| Internet-Draft | Encrypted Payloads in SUIT Manifests | March 2024 |
| Tschofenig, et al. | Expires 3 September 2024 | [Page] |
This document specifies techniques for encrypting software, firmware, machine learning models, and personalization data by utilizing the IETF SUIT manifest. Key agreement is provided by ephemeral-static (ES) Diffie-Hellman (DH) and AES Key Wrap (AES-KW). ES-DH uses public key cryptography while AES-KW uses a pre-shared key. Encryption of the plaintext is accomplished with conventional symmetric key cryptography.¶
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 3 September 2024.¶
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.¶
Vulnerabilities with Internet of Things (IoT) devices have raised the need for a reliable and secure firmware update mechanism that is also suitable for constrained devices. To protect firmware images, the SUIT manifest format was developed [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]. It provides a bundle of metadata, including where to find the payload, the devices to which it applies and a security wrapper.¶
[RFC9124] details the information that has to be provided by the SUIT manifest format. In addition to offering protection against modification, via a digital signature or a message authentication code, confidentiality may also be afforded.¶
Encryption prevents third parties, including attackers, from gaining access to the payload. Attackers typically need intimate knowledge of a binary, such as a firmware image, to mount their attacks. For example, return-oriented programming (ROP) [ROP] requires access to the binary and encryption makes it much more difficult to write exploits. Beside confidentiality of the binary, confidentiality of the sources (e.g. in case of open source software) may be required as well to prevent reverse engineering and/or reproduction of the binary firmware.¶
While the original motivating use case of this document was firmware encryption, the use of SUIT manifests has been extended to other use cases requiring integrity and confidentiality protection, such as:¶
Hence, we use the term payload to generically refer to all those objects.¶
The payload is encrypted using a symmetric content encryption key, which can be established using a variety of mechanisms; this document defines two content key distribution methods for use with the IETF SUIT manifest, namely:¶
The former method relies on asymmetric key cryptography while the latter uses symmetric key cryptography.¶
Our design aims to reduce the number of content key distribution methods for use with payload encryption and thereby increase interoperability between different SUIT manifest parser implementations.¶
The goal of this specification is to protect payloads during end-to-end transport, and at rest when stored on a device. Constrained devices often make use of XIP, which is a method of executing code directly from flash memory rather than copying it into RAM. Since many of these devices today do not offer hardware-based, on-the-fly decryption of code stored in flash memory, it may be necessary to decrypt and store firmware images in on-chip flash before code can be executed. We do, however, expect that hardware-based, on-the-fly decryption will become more common in the future, which will improve confidentiality at rest.¶
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.¶
This document assumes familiarity with the IETF SUIT manifest [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest], the SUIT information model [RFC9124], and the SUIT architecture [RFC9019].¶
The following abbreviations are used in this document:¶
The terms sender and recipient have the following meaning:¶
Sender: Entity that sends an encrypted payload.¶
Recipient: Entity that receives an encrypted payload.¶
Additionally, we introduce the term "distribution system" (or distributor) to refer to an entity that knows the recipients of payloads. It is important to note that the distribution system is far more than a file server. For use of encryption, the distribution system either knows the public key of the recipient (for ES-DH), or the KEK (for AES-KW).¶
The author, which is responsible for creating the payload, does not know the recipients. The authors may, for example, be a developer building a firmware image.¶
The author and the distribution system are logical roles. In some deployments these roles are separated in different physical entities and in others they are co-located.¶
[RFC9019] describes the architecture for distributing payloads and manifests from an author to devices. It does, however, not detail the use of payload encryption. This document enhances the architecture to support encryption and Figure 1 shows it graphically.¶
To encrypt a payload it is necessary to know the recipient. For AES-KW, the KEK needs to be known and, in case of ES-DH, the sender needs to be in possession of the public key of the recipient. The public key and parameters may be in the recipient's X.509 certificate [RFC5280]. For authentication of the sender and for integrity protection the recipients must be provisioned with a trust anchor when a manifest is protected using a digital signature. When a MAC is used to protect the manifest then a symmetric key must be shared by the recipient and the sender.¶
With encryption, the author cannot just create a manifest for the payload and sign it, since it typically does not know the recipients. Hence, the author has to collaborate with the distribution system. The varying degree of collaboration is discussed below.¶
The author has several deployment options, namely:¶
The author, as the sender, obtains information about the recipients and their keys from the distribution system. There are proprietary as well as standardized device management solutions available providing this functionality, as discussed in [RFC9019]. Then, it performs the necessary steps to encrypt the payload. As a last step it creates one or more manifests. The device(s) perform decryption and act as recipients.¶
The author treats the distribution system as the initial recipient. The author typically uses REST APIs or web user interfaces to interact with the distribution system. Then, the distribution system decrypts and re-encrypts the payload for consumption by the device (or the devices). Delegating the task of re-encrypting the payload to the distribution system offers flexibility when the number of devices that need to receive encrypted payloads changes dynamically or when updates to KEKs or recipient public keys are necessary. As a downside, the author needs to trust the distribution system with performing the re-encryption of the payload.¶
If the author delegates encryption rights to the distributor two models are possible:¶
