 0: Secure Boot This example covers the following templates: * Compatibility Check (Section 7.1) * Secure Boot (Section 7.2) It also serves as the minimum example. 107({ / authentication-wrapper / 2:<< [ / digest: / << [ / algorithm-id / -16 / "sha256" /, / digest-bytes / h'6658ea560262696dd1f13b782239a064da7c6c5cbaf52fded428a6fc83c7e5af' ] >>, / signature: / << 18([ / protected / << { / alg / 1:-7 / "ES256" / } >>, Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 80] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 / unprotected / { }, / payload / null / nil /, / signature / h'408d0816f9b510749bf6a51b066951e08a4438 f849eb092a1ac768eed9de696c1b1dd35d82ef149e6a73a61976ad2cfe78444b806429 3350a122f332cb49f0da' ]) >> ] >>, / manifest / 3:<< { / manifest-version / 1:1, / manifest-sequence-number / 2:0, / common / 3:<< { / components / 2:[ [h'00'] ], / shared-sequence / 4:<< [ / directive-override-parameters / 20,{ / vendor-id / 1:h'fa6b4a53d5ad5fdfbe9de663e4d41ffe' / fa6b4a53-d5ad-5fdf- be9d-e663e4d41ffe /, / class-id / 2:h'1492af1425695e48bf429b2d51f2ab45' / 1492af14-2569-5e48-bf42-9b2d51f2ab45 /, / image-digest / 3:<< [ / algorithm-id / -16 / "sha256" /, / digest-bytes / h'00112233445566778899aabbccddeeff0123456789abcdeffedcba9876543210' ] >>, / image-size / 14:34768 }, / condition-vendor-identifier / 1,15, / condition-class-identifier / 2,15 ] >> } >>, / validate / 7:<< [ / condition-image-match / 3,15 ] >>, / invoke / 9:<< [ / directive-invoke / 23,2 ] >> } >> }) Total size of Envelope without COSE authentication object: 161 Envelope: Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 81] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 d86ba2025827815824822f58206658ea560262696dd1f13b782239a064da 7c6c5cbaf52fded428a6fc83c7e5af035871a50101020003585fa2028181 41000458568614a40150fa6b4a53d5ad5fdfbe9de663e4d41ffe02501492 af1425695e48bf429b2d51f2ab45035824822f5820001122334455667788 99aabbccddeeff0123456789abcdeffedcba98765432100e1987d0010f02 0f074382030f0943821702 Total size of Envelope with COSE authentication object: 237 Envelope with COSE authentication object: d86ba2025873825824822f58206658ea560262696dd1f13b782239a064da 7c6c5cbaf52fded428a6fc83c7e5af584ad28443a10126a0f65840408d08 16f9b510749bf6a51b066951e08a4438f849eb092a1ac768eed9de696c1b 1dd35d82ef149e6a73a61976ad2cfe78444b8064293350a122f332cb49f0 da035871a50101020003585fa202818141000458568614a40150fa6b4a53 d5ad5fdfbe9de663e4d41ffe02501492af1425695e48bf429b2d51f2ab45 035824822f582000112233445566778899aabbccddeeff0123456789abcd effedcba98765432100e1987d0010f020f074382030f0943821702 B.2. Example 1: Simultaneous Download and Installation of Payload This example covers the following templates: * Compatibility Check (Section 7.1) * Firmware Download (Section 7.3) Simultaneous download and installation of payload. No secure boot is present in this example to demonstrate a download-only manifest. 107({ / authentication-wrapper / 2:<< [ / digest: / << [ / algorithm-id / -16 / "sha256" /, / digest-bytes / h'1f2e7acca0dc2786f2fe4eb947f50873a6a3cfaa98866c5b02e621f42074daf2' ] >>, / signature: / << 18([ / protected / << { / alg / 1:-7 / "ES256" / } >>, / unprotected / { }, / payload / null / nil /, / signature / h'27a3d7986eddcc1bee04e1436746408c308ed3 c15ac590a1ca0cf96f85671ccac216cb9a1497fc59e21c15f33c95cf75203e25c287b3 1a57d6cd2ef950b27a7a' Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 82] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 ]) >> ] >>, / manifest / 3:<< { / manifest-version / 1:1, / manifest-sequence-number / 2:1, / common / 3:<< { / components / 2:[ [h'00'] ], / shared-sequence / 4:<< [ / directive-override-parameters / 20,{ / vendor-id / 1:h'fa6b4a53d5ad5fdfbe9de663e4d41ffe' / fa6b4a53-d5ad-5fdf- be9d-e663e4d41ffe /, / class-id / 2:h'1492af1425695e48bf429b2d51f2ab45' / 1492af14-2569-5e48-bf42-9b2d51f2ab45 /, / image-digest / 3:<< [ / algorithm-id / -16 / "sha256" /, / digest-bytes / h'00112233445566778899aabbccddeeff0123456789abcdeffedcba9876543210' ] >>, / image-size / 14:34768 }, / condition-vendor-identifier / 1,15, / condition-class-identifier / 2,15 ] >> } >>, / validate / 7:<< [ / condition-image-match / 3,15 ] >>, / install / 20:<< [ / directive-override-parameters / 20,{ / uri / 21:"http://example.com/file.bin" }, / directive-fetch / 21,2, / condition-image-match / 3,15 ] >> } >> }) Total size of Envelope without COSE authentication object: 196 Envelope: Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 83] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 d86ba2025827815824822f58201f2e7acca0dc2786f2fe4eb947f50873a6 a3cfaa98866c5b02e621f42074daf2035894a50101020103585fa2028181 41000458568614a40150fa6b4a53d5ad5fdfbe9de663e4d41ffe02501492 af1425695e48bf429b2d51f2ab45035824822f5820001122334455667788 99aabbccddeeff0123456789abcdeffedcba98765432100e1987d0010f02 0f074382030f1458258614a115781b687474703a2f2f6578616d706c652e 636f6d2f66696c652e62696e1502030f Total size of Envelope with COSE authentication object: 272 Envelope with COSE authentication object: d86ba2025873825824822f58201f2e7acca0dc2786f2fe4eb947f50873a6 a3cfaa98866c5b02e621f42074daf2584ad28443a10126a0f6584027a3d7 986eddcc1bee04e1436746408c308ed3c15ac590a1ca0cf96f85671ccac2 16cb9a1497fc59e21c15f33c95cf75203e25c287b31a57d6cd2ef950b27a 7a035894a50101020103585fa202818141000458568614a40150fa6b4a53 d5ad5fdfbe9de663e4d41ffe02501492af1425695e48bf429b2d51f2ab45 035824822f582000112233445566778899aabbccddeeff0123456789abcd effedcba98765432100e1987d0010f020f074382030f1458258614a11578 1b687474703a2f2f6578616d706c652e636f6d2f66696c652e62696e1502 030f B.3. Example 2: Simultaneous Download, Installation, Secure Boot, Severed Fields This example covers the following templates: * Compatibility Check (Section 7.1) * Secure Boot (Section 7.2) * Firmware Download (Section 7.3) This example also demonstrates severable elements (Section 5.4), and text (Section 8.4.4). 107({ / authentication-wrapper / 2:<< [ / digest: / << [ / algorithm-id / -16 / "sha256" /, / digest-bytes / h'6a5197ed8f9dccf733d1c89a359441708e070b4c6dcb9a1c2c82c6165f609b90' ] >>, / signature: / << 18([ / protected / << { / alg / 1:-7 / "ES256" / } >>, Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 84] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 / unprotected / { }, / payload / null / nil /, / signature / h'073d8d80ca67d61cdf04d813c748b2de98fe78 6fc67b764431307c8dbcbe91dc6f762c2c4d7bb998ff9ead4798e03c8ee26b89ef7a9a d4569f6e187ce89e16c5' ]) >> ] >>, / manifest / 3:<< { / manifest-version / 1:1, / manifest-sequence-number / 2:2, / common / 3:<< { / components / 2:[ [h'00'] ], / shared-sequence / 4:<< [ / directive-override-parameters / 20,{ / vendor-id / 1:h'fa6b4a53d5ad5fdfbe9de663e4d41ffe' / fa6b4a53-d5ad-5fdf- be9d-e663e4d41ffe /, / class-id / 2:h'1492af1425695e48bf429b2d51f2ab45' / 1492af14-2569-5e48-bf42-9b2d51f2ab45 /, / image-digest / 3:<< [ / algorithm-id / -16 / "sha256" /, / digest-bytes / h'00112233445566778899aabbccddeeff0123456789abcdeffedcba9876543210' ] >>, / image-size / 14:34768 }, / condition-vendor-identifier / 1,15, / condition-class-identifier / 2,15 ] >> } >>, / reference-uri / 4:"https://git.io/JJYoj", / validate / 7:<< [ / condition-image-match / 3,15 ] >>, / invoke / 9:<< [ / directive-invoke / 23,2 ] >>, / install / 20:[ / algorithm-id / -16 / "sha256" /, / digest-bytes / h'cfa90c5c58595e7f5119a72f803fd0370b3e6abbec6315cd38f63135281bc498' ], / text / 23:[ / algorithm-id / -16 / "sha256" /, Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 85] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 / digest-bytes / h'302196d452bce5e8bfeaf71e395645ede6d365e63507a081379721eeecf00007' ] } >> }) Total size of the Envelope without COSE authentication object or Severable Elements: 257 Envelope: d86ba2025827815824822f58206a5197ed8f9dccf733d1c89a359441708e 070b4c6dcb9a1c2c82c6165f609b900358d1a80101020203585fa2028181 41000458568614a40150fa6b4a53d5ad5fdfbe9de663e4d41ffe02501492 af1425695e48bf429b2d51f2ab45035824822f5820001122334455667788 99aabbccddeeff0123456789abcdeffedcba98765432100e1987d0010f02 0f047468747470733a2f2f6769742e696f2f4a4a596f6a074382030f0943 82170214822f5820cfa90c5c58595e7f5119a72f803fd0370b3e6abbec63 15cd38f63135281bc49817822f5820302196d452bce5e8bfeaf71e395645 ede6d365e63507a081379721eeecf00007 Total size of the Envelope with COSE authentication object but without Severable Elements: 333 Envelope: d86ba2025873825824822f58206a5197ed8f9dccf733d1c89a359441708e 070b4c6dcb9a1c2c82c6165f609b90584ad28443a10126a0f65840073d8d 80ca67d61cdf04d813c748b2de98fe786fc67b764431307c8dbcbe91dc6f 762c2c4d7bb998ff9ead4798e03c8ee26b89ef7a9ad4569f6e187ce89e16 c50358d1a80101020203585fa202818141000458568614a40150fa6b4a53 d5ad5fdfbe9de663e4d41ffe02501492af1425695e48bf429b2d51f2ab45 