The distributor replaces the COSE_Encrypt in the manifest and then signs the manifest again. However, the COSE_Encrypt structure is contained within a signed container, which presents a problem: replacing the COSE_Encrypt with a new one will cause the digest of the manifest to change, thereby changing the signature. This means that the distributor must be able to sign the new manifest. If this is the case, then the distributor gains the ability to construct and sign manifests, which allows the distributor the authority to sign code, effectively presenting the distributor with full control over the recipient. Because distributors typically perform their re-encryption online in order to handle a large number of devices in a timely fashion, it is not possible to air-gap the distributor's signing operations. This impacts the recommendations in Section 4.3.17 of [RFC9124]. This model nevertheless represent the current state of firmware updates for IoT devices.¶
The distributor uses a two-layer manifest system. More precisely, the distributor constructs a new manifest that overrides the COSE_Encrypt using the dependency system defined in [I-D.ietf-suit-trust-domains]. This incurs additional overhead: one additional signature verification and one additional manifest, as well as the additional machinery in the recipient needed for dependency processing. This extra complexity offers extra security.¶
These two models also present different threat profiles for the distributor. If the distributor only has encryption rights, then an attacker who breaches the distributor can only mount a limited attack: they can encrypt a modified binary, but the recipients will identify the attack as soon as they perform the required image digest check and revert back to a correct image immediately.¶
It is RECOMMENDED that distributors implement the two-layer manifest approach in order to distribute content encryption keys without requiring re-signing of the manifest, despite the increase in complexity and greater number of signature verifications that this imposes on the recipient.¶
This specification introduces a new extension to the SUIT_Parameters structure.¶
The SUIT_Encryption_Info structure (called suit-parameter-encryption-info in Figure 2) contains the content key distribution information. The content of the SUIT_Encryption_Info structure is explained in Section 6.1 (for AES-KW) and in Section 6.2 (for ES-DH).¶
Once a CEK is available, the steps described in Section 7 are applicable. These steps apply to both content key distribution methods described in this section.¶
The SUIT_Encryption_Info structure is either carried inside the suit-directive-override-parameters or the suit-directive-set-parameters parameters used in the "Directive Write" and "Directive Copy" directives. An implementation claiming conformance with this specification must implement support for these two parameters. Since a device will typically only support one of the content key distribution methods, the distribution system needs to know which of two specified methods wis supported. Mandating only a single content key distribution method for a constrained device also reduces the code size.¶
SUIT_Parameters //= (suit-parameter-encryption-info
=> bstr .cbor SUIT_Encryption_Info)
suit-parameter-encryption-info = 19
RFC Editor's Note (TBD19): The value for the suit-parameter-encryption-info parameter is set to 19, as the proposed value.¶
This specification extends these directives:¶
Directive Write (suit-directive-write) to decrypt the content specified by suit-parameter-content with suit-parameter-encryption-info.¶
Directive Copy (suit-directive-copy) to decrypt the content of the component specified by suit-parameter-source-component with suit-parameter-encryption-info.¶
Examples of the two directives are shown below.¶
Figure 3 illustrates the Directive Write. The encrypted payload specified with parameter-content, namely h'EA1...CED' in the example, is decrypted using the SUIT_Encryption_Info structure referred to by parameter-encryption-info, i.e., h'D86...1F0'. The resulting plaintext payload is stored into component #0.¶
/ directive-override-parameters / 20, {
/ parameter-content / 18: h'EA1...CED',
/ parameter-encryption-info / 19: h'D86...1F0'
},
/ directive-write / 18, 15
Figure 4 illustrates the Directive Copy. In this example the encrypted payload is found at the URI indicated by the parameter-uri, i.e. "http://example.com/encrypted.bin". The encrypted payload will be downloaded and stored in component #1. Then, the information in the SUIT_Encryption_Info structure referred to by parameter-encryption-info, i.e. h'D86...1F0', will be used to decrypt the content in component #1 and the resulting plaintext payload will be stored into component #0.¶
/ directive-set-component-index / 12, 1,
/ directive-override-parameters / 20, {
/ parameter-uri / 21: "http://example.com/encrypted.bin",
},
/ directive-fetch / 21, 15,
/ directive-set-component-index / 12, 0,
/ directive-override-parameters / 20, {
/ parameter-encryption-info / 19: h'D86...1F0',
/ parameter-source-component / 22: 1
},
/ directive-copy / 22, 15
The payload to be encrypted may be detached and, in that case, it is not covered by the digital signature or the MAC protecting the manifest. (To be more precise, the suit-authentication-wrapper found in the envelope contains a digest of the manifest in the SUIT Digest Container.)¶
The lack of authentication and integrity protection of the payload is particularly a concern when a cipher without integrity protection is used.¶
To provide authentication and integrity protection of the payload in the detached payload case a SUIT Digest Container with the hash of the encrypted and/or plaintext payload MUST be included in the manifest. See suit-parameter-image-digest parameter in Section 8.4.8.6 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest].¶
Once a CEK is available, the steps described in Section 7 are applicable. These steps apply to both content key distribution methods.¶
The sub-sections below describe two content key distribution methods, namely AES Key Wrap (AES-KW) and Ephemeral-Static Diffie-Hellman (ES-DH). Many other methods are specified in the literature, and even supported by COSE. AES-KW and ES-DH cover the popular methods used in the market today and they were selected due to their maturity, different security properties, and because of their interoperability properties.¶
The two content key distribution methods require the CEKs to be randomly generated. The guidelines for random number generation in [RFC8937] MUST be followed.¶
When an encrypted payload is sent to multiple recipients, there are different deployment options. To explain these options we use the following notation:¶
- KEK(R1, S) refers to a KEK shared between recipient R1 and
the sender S.
- CEK(R1, S) refers to a CEK shared between R1 and S.