035824822f582000112233445566778899aabbccddeeff0123456789abcd effedcba98765432100e1987d0010f020f047468747470733a2f2f676974 2e696f2f4a4a596f6a074382030f094382170214822f5820cfa90c5c5859 5e7f5119a72f803fd0370b3e6abbec6315cd38f63135281bc49817822f58 20302196d452bce5e8bfeaf71e395645ede6d365e63507a081379721eeec f00007 Total size of Envelope with COSE authentication object and Severable Elements: 923 Envelope with COSE authentication object: Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 86] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 d86ba4025873825824822f58206a5197ed8f9dccf733d1c89a359441708e 070b4c6dcb9a1c2c82c6165f609b90584ad28443a10126a0f65840073d8d 80ca67d61cdf04d813c748b2de98fe786fc67b764431307c8dbcbe91dc6f 762c2c4d7bb998ff9ead4798e03c8ee26b89ef7a9ad4569f6e187ce89e16 c50358d1a80101020203585fa202818141000458568614a40150fa6b4a53 d5ad5fdfbe9de663e4d41ffe02501492af1425695e48bf429b2d51f2ab45 035824822f582000112233445566778899aabbccddeeff0123456789abcd effedcba98765432100e1987d0010f020f047468747470733a2f2f676974 2e696f2f4a4a596f6a074382030f094382170214822f5820cfa90c5c5859 5e7f5119a72f803fd0370b3e6abbec6315cd38f63135281bc49817822f58 20302196d452bce5e8bfeaf71e395645ede6d365e63507a081379721eeec f0000714583c8614a1157832687474703a2f2f6578616d706c652e636f6d 2f766572792f6c6f6e672f706174682f746f2f66696c652f66696c652e62 696e1502030f1759020ba165656e2d5553a20179019d2323204578616d70 6c6520323a2053696d756c74616e656f757320446f776e6c6f61642c2049 6e7374616c6c6174696f6e2c2053656375726520426f6f742c2053657665 726564204669656c64730a0a2020202054686973206578616d706c652063 6f766572732074686520666f6c6c6f77696e672074656d706c617465733a 0a202020200a202020202a20436f6d7061746962696c6974792043686563 6b20287b7b74656d706c6174652d636f6d7061746962696c6974792d6368 65636b7d7d290a202020202a2053656375726520426f6f7420287b7b7465 6d706c6174652d7365637572652d626f6f747d7d290a202020202a204669 726d7761726520446f776e6c6f616420287b7b6669726d776172652d646f 776e6c6f61642d74656d706c6174657d7d290a202020200a202020205468 6973206578616d706c6520616c736f2064656d6f6e737472617465732073 6576657261626c6520656c656d656e747320287b7b6f76722d7365766572 61626c657d7d292c20616e64207465787420287b7b6d616e69666573742d 6469676573742d746578747d7d292e814100a2036761726d2e636f6d0578 525468697320636f6d706f6e656e7420697320612064656d6f6e73747261 74696f6e2e205468652064696765737420697320612073616d706c652070 61747465726e2c206e6f742061207265616c206f6e652e B.4. Example 3: A/B images This example covers the following templates: * Compatibility Check (Section 7.1) * Secure Boot (Section 7.2) * Firmware Download (Section 7.3) * A/B Image Template (Section 7.7) Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 87] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 107({ / authentication-wrapper / 2:<< [ / digest: / << [ / algorithm-id / -16 / "sha256" /, / digest-bytes / h'f6d44a62ec906b392500c242e78e908e9cc5057f3f04104a06a8566200da2ee0' ] >>, / signature: / << 18([ / protected / << { / alg / 1:-7 / "ES256" / } >>, / unprotected / { }, / payload / null / nil /, / signature / h'0bbf7058c1a79dff23c7755d36aae5c6cc1aac b818f456e2e03f2664c369b9c6700931a52f1f8d808aa4a8e5220d479c9661d2bce0a4 4974004325001e3b1abb' ]) >> ] >>, / manifest / 3:<< { / manifest-version / 1:1, / manifest-sequence-number / 2:3, / common / 3:<< { / components / 2:[ [h'00'] ], / shared-sequence / 4:<< [ / directive-override-parameters / 20,{ / vendor-id / 1:h'fa6b4a53d5ad5fdfbe9de663e4d41ffe' / fa6b4a53-d5ad-5fdf- be9d-e663e4d41ffe /, / class-id / 2:h'1492af1425695e48bf429b2d51f2ab45' / 1492af14-2569-5e48-bf42-9b2d51f2ab45 / }, / directive-try-each / 15,[ << [ / directive-override-parameters / 20,{ / slot / 5:0 }, / condition-component-slot / 5,5, / directive-override-parameters / 20,{ / image-digest / 3:<< [ / algorithm-id / -16 / "sha256" /, / digest-bytes / h'00112233445566778899aabbccddeeff0123456789abcdeffedcba9876543210' ] >>, / image-size / 14:34768 Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 88] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 } ] >>, << [ / directive-override-parameters / 20,{ / slot / 5:1 }, / condition-component-slot / 5,5, / directive-override-parameters / 20,{ / image-digest / 3:<< [ / algorithm-id / -16 / "sha256" /, / digest-bytes / h'0123456789abcdeffedcba987654321000112233445566778899aabbccddeeff' ] >>, / image-size / 14:76834 } ] >> ], / condition-vendor-identifier / 1,15, / condition-class-identifier / 2,15 ] >> } >>, / validate / 7:<< [ / condition-image-match / 3,15 ] >>, / install / 20:<< [ / directive-try-each / 15,[ << [ / directive-override-parameters / 20,{ / slot / 5:0 }, / condition-component-slot / 5,5, / directive-override-parameters / 20,{ / uri / 21:"http://example.com/file1.bin" } ] >>, << [ / directive-override-parameters / 20,{ / slot / 5:1 }, / condition-component-slot / 5,5, / directive-override-parameters / 20,{ / uri / 21:"http://example.com/file2.bin" } ] >> ], / directive-fetch / 21,2, / condition-image-match / 3,15 ] >> Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 89] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 } >> }) Total size of Envelope without COSE authentication object: 320 Envelope: d86ba2025827815824822f5820f6d44a62ec906b392500c242e78e908e9c c5057f3f04104a06a8566200da2ee00359010fa5010102030358a4a20281 81410004589b8814a20150fa6b4a53d5ad5fdfbe9de663e4d41ffe025014 92af1425695e48bf429b2d51f2ab450f8258348614a10500050514a20358 24822f582000112233445566778899aabbccddeeff0123456789abcdeffe dcba98765432100e1987d058368614a10501050514a2035824822f582001 23456789abcdeffedcba987654321000112233445566778899aabbccddee ff0e1a00012c22010f020f074382030f14585b860f8258288614a1050005 0514a115781c687474703a2f2f6578616d706c652e636f6d2f66696c6531 2e62696e58288614a10501050514a115781c687474703a2f2f6578616d70 6c652e636f6d2f66696c65322e62696e1502030f Total size of Envelope with COSE authentication object: 396 Envelope with COSE authentication object: d86ba2025873825824822f5820f6d44a62ec906b392500c242e78e908e9c c5057f3f04104a06a8566200da2ee0584ad28443a10126a0f658400bbf70 58c1a79dff23c7755d36aae5c6cc1aacb818f456e2e03f2664c369b9c670 0931a52f1f8d808aa4a8e5220d479c9661d2bce0a44974004325001e3b1a bb0359010fa5010102030358a4a2028181410004589b8814a20150fa6b4a 53d5ad5fdfbe9de663e4d41ffe02501492af1425695e48bf429b2d51f2ab 450f8258348614a10500050514a2035824822f5820001122334455667788 99aabbccddeeff0123456789abcdeffedcba98765432100e1987d0583686 14a10501050514a2035824822f58200123456789abcdeffedcba98765432 1000112233445566778899aabbccddeeff0e1a00012c22010f020f074382 030f14585b860f8258288614a10500050514a115781c687474703a2f2f65 78616d706c652e636f6d2f66696c65312e62696e58288614a10501050514 a115781c687474703a2f2f6578616d706c652e636f6d2f66696c65322e62 696e1502030f B.5. Example 4: Load from External Storage This example covers the following templates: * Compatibility Check (Section 7.1) * Secure Boot (Section 7.2) * Firmware Download (Section 7.3) Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 90] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 * Install (Section 7.4) * Load (Section 7.6) 107({ / authentication-wrapper / 2:<< [ / digest: / << [ / algorithm-id / -16 / "sha256" /, / digest-bytes / h'5b5f6586b1e6cdf19ee479a5adabf206581000bd584b0832a9bdaf4f72cdbdd6' ] >>, / signature: / << 18([ / protected / << { / alg / 1:-7 / "ES256" / } >>, / unprotected / { }, / payload / null / nil /, / signature / h'c53c2826b042384e95c646cbcd4308b181f1ed 2bfbeb4e70b93cac9fbdc82e382d877e2c2bcfaf975ffcd36941f2f4db89f68d3c77d6 a3506e9b1509a49dec46' ]) >> ] >>, / manifest / 3:<< { / manifest-version / 1:1, / manifest-sequence-number / 2:4, / common / 3:<< { / components / 2:[ [h'00'], [h'02'], [h'01'] ], / shared-sequence / 4:<< [ / directive-set-component-index / 12,0, / directive-override-parameters / 20,{ / vendor-id / 1:h'fa6b4a53d5ad5fdfbe9de663e4d41ffe' / fa6b4a53-d5ad-5fdf- be9d-e663e4d41ffe /, / class-id / 2:h'1492af1425695e48bf429b2d51f2ab45' / 1492af14-2569-5e48-bf42-9b2d51f2ab45 /, / image-digest / 3:<< [ / algorithm-id / -16 / "sha256" /, / digest-bytes / h'00112233445566778899aabbccddeeff0123456789abcdeffedcba9876543210' ] >>, / image-size / 14:34768 }, Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 91] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 / condition-vendor-identifier / 1,15, / condition-class-identifier / 2,15 ] >> } >>, / validate / 7:<< [ / directive-set-component-index / 12,0, / condition-image-match / 3,15 ] >>, / load / 8:<< [ / directive-set-component-index / 12,2, / directive-override-parameters / 20,{ / image-digest / 3:<< [ / algorithm-id / -16 / "sha256" /, / digest-bytes / h'0123456789abcdeffedcba987654321000112233445566778899aabbccddeeff' ] >>, / image-size / 14:76834, / source-component / 22:0 / [h'00'] / }, / directive-copy / 22,2, / condition-image-match / 3,15 ] >>, / invoke / 9:<< [ / directive-set-component-index / 12,2, / directive-invoke / 23,2 ] >>, / payload-fetch / 16:<< [ / directive-set-component-index / 12,1, / directive-override-parameters / 20,{ / image-digest / 3:<< [ / algorithm-id / -16 / "sha256" /, / digest-bytes / h'00112233445566778899aabbccddeeff0123456789abcdeffedcba9876543210' ] >>, / uri / 21:"http://example.com/file.bin" }, / directive-fetch / 21,2, / condition-image-match / 3,15 ] >>, / install / 20:<< [ / directive-set-component-index / 12,0, / directive-override-parameters / 20,{ / source-component / 22:1 / [h'02'] / }, / directive-copy / 22,2, / condition-image-match / 3,15 ] >> } >> Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 92] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 }) Total size of Envelope without COSE authentication object: 327 Envelope: d86ba2025827815824822f58205b5f6586b1e6cdf19ee479a5adabf20658 1000bd584b0832a9bdaf4f72cdbdd603590116a801010204035867a20283 814100814102814101045858880c0014a40150fa6b4a53d5ad5fdfbe9de6 63e4d41ffe02501492af1425695e48bf429b2d51f2ab45035824822f5820 00112233445566778899aabbccddeeff0123456789abcdeffedcba987654 32100e1987d0010f020f0745840c00030f085838880c0214a3035824822f 58200123456789abcdeffedcba987654321000112233445566778899aabb ccddeeff0e1a00012c2216001602030f0945840c02170210584e880c0114 a2035824822f582000112233445566778899aabbccddeeff0123456789ab cdeffedcba987654321015781b687474703a2f2f6578616d706c652e636f 6d2f66696c652e62696e1502030f144b880c0014a116011602030f Total size of Envelope with COSE authentication object: 403 Envelope with COSE authentication object: d86ba2025873825824822f58205b5f6586b1e6cdf19ee479a5adabf20658 1000bd584b0832a9bdaf4f72cdbdd6584ad28443a10126a0f65840c53c28 26b042384e95c646cbcd4308b181f1ed2bfbeb4e70b93cac9fbdc82e382d 877e2c2bcfaf975ffcd36941f2f4db89f68d3c77d6a3506e9b1509a49dec 4603590116a801010204035867a20283814100814102814101045858880c 0014a40150fa6b4a53d5ad5fdfbe9de663e4d41ffe02501492af1425695e 48bf429b2d51f2ab45035824822f582000112233445566778899aabbccdd eeff0123456789abcdeffedcba98765432100e1987d0010f020f0745840c 00030f085838880c0214a3035824822f58200123456789abcdeffedcba98 7654321000112233445566778899aabbccddeeff0e1a00012c2216001602 030f0945840c02170210584e880c0114a2035824822f5820001122334455 66778899aabbccddeeff0123456789abcdeffedcba987654321015781b68 7474703a2f2f6578616d706c652e636f6d2f66696c652e62696e1502030f 144b880c0014a116011602030f B.6. Example 5: Two Images This example covers the following templates: * Compatibility Check (Section 7.1) * Secure Boot (Section 7.2) * Firmware Download (Section 7.3) Furthermore, it shows using these templates with two images. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 93] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 107({ / authentication-wrapper / 2:<< [ / digest: / << [ / algorithm-id / -16 / "sha256" /, / digest-bytes / h'15ce60f77657e4531dc329155f8b0ed78f94bdc6d165b2665473693dcc34f470' ] >>, / signature: / << 18([ / protected / << { / alg / 1:-7 / "ES256" / } >>, / unprotected / { }, / payload / null / nil /, / signature / h'53505bf2b1aba7f3c3e142d6c02350daf95331 a8942e77d7378c6670285638e0fe460fe7cebcbe242b14e7ac1a4482cf500136a2568a 92a803f614d5f87ef7a7' ]) >> ] >>, / manifest / 3:<< { / manifest-version / 1:1, / manifest-sequence-number / 2:5, / common / 3:<< { / components / 2:[ [h'00'], [h'01'] ], / shared-sequence / 4:<< [ / directive-set-component-index / 12,0, / directive-override-parameters / 20,{ / vendor-id / 1:h'fa6b4a53d5ad5fdfbe9de663e4d41ffe' / fa6b4a53-d5ad-5fdf- be9d-e663e4d41ffe /, / class-id / 2:h'1492af1425695e48bf429b2d51f2ab45' / 1492af14-2569-5e48-bf42-9b2d51f2ab45 /, / image-digest / 3:<< [ / algorithm-id / -16 / "sha256" /, / digest-bytes / h'00112233445566778899aabbccddeeff0123456789abcdeffedcba9876543210' ] >>, / image-size / 14:34768 }, / condition-vendor-identifier / 1,15, / condition-class-identifier / 2,15, / directive-set-component-index / 12,1, / directive-override-parameters / 20,{ / image-digest / 3:<< [ Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 94] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 / algorithm-id / -16 / "sha256" /, / digest-bytes / h'0123456789abcdeffedcba987654321000112233445566778899aabbccddeeff' ] >>, / image-size / 14:76834 } ] >> } >>, / validate / 7:<< [ / directive-set-component-index / 12,0, / condition-image-match / 3,15, / directive-set-component-index / 12,1, / condition-image-match / 3,15 ] >>, / invoke / 9:<< [ / directive-set-component-index / 12,0, / directive-invoke / 23,2 ] >>, / install / 20:<< [ / directive-set-component-index / 12,0, / directive-override-parameters / 20,{ / uri / 21:"http://example.com/file1.bin" }, / directive-fetch / 21,2, / condition-image-match / 3,15, / directive-set-component-index / 12,1, / directive-override-parameters / 20,{ / uri / 21:"http://example.com/file2.bin" }, / directive-fetch / 21,2, / condition-image-match / 3,15 ] >> } >> }) Total size of Envelope without COSE authentication object: 306 Envelope: Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 95] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 d86ba2025827815824822f582015ce60f77657e4531dc329155f8b0ed78f 94bdc6d165b2665473693dcc34f47003590101a601010205035895a20282 8141008141010458898c0c0014a40150fa6b4a53d5ad5fdfbe9de663e4d4 1ffe02501492af1425695e48bf429b2d51f2ab45035824822f5820001122 33445566778899aabbccddeeff0123456789abcdeffedcba98765432100e 1987d0010f020f0c0114a2035824822f58200123456789abcdeffedcba98 7654321000112233445566778899aabbccddeeff0e1a00012c220749880c 00030f0c01030f0945840c00170214584f900c0014a115781c687474703a 2f2f6578616d706c652e636f6d2f66696c65312e62696e1502030f0c0114 a115781c687474703a2f2f6578616d706c652e636f6d2f66696c65322e62 696e1502030f Total size of Envelope with COSE authentication object: 382 Envelope with COSE authentication object: d86ba2025873825824822f582015ce60f77657e4531dc329155f8b0ed78f 94bdc6d165b2665473693dcc34f470584ad28443a10126a0f6584053505b f2b1aba7f3c3e142d6c02350daf95331a8942e77d7378c6670285638e0fe 460fe7cebcbe242b14e7ac1a4482cf500136a2568a92a803f614d5f87ef7 a703590101a601010205035895a202828141008141010458898c0c0014a4 0150fa6b4a53d5ad5fdfbe9de663e4d41ffe02501492af1425695e48bf42 9b2d51f2ab45035824822f582000112233445566778899aabbccddeeff01 23456789abcdeffedcba98765432100e1987d0010f020f0c0114a2035824 822f58200123456789abcdeffedcba987654321000112233445566778899 aabbccddeeff0e1a00012c220749880c00030f0c01030f0945840c001702 14584f900c0014a115781c687474703a2f2f6578616d706c652e636f6d2f 66696c65312e62696e1502030f0c0114a115781c687474703a2f2f657861 6d706c652e636f6d2f66696c65322e62696e1502030f Appendix C. Design Rationale In order to provide flexible behavior to constrained devices, while still allowing more powerful devices to use their full capabilities, the SUIT manifest encodes the required behavior of a Recipient device. Behavior is encoded as a specialized byte code, contained in a CBOR list. This promotes a flat encoding, which simplifies the parser. The information encoded by this byte code closely matches the operations that a device will perform, which promotes ease of processing. The core operations used by most update and trusted invocation operations are represented in the byte code. The byte code can be extended by registering new operations. The specialized byte code approach gives benefits equivalent to those provided by a scripting language or conventional byte code, with two substantial differences. First, the language is extremely high level, consisting of only the operations that a device may perform during update and trusted invocation of a firmware image. Second, Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 96] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 the language specifies linear behavior, without reverse branches. Conditional processing is supported, and parallel and out-of-order processing may be performed by sufficiently capable devices. By structuring the data in this way, the manifest processor becomes a very simple engine that uses a pull parser to interpret the manifest. This pull parser invokes a series of command handlers that evaluate a Condition or execute a Directive. Most data is structured in a highly regular pattern, which simplifies the parser. The results of this allow a Recipient to implement a very small parser for constrained applications. If needed, such a parser also allows the Recipient to perform complex updates with reduced overhead. Conditional execution of commands allows a simple device to perform important decisions at validation-time. Dependency handling is vastly simplified as well. Dependencies function like subroutines of the language. When a manifest has a dependency, it can invoke that dependency's commands and