- CEK(*, S) or KEK(*, S) are used when a single CEK or a single
KEK is shared with all authorized recipients by a given sender
S in a certain context.
- ENC(plaintext, k) refers to the encryption of plaintext with
a key k.
¶
The AES Key Wrap (AES-KW) algorithm is described in [RFC3394], and can be used to encrypt a randomly generated content-encryption key (CEK) with a pre-shared key-encryption key (KEK). The COSE conventions for using AES-KW are specified in Section 8.5.2 of [RFC9052] and in Section 6.2.1 of [RFC9053]. The encrypted CEK is carried in the COSE_recipient structure alongside the information needed for AES-KW. The COSE_recipient structure, which is a substructure of the COSE_Encrypt structure, contains the CEK encrypted by the KEK.¶
To provide high security for AES Key Wrap, it is important that the KEK is of high entropy, and that implementations protect the KEK from disclosure. Compromise of the KEK may result in the disclosure of all data protected with that KEK, including binaries, and configuration data.¶
The COSE_Encrypt structure conveys information for encrypting the payload, which includes information like the algorithm and the IV, even though the payload may not be embedded in the COSE_Encrypt.ciphertext if it is conveyed as detached content.¶
There are three deployment options for use with AES Key Wrap for payload encryption:¶
If all recipients (typically of the same product family) share the same KEK, a single COSE_recipient structure contains the encrypted CEK. The sender executes the following steps:¶
1. Fetch KEK(*, S)
2. Generate CEK
3. ENC(CEK, KEK)
4. ENC(payload, CEK)
¶
This deployment option is strongly discouraged. An attacker gaining access to the KEK will be able to encrypt and send payloads to all recipients configured to use this KEK.¶
If recipients have different KEKs, then multiple COSE_recipient structures are included but only a single CEK is used. Each COSE_recipient structure contains the CEK encrypted with the KEKs appropriate for a given recipient. The benefit of this approach is that the payload is encrypted only once with a CEK while there is no sharing of the KEK across recipients. Hence, authorized recipients still use their individual KEK to decrypt the CEK and to subsequently obtain the plaintext. The steps taken by the sender are:¶
1. Generate CEK
2. for i=1 to n
{
2a. Fetch KEK(Ri, S)
2b. ENC(CEK, KEK(Ri, S))
}
3. ENC(payload, CEK)
¶
The third option is to use different CEKs encrypted with KEKs of authorized recipients. This approach is appropriate when no benefits can be gained from encrypting and transmitting payloads only once. Assume there are n recipients with their unique KEKs - KEK(R1, S), ..., KEK(Rn, S) and unique CEKs. The sender needs to execute the following steps:¶
1. for i=1 to n
{
1a. Fetch KEK(Ri, S)
1b. Generate CEK(Ri, S)
1c. ENC(CEK(Ri, S), KEK(Ri, S))
1d. ENC(payload, CEK(Ri, S))
2. }
¶
The CDDL for the AES-KW binary is shown in Figure 5. empty_or_serialized_map and header_map are structures defined in [RFC9052].¶
SUIT_Encryption_Info_AESKW = #6.96([
protected : outer_header_map_protected,
unprotected : outer_header_map_unprotected,
ciphertext : bstr / nil,
recipients : [ + COSE_recipient_AESKW ]
])
outer_header_map_protected = empty_or_serialized_map
outer_header_map_unprotected = header_map
COSE_recipient_AESKW = [
protected : bstr .size 0 / bstr .cbor empty_map,
unprotected : recipient_header_unpr_map_aeskw,
ciphertext : bstr ; CEK encrypted with KEK
]
empty_map = {}
recipient_header_unpr_map_aeskw =
{
1 => int, ; algorithm identifier
? 4 => bstr, ; identifier of the KEK pre-shared with the recipient
* label => values ; extension point
}
Note that the AES-KW algorithm, as defined in Section 2.2.3.1 of [RFC3394], does not have public parameters that vary on a per-invocation basis. Hence, the protected header in the COSE_recipient structure is a byte string of zero length.¶
Ephemeral-Static Diffie-Hellman (ES-DH) is a scheme that provides public key encryption given a recipient's public key. There are multiple variants of this scheme; this document re-uses the variant specified in Section 8.5.5 of [RFC9052].¶
The following two layer structure is used:¶
Layer 0: Has a content encrypted with the CEK. The content may be detached.¶
Layer 1: Uses the AES Key Wrap algorithm to encrypt the randomly generated CEK with the KEK derived with ES-DH, whereby the resulting symmetric key is fed into the HKDF-based key derivation function.¶
As a result, the two layers combine ES-DH with AES-KW and HKDF, and it is called ECDH-ES + AES-KW. An example is given in Figure 10.¶
There exists another version of ES-DH algorithm, namely ECDH-ES + HKDF, which does not use AES Key Wrap. It is not specified in this document.¶
There are only two deployment options with this approach since we assume that recipients are always configured with a device-unique public / private key pair.¶
A sender wants to transmit a payload to multiple recipients and all recipients receive the same encrypted payload, i.e. the same CEK is used to encrypt the payload. One COSE_recipient structure per recipient is used and it contains the CEK encrypted with the KEK. To generate the KEK each COSE_recipient structure contains a COSE_recipient_inner structure to carry the sender's ephemeral key and an identifier for the recipients public key.¶
The steps taken by the sender are:¶
1. Generate CEK
2. for i=1 to n
{
2a. Generate KEK(Ri, S) using ES-DH
2b. ENC(CEK, KEK(Ri, S))
}
3. ENC(payload,CEK)
¶
The alternative is to encrypt a payload with a different CEK for each recipient. This results in n-manifests. This approach is useful when payloads contain information unique to a device. The encryption operation then effectively becomes ENC(payload_i, CEK(Ri, S)). Assume that KEK(R1, S),..., KEK(Rn, S) have been generated for the different recipients using ES-DH. The following steps need to be made by the sender:¶
1. for i=1 to n
{
1a. Generate KEK(Ri, S) using ES-DH
1b. Generate CEK(Ri, S)
1c. ENC(CEK(Ri, S), KEK(Ri, S))
1d. ENC(payload, CEK(Ri, S))
}
¶
The CDDL for the ECDH-ES+AES-KW binary is shown in Figure 6. Only the minimum number of parameters is shown. empty_or_serialized_map and header_map are structures defined in [RFC9052].¶
SUIT_Encryption_Info_ESDH = #6.96([
protected : outer_header_map_protected,
unprotected : outer_header_map_unprotected,
ciphertext : bstr / nil,
recipients : [ + COSE_recipient_ESDH ]
])
outer_header_map_protected = empty_or_serialized_map
outer_header_map_unprotected = header_map
COSE_recipient_ESDH = [
protected : bstr .cbor recipient_header_map_esdh,
unprotected : recipient_header_unpr_map_esdh,
ciphertext : bstr ; CEK encrypted with KEK
]
recipient_header_map_esdh =
{
1 => int, ; algorithm identifier
* label => values ; extension point
}
recipient_header_unpr_map_esdh =
{
? 4 => bstr, ; identifier of the recipient public key
-1 => COSE_Key, ; ephemeral public key for the sender
* label => values ; extension point
}
See Section 7 for a description on how to encrypt the payload.¶
The context information structure is used to ensure that the derived keying material is "bound" to the context of the transaction. This specification re-uses the structure defined in Section 5.2 of [RFC9053] and tailors it accordingly.¶
The following information elements are bound to the context:¶
the protocol employing the key-derivation method,¶
information about the utilized AES Key Wrap algorithm, and the key length.¶
the protected header field, which contains the content key encryption algorithm.¶
The sender and recipient identities are left empty.¶
The following fields in Figure 7 require an explanation:¶
The COSE_KDF_Context.AlgorithmID field MUST contain the algorithm identifier for AES Key Wrap algorithm utilized. This specification uses the following values: A128KW (value -3), A192KW (value -4), or A256KW (value -5)¶
The COSE_KDF_Context.SuppPubInfo.keyDataLength field MUST contain the key length of the algorithm in the COSE_KDF_Context.AlgorithmID field expressed as the number of bits. For A128KW the value is 128, for A192KW the value is 192, and for A256KW the value 256.¶
The COSE_KDF_Context.SuppPubInfo.other field captures the protocol in which the ES-DH content key distribution algorithm is used and MUST be set to the constant string "SUIT Payload Encryption".¶
The COSE_KDF_Context.SuppPubInfo.protected field MUST contain the serialized content of the recipient_header_map_esdh field, which contains (among other fields) the identifier of the content key distribution method.¶
COSE_KDF_Context = [
AlgorithmID : int,
PartyUInfo : [ PartyInfoSender ],
PartyVInfo : [ PartyInfoRecipient ],
SuppPubInfo : [
keyDataLength : uint,
protected : bstr,
other: 'SUIT Payload Encryption'
],
? SuppPrivInfo : bstr
]
PartyInfoSender = (
identity : nil,
nonce : nil,
other : nil
)
PartyInfoRecipient = (
identity : nil,
nonce : nil,
other : nil
)
The HKDF-based key derivation function MAY contain a salt value, as described in Section 5.1 of [RFC9053]. This optional value is used to influence the key generation process. This specification does not mandate the use of a salt value. If the salt is public and carried in the message, then the "salt" algorithm header parameter MUST be used. The purpose of the salt is to provide extra randomness in the KDF context. If the salt is sent in the 'salt' algorithm header parameter, then the receiver MUST be able to process the salt and MUST pass it into the key derivation function. For more information about the salt, see [RFC5869] and NIST SP800-56 [SP800-56].¶
Profiles of this specification MAY specify an extended version of the context information structure or MAY utilize a different context information structure.¶
This section summarizes the steps taken for content encryption, which applies to both content key distribution methods.¶
For use with AEAD ciphers, such as AES-GCM and ChaCha20/Poly1305, the COSE specification requires a consistent byte stream for the authenticated data structure to be created. This structure is shown in Figure 8 and is defined in Section 5.3 of [RFC9052].¶
Enc_structure = [ context : "Encrypt", protected : empty_or_serialized_map, external_aad : bstr ]
This Enc_structure needs to be populated as follows:¶
The protected field in the Enc_structure from Figure 8 refers to the content of the protected field from the COSE_Encrypt structure.¶
The value of the external_aad MUST be set to a zero-length byte string, i.e., h'' in diagnostic notation and encoded as 0x40.¶
Some ciphers provide confidentiality witout integrity protection, such as AES-CTR and AES-CBC (see [RFC9459]). For these ciphers the Enc_structure, shown in Figure 8, MUST NOT be used because the Additional Authenticated Data (AAD) byte string is only consumable by AEAD ciphers. Hence, the AAD structure is not supplied to the API of those ciphers and the protected header in the SUIT_Encryption_Info structure MUST be a zero-length byte string.¶
AES-GCM is an AEAD cipher and provides confidentiality and integrity protection.¶
Examples in this section use the following parameters:¶
This example uses the following parameters:¶
The COSE_Encrypt structure, in hex format, is (with a line break inserted):¶
D8608443A10101A10550F14AAB9D81D51F7AD943FE87AF4F70CDF6818340 A2012204456B69642D31581875603FFC9518D794713C8CA8A115A7FB3256 5A6D59534D62¶
The resulting COSE_Encrypt structure in a diagnostic format is shown in Figure 9.¶
96([
/ protected: / << {
/ alg / 1: 1 / AES-GCM-128 /
} >>,
/ unprotected: / {
/ IV / 5: h'F14AAB9D81D51F7AD943FE87AF4F70CD'
},
/ payload: / null / detached ciphertext /,
/ recipients: / [
[
/ protected: / h'',
/ unprotected: / {
/ alg / 1: -3 / A128KW /,
/ kid / 4: 'kid-1'
},
/ payload: /
h'75603FFC9518D794713C8CA8A115A7FB32565A6D59534D62'
/ CEK encrypted with KEK /
]
]
])
The encrypted payload (with a line feed added) was:¶
2F59C3A34D9570FB99A5382E66466A3221A8AD85CE508BA306FB431A60EF A5AAAA078355070205A4B196832DF17F¶
This example uses the following parameters:¶
Algorithm for content key distribution: ECDH-ES + A128KW¶
KEK COSE_Key (Receiver's Private Key):¶
KDF Context¶
The COSE_Encrypt structure, in hex format, is (with a line break inserted):¶
D8608443A10101A10550F14AAB9D81D51F7AD943FE87AF4F70CDF6818344 A101381CA120A40102200121582038876D8B4552E6BC9484A3F06E3646B3 0AEFF51B95583CFFA0B5776D5273494222582034577AB5DD17276BB6BF15 AA465310371557AFF61FAC5BA5A1EFF46698DD8B7B5818C36BF2E8843246 F0E148DBA607375204A040D8B19629B2B5¶
The resulting COSE_Encrypt structure in a diagnostic format is shown in Figure 10.¶
96([
/ protected: / << {
/ alg / 1: 1 / AES-GCM-128 /
} >>,
/ unprotected: / {
/ IV / 5: h'F14AAB9D81D51F7AD943FE87AF4F70CD'
},
/ payload: / null / detached ciphertext /,
/ recipients: / [
[
/ protected: / << {
/ alg / 1: -29 / ECDH-ES + A128KW /
} >>,
/ unprotected: / {
/ ephemeral key / -1: {
/ kty / 1: 2 / EC2 /,
/ crv / -1: 1 / P-256 /,
/ x / -2: h'38876D8B4552E6BC9484A3F06E3646B3
0AEFF51B95583CFFA0B5776D52734942',
/ y / -3: h'34577AB5DD17276BB6BF15AA46531037
1557AFF61FAC5BA5A1EFF46698DD8B7B'
}
},
/ payload:
/ h'C36BF2E8843246F0E148DBA607375204A040D8B19629B2B5'
/ CEK encrypted with KEK /
]
]
])
The encrypted payload (with a line feed added) was:¶
2F59C3A34D9570FB99A5382E66466A3221A8AD85CE508BA306FB431A60EF A5AAAA078355070205A4B196832DF17F¶
AES-CTR is a non-AEAD cipher, provides confidentiality but no integrity protection. Unlike AES-CBC, AES-CTR uses an IV per AES operation, as shown in Figure 11. Hence, when an image is encrypted using AES-CTR-128 or AES-CTR-256, the IV MUST start with zero (0) and MUST be incremented by one for each 16-byte plaintext block within the entire slot.¶
Using the previous example with a slot size of 64 KiB, the sector size 4096 bytes and the AES plaintext block size of 16 byte requires IVs from 0 to 255 in the first sector and 16 * 256 IVs for the remaining sectors in the slot.¶
Examples in this section use the following parameters:¶
This example uses the following parameters:¶
The COSE_Encrypt structure, in hex format, is (with a line break inserted):¶
D8608440A20139FFFD0550DAE613B2E0DC55F4322BE38BDBA9DC68F68183 40A2012204456B69642D315818CE34035CE5C2E2666E46D4C131FC561DD1 90A6D26CFA1990¶
The resulting COSE_Encrypt structure in a diagnostic format is shown in Figure 12.¶
96([
/ protected: / h'',
/ unprotected: / {
/ alg / 1: -65534 / A128CTR /,
/ IV / 5: h'DAE613B2E0DC55F4322BE38BDBA9DC68'
},
/ payload: / null / detached ciphertext /,
/ recipients: / [
[
/ protected: / h'',
/ unprotected: / {
/ alg / 1: -3 / A128KW /,
/ kid / 4: 'kid-1'
},
/ payload: /
h'CE34035CE5C2E2666E46D4C131FC561DD190A6D26CFA1990'
/ CEK encrypted with KEK /
]
]
])
The encrypted payload (with a line feed added) was:¶
2BB8DB522AE978246CC775C3B0241BD4B0333FFDD2DB70C7EE7A4966E3B7¶
This example uses the following parameters:¶
Algorithm for content key distribution: ECDH-ES + A128KW¶
KEK COSE_Key (Receiver's Private Key):¶
KDF Context¶
The COSE_Encrypt structure, in hex format, is (with a line break inserted):¶
D8608440A20139FFFD0550DAE613B2E0DC55F4322BE38BDBA9DC68F68183 44A101381CA120A40102200121582050364E4DF3F5E8749D98E4378C04FA FE643B6ACEE7138382D83F768C7186FB8522582099E6C96BEF3952B12EF8 3921B1749475D767284AA42D74D8923C137B01EDF5A05818E8599DCEE494 4EECA9781D3ECDE3D9C34E1C9FCE8906617F¶
The resulting COSE_Encrypt structure in a diagnostic format is shown in Figure 13.¶
96([
/ protected: / h'',
/ unprotected: / {
/ alg / 1: -65534 / A128CTR /,
/ IV / 5: h'DAE613B2E0DC55F4322BE38BDBA9DC68'
},
/ payload: / null / detached ciphertext /,
/ recipients: / [
[
/ protected: / << {
/ alg / 1: -29 / ECDH-ES + A128KW /
} >>,
/ unprotected: / {
/ ephemeral key / -1: {
/ kty / 1: 2 / EC2 /,
/ crv / -1: 1 / P-256 /,
/ x / -2: h'50364E4DF3F5E8749D98E4378C04FAFE643B6ACEE7138382D83F768C7186FB85',
/ y / -3: h'99E6C96BEF3952B12EF83921B1749475D767284AA42D74D8923C137B01EDF5A0'
}
},
/ payload: / h'E8599DCEE4944EECA9781D3ECDE3D9C34E1C9FCE8906617F'
/ CEK encrypted with KEK /
]
]
])
The encrypted payload (with a line feed added) was:¶
2BB8DB522AE978246CC775C3B0241BD4B0333FFDD2DB70C7EE7A4966E3B7¶
AES-CBC is a non-AEAD cipher, provides confidentiality but no integrity protection. In AES-CBC, a single IV is used for encryption of firmware belonging to a single sector, since individual AES blocks are chained together, as shown in Figure 14. The numbering of sectors in a slot MUST start with zero (0) and MUST increase by one with every sector till the end of the slot is reached. The IV follows this numbering.¶
For example, let us assume the slot size of a specific flash controller on an IoT device is 64 KiB, the sector size 4096 bytes (4 KiB) and AES-128-CBC uses an AES-block size of 128 bit (16 bytes). Hence, sector 0 needs 4096/16=256 AES-128-CBC operations using IV 0. If the firmware image fills the entire slot, then that slot contains 16 sectors, i.e. IVs ranging from 0 to 15.¶
Examples in this section use the following parameters:¶
This example uses the following parameters:¶
The COSE_Encrypt structure, in hex format, is (with a line break inserted):¶
D8608440A20139FFFA055093702C81590F845D9EC866CCAC767BD1F68183 40A2012204456B69642D315818E198FF269626EC43299D33586FC7B2646B 13292261160422¶
The resulting COSE_Encrypt structure in a diagnostic format is shown in Figure 15.¶
96([
/ protected: / h'',
/ unprotected: / {
/ alg / 1: -65531 / A128CBC /,
/ IV / 5: h'93702C81590F845D9EC866CCAC767BD1'
},
/ payload: / null / detached ciphertext /,
/ recipients: / [
[
/ protected: / h'',
/ unprotected: / {
/ alg / 1: -3 / A128KW /,
/ kid / 4: 'kid-1'
},
/ payload: /
h'E198FF269626EC43299D33586FC7B2646B13292261160422'
/ CEK encrypted with KEK /
]
]
])
The encrypted payload (with a line feed added) was:¶
9C09156CF4ACE0401086D98586E0B09FA5B5CF78F2BCCBF6C914DDB42BF0 E21E¶
This example uses the following parameters:¶
Algorithm for content key distribution: ECDH-ES + A128KW¶
KEK COSE_Key (Receiver's Private Key):¶
KDF Context¶
The COSE_Encrypt structure, in hex format, is (with a line break inserted):¶
D8608440A20139FFFA055093702C81590F845D9EC866CCAC767BD1F68183 44A101381CA120A401022001215820BC6A2DCD5025C8C0F7A5D120EB3E45 8CA722F8FB94BD56A24709CB15A869748922582010136574F673511540FE 2A8589A7EDA372CB7B1AF94A8E1B4B94F6BDBD98AA185818AC8CDFB54264 22298FCF235EB5F24D9E4C44C1689167473A¶
The resulting COSE_Encrypt structure in a diagnostic format is shown in Figure 16.¶
96([
/ protected: / h'',
/ unprotected: / {
/ alg / 1: -65531 / A128CBC /,
/ IV / 5: h'93702C81590F845D9EC866CCAC767BD1'
},
/ payload: / null / detached ciphertext /,
/ recipients: / [
[
/ protected: / << {
/ alg / 1: -29 / ECDH-ES + A128KW /
} >>,
/ unprotected: / {
/ ephemeral key / -1: {
/ kty / 1: 2 / EC2 /,
/ crv / -1: 1 / P-256 /,
/ x / -2: h'BC6A2DCD5025C8C0F7A5D120EB3E458CA722F8FB94BD56A24709CB15A8697489',
/ y / -3: h'10136574F673511540FE2A8589A7EDA372CB7B1AF94A8E1B4B94F6BDBD98AA18'
}
},
/ payload: / h'AC8CDFB5426422298FCF235EB5F24D9E4C44C1689167473A'
/ CEK encrypted with KEK /
]
]
])
The encrypted payload (with a line feed added) was:¶
9C09156CF4ACE0401086D98586E0B09FA5B5CF78F2BCCBF6C914DDB42BF0 E21E¶
In addition to suit-condition-image-match (Section 8.4.9.2 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]), AEAD algorithms used for content encryption provides another way to validate the integrity of components. This section provides a guideline to construct secure but not redundant SUIT Manifest for encrypted payloads.¶
This sub-section explains three ways to validate the integrity of payloads.¶
The suit-condition-image-match on the plaintext payload is used after decryption. An example command sequence is shown in Figure 17.¶
/ directive-set-component-index / 12, 1,
/ directive-override-parameters / 20, {
/ parameter-uri / 21: "http://example.com/encrypted.bin"
},
/ directive-fetch / 21, 15,
/ directive-set-component-index / 12, 0,
/ directive-override-parameters / 20, {
/ parameter-image-digest / 3: << {
/ algorithm-id: / -16 / SHA256 /,
/ digest-bytes: / h'3B1...92A' / digest of plaintext payload /
} >>,
/ parameter-image-size / 14: 30 / size of plaintext payload /,
/ parameter-encryption-info / 19: h'369...50F',
/ parameter-source-component / 22: 1
},
/ directive-copy / 22, 15,
/ condition-image-match / 3, 15 / integrity check on decrypted payload /,
The suit-condition-image-match can also be applied on encrypted payloads before decryption takes place. An example command sequence is shown in Figure 18.¶
This option mitigates battery exhaustion attacks discussed in Section 12.¶
/ directive-set-component-index / 12, 1,
/ directive-override-parameters / 20, {
/ parameter-image-digest / 3: << {
/ algorithm-id: / -16 / SHA256 /,
/ digest-bytes: / h'8B4...D34' / digest of encrypted payload /
} >>,
/ parameter-image-size / 14: 30 / size of encrypted payload /,
/ parameter-uri / 21: "http://example.com/encrypted.bin"
},
/ directive-fetch / 21, 15,
/ condition-image-match / 3, 15 / integrity check on encrypted payload /,
/ directive-set-component-index / 12, 0,
/ directive-override-parameters / 20, {
/ parameter-encryption-info / 19: h'D86...1F0',
/ parameter-source-component / 22: 1
},
/ directive-copy / 22, 15,
AEAD algorithms, such as AES-GCM and ChaCha20/Poly1305, verify the integrity of the encrypted concent.¶
This sub-section provides a guideline to decide how to validate the integrity of the payloads with SUIT Manifest. Figure 19 illustrates a classification tree to decide how to establish payload integrity.¶
There are three conditions:¶
Q1. How does the recipient get the encrypted payload? If the encrypted payload is an integrated payload, its integrity is already validated with the suit-authentication-wrapper, so additional integrity check is not required.¶
Q2. Does the sender want to mitigate battery exhaustion attacks? If yes, the encrypted payload has to be validated before decryption.¶
Q3. Is the payload encrypted with an AEAD cipher? If yes, the additional integrity check is not required because the recipient validates the integrity of the payload while decrypting it. If no, validating its integrity must take place either before or after decryption.¶
There are many flavors of embedded devices, the market is large and fragmented. Hence, it is likely that some implementations and deployments implement their firmware update procedure differently than described below. On a positive note, the SUIT manifest allows different deployment scenarios to be supported easily thanks to the "scripting" functionality offered by the commands.¶
This section is specific to firmware images on microcontrollers and does not apply to generic software, configuration data, and machine learning models. The differences are the result of two aspects:¶
Use of flash memory: Flash memory on microcontrollers is a type of non-volatile memory that erases data in larger units called blocks, pages, or sectors and re-writes data at the byte level (often 4-bytes) or larger units. Flash memory is furthermore segmented into different memory regions, which store the bootloader, different versions of firmware images (in so-called slots), and configuration data. Figure 20 shows an example layout of a microcontroller flash area.¶
Microcontroller Design: Code on microcontrollers typically cannot be executed from an arbitrary place in flash memory without extra software development and design efforts. Hence, developers often compile firmware such that the bootloader can execute the code from a specific location in flash memory. Often, the location where the to-be-booted firmware image is found is called "primary slot".¶
When the encrypted firmware image has been transferred to the device, it will typically be stored in a dedicated area called the "secondary slot".¶
At the next boot, the bootloader will recognize a new firmware image and will start decrypting the downloaded image sector-by-sector and will swap it with the image found in the primary slot. This approach of swapping the newly downloaded image with the previously valid image requires two slots to allow the update to be reversed in case the newly obtained firmware image fails to boot. This adds robustness to the firmware update procedure.¶
The swap will only take place after the signature on the plaintext is verified. Note that the plaintext firmware image is available in the primary slot only after the swap has been completed, unless "dummy decrypt" is used to compute the hash over the plaintext prior to executing the decrypt operation during a swap. Dummy decryption here refers to the decryption of the firmware image found in the secondary slot sector-by-sector and computing a rolling hash over the resulting plaintext firmware image (also sector-by-sector) without performing the swap operation. While there are performance optimizations possible, such as conveying hashes for each sector in the manifest rather than a hash of the entire firmware image, such optimizations are not described in this specification.¶
Without hardware-based, on-the-fly decryption the image in the primary slot is available in cleartext. It may need to be re-encrypted before copying it to the secondary slot. This may be necessary when the secondary slot has different access permissions or when it is located in off-chip flash memory. Off-chip flash memory tends to be more vulnerable to physical attacks.¶
The ability to restart an interrupted firmware update is often a requirement for unattended devices and the same is true for low-end, constrained IoT devices. To fulfill this requirement it is necessary to chunk a firmware image into sectors and to encrypt each sector individually using a cipher that does not increase the size of the resulting ciphertext (i.e., by not adding an authentication tag after each encrypted block).¶
When an update gets aborted while the bootloader is decrypting the newly obtained image and swapping the sectors, the bootloader can restart where it left off. This technique offers robustness and better performance.¶
For this purpose, ciphers without integrity protection are used to encrypt the firmware image. Integrity protection of the firmware image MUST be provided and the suit-parameter-image-digest, defined in Section 8.4.8.6 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest], MUST be used.¶
[RFC9459] registers AES Counter (AES-CTR) mode and AES Cipher Block Chaining (AES-CBC) ciphers that do not offer integrity protection. These ciphers are useful for use cases that require firmware encryption on IoT devices. For many other use cases where software packages, configuration information or personalization data need to be encrypted, the use of AEAD ciphers is RECOMMENDED.¶
The following sub-sections provide further information about the initialization vector (IV) selection for use with AES-CBC and AES-CTR in the firmware encryption context. An IV MUST NOT be re-used when the same key is used. For this application, the IVs are not random but rather based on the slot/sector-combination in flash memory. The text below assumes that the block-size of AES is (much) smaller than the sector size. The typical sector-size of flash memory is in the order of KiB. Hence, multiple AES blocks need to be decrypted until an entire sector is completed.¶
The following manifests exemplify how to deliver encrypted payload and its encryption info to devices.¶
HMAC-256 MAC are added in AES-KW examples using the following secret key:¶
'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa' (616161... in hex, and its length is 32)¶
ES-DH examples are signed using the following ECDSA secp256r1 key:¶
-----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 SHA-256 as the digest function.¶
The following SUIT manifest requests a parser to authenticate the manifest with COSE_Mac0 HMAC256, to write and decrypt the encrypted payload into a component with the suit-directive-write directive.¶
The SUIT manifest in diagnostic notation (with line breaks added for readability) is shown here:¶
/ SUIT_Envelope_Tagged / 107({
/ authentication-wrapper / 2: << [
<< [
/ digest-algorithm-id: / -16 / SHA256 /,
/ digest-bytes: / h'536EC695E423342FF57FA89B3E3C12C0
F9257992F7D96F017281782D2DF1C50F'
] >>,
<< / COSE_Mac0_Tagged / 17([
/ protected: / << {
/ algorithm-id / 1: 5 / HMAC256 /
} >>,
/ unprotected: / {},
/ payload: / null,
/ tag: / h'3B70571169B0FEE5E6220BF86E5E973F
7F32875495908EDAA91EC994BCA44B29'
]) >>
] >>,
/ manifest / 3: << {
/ manifest-version / 1: 1,
/ manifest-sequence-number / 2: 1,
/ common / 3: << {
/ components / 2: [
['plaintext-firmware']
]
} >>,
/ install / 17: << [
/ fetch encrypted firmware /
/ directive-override-parameters / 20, {
/ parameter-content / 18:
h'2F59C3A34D9570FB99A5382E66466A3221A8AD85CE508B
A306FB431A60EFA5AAAA078355070205A4B196832DF17F',
/ parameter-encryption-info / 19: << 96([
/ protected: / << {
/ alg / 1: 1 / AES-GCM-128 /
} >>,
/ unprotected: / {
/ IV / 5: h'F14AAB9D81D51F7AD943FE87AF4F70CD'
},
/ payload: / null / detached ciphertext /,
/ recipients: / [
[
/ protected: / << {
} >>,
/ unprotected: / {
/ alg / 1: -3 / A128KW /,
/ kid / 4: 'kid-1'
},
/ payload: /
h'75603FFC9518D794713C8CA8A115A7FB32565A6D59534D62'
/ CEK encrypted with KEK /
]
]
]) >>
},
/ decrypt encrypted firmware /
/ directive-write / 18, 15
/ consumes the SUIT_Encryption_Info above /
] >>
} >>
})
¶
In hex format, the SUIT manifest is this:¶
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¶
The following SUIT manifest requests a parser to fetch the encrypted payload and to store it. Then, the payload is decrypted and stored into another component with the suit-directive-copy directive. This approach works well on constrained devices with XIP flash memory.¶
The SUIT manifest in diagnostic notation (with line breaks added for readability) is shown here:¶
/ SUIT_Envelope_Tagged / 107({
/ authentication-wrapper / 2: << [
<< [
/ digest-algorithm-id: / -16 / SHA256 /,
/ digest-bytes: / h'AAB6A7868C4E43D5983BDE019EF22779
21F6F8EF1FCAF9403CA97255BED2CD30'
] >>,
<< / COSE_Mac0_Tagged / 17([
/ protected: / << {
/ algorithm-id / 1: 5 / HMAC256 /
} >>,
/ unprotected: / {},
/ payload: / null,
/ tag: / h'93B4B774A5D0421ED6FB5EBF890A284C
DAC7816CBC048BF47EE7FA7FF3BC02C3'
]) >>
] >>,
/ manifest / 3: << {
/ manifest-version / 1: 1,
/ manifest-sequence-number / 2: 1,
/ common / 3: << {
/ components / 2: [
['plaintext-firmware'],
['encrypted-firmware']
]
} >>,
/ install / 17: << [
/ fetch encrypted firmware /
/ directive-set-component-index / 12, 1 / ['encrypted-firmware'] /,
/ directive-override-parameters / 20, {
/ parameter-image-size / 14: 46,
/ parameter