modify their behavior by setting parameters. Because some parameters come with security implications, the dependencies also have a mechanism to reject modifications to parameters on a fine-grained level. Dependency handling is covered in [I-D.ietf-suit-trust-domains]. Developing a robust permissions system works in this model too. The Recipient can use a simple ACL that is a table of Identities and Component Identifier permissions to ensure that operations on components fail unless they are permitted by the ACL. This table can be further refined with individual parameters and commands. Capability reporting is similarly simplified. A Recipient can report the Commands, Parameters, Algorithms, and Component Identifiers that it supports. This is sufficiently precise for a manifest author to create a manifest that the Recipient can accept. The simplicity of design in the Recipient due to all of these benefits allows even a highly constrained platform to use advanced update capabilities. C.1. C.1 Design Rationale: Envelope The Envelope is used instead of a COSE structure for several reasons: 1. This enables the use of Severable Elements (Section 8.5) 2. This enables modular processing of manifests, particularly with large signatures. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 97] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 3. This enables multiple authentication schemes. 4. This allows integrity verification by a dependent to be unaffected by adding or removing authentication structures. Modular processing is important because it allows a Manifest Processor to iterate forward over an Envelope, processing Delegation Chains and Authentication Blocks, retaining only intermediate values, without any need to seek forward and backwards in a stream until it gets to the Manifest itself. This allows the use of large, Post- Quantum signatures without requiring retention of the signature itself, or seeking forward and back. Four authentication objects are supported by the Envelope: * COSE_Sign_Tagged * COSE_Sign1_Tagged * COSE_Mac_Tagged * COSE_Mac0_Tagged The SUIT Envelope allows an Update Authority or intermediary to mix and match any number of different authentication blocks it wants without any concern for modifying the integrity of another authentication block. This also allows the addition or removal of an authentication blocks without changing the integrity check of the Manifest, which is important for dependency handling. See Section 6.2 C.2. C.2 Byte String Wrappers Byte string wrappers are used in several places in the suit manifest. The primary reason for wrappers it to limit the parser extent when invoked at different times, with a possible loss of context. The elements of the suit envelope are wrapped both to set the extents used by the parser and to simplify integrity checks by clearly defining the length of each element. The common block is re-parsed in order to find components identifiers from their indices, to find dependency prefixes and digests from their identifiers, and to find the shared sequence. The shared sequence is wrapped so that it matches other sequences, simplifying the code path. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 98] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 A severed SUIT command sequence will appear in the envelope, so it must be wrapped as with all envelope elements. For consistency, command sequences are also wrapped in the manifest. This also allows the parser to discern the difference between a command sequence and a SUIT_Digest. Parameters that are structured types (arrays and maps) are also wrapped in a bstr. This is so that parser extents can be set correctly using only a reference to the beginning of the parameter. This enables a parser to store a simple list of references to parameters that can be retrieved when needed. Appendix D. D. Implementation Conformance Matrix This section summarizes the functionality a minimal manifest processor implementation needs to offer to claim conformance to this specification, in the absence of an application profile standard specifying otherwise. The subsequent table shows the conditions. +===================+=================+================+ | Name | Reference | Implementation | +===================+=================+================+ | Vendor Identifier | Section 8.4.8.2 | REQUIRED | +-------------------+-----------------+----------------+ | Class Identifier | Section 8.4.8.2 | REQUIRED | +-------------------+-----------------+----------------+ | Device Identifier | Section 8.4.8.2 | OPTIONAL | +-------------------+-----------------+----------------+ | Image Match | Section 8.4.9.2 | REQUIRED | +-------------------+-----------------+----------------+ | Check Content | Section 8.4.9.3 | OPTIONAL | +-------------------+-----------------+----------------+ | Component Slot | Section 8.4.9.4 | OPTIONAL | +-------------------+-----------------+----------------+ | Abort | Section 8.4.9.5 | OPTIONAL | +-------------------+-----------------+----------------+ | Custom Condition | Section 8.4.11 | OPTIONAL | +-------------------+-----------------+----------------+ Table 19 The subsequent table shows the directives. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 99] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 +=====================+==================+====================+ | Name | Reference | Implementation | +=====================+==================+====================+ | Set Component Index | Section 8.4.10.1 | REQUIRED if more | | | | than one component | +---------------------+------------------+--------------------+ | Write Content | Section 8.4.10.6 | OPTIONAL | +---------------------+------------------+--------------------+ | Try Each | Section 8.4.10.2 | OPTIONAL | +---------------------+------------------+--------------------+ | Override Parameters | Section 8.4.10.3 | REQUIRED | +---------------------+------------------+--------------------+ | Fetch | Section 8.4.10.4 | REQUIRED for | | | | Updater | +---------------------+------------------+--------------------+ | Copy | Section 8.4.10.5 | OPTIONAL | +---------------------+------------------+--------------------+ | Invoke | Section 8.4.10.7 | REQUIRED for | | | | Bootloader | +---------------------+------------------+--------------------+ | Run Sequence | Section 8.4.10.8 | OPTIONAL | +---------------------+------------------+--------------------+ | Swap | Section 8.4.10.9 | OPTIONAL | +---------------------+------------------+--------------------+ Table 20 The subsequent table shows the parameters. Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 100] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 +==================+==================+======================+ | Name | Reference | Implementation | +==================+==================+======================+ | Vendor ID | Section 8.4.8.3 | REQUIRED | +------------------+------------------+----------------------+ | Class ID | Section 8.4.8.4 | REQUIRED | +------------------+------------------+----------------------+ | Image Digest | Section 8.4.8.6 | REQUIRED | +------------------+------------------+----------------------+ | Image Size | Section 8.4.8.7 | REQUIRED | +------------------+------------------+----------------------+ | Component Slot | Section 8.4.8.8 | OPTIONAL | +------------------+------------------+----------------------+ | Content | Section 8.4.8.9 | OPTIONAL | +------------------+------------------+----------------------+ | URI | Section 8.4.8.10 | REQUIRED for Updater | +------------------+------------------+----------------------+ | Source Component | Section 8.4.8.11 | OPTIONAL | +------------------+------------------+----------------------+ | Invoke Args | Section 8.4.8.12 | OPTIONAL | +------------------+------------------+----------------------+ | Device ID | Section 8.4.8.5 | OPTIONAL | +------------------+------------------+----------------------+ | Strict Order | Section 8.4.8.14 | OPTIONAL | +------------------+------------------+----------------------+ | Soft Failure | Section 8.4.8.15 | OPTIONAL | +------------------+------------------+----------------------+ | Custom | Section 8.4.8.16 | OPTIONAL | +------------------+------------------+----------------------+ Table 21 Authors' Addresses Brendan Moran Arm Limited Email: brendan.moran.ietf@gmail.com Hannes Tschofenig Email: hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net Henk Birkholz Fraunhofer SIT Email: henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 101] Internet-Draft CBOR-based SUIT Manifest December 2024 Koen Zandberg Inria Email: koen.zandberg@inria.fr Øyvind Rønningstad Nordic Semiconductor Email: oyvind.ronningstad@gmail.com Moran, et al. Expires 12 June 2025 [Page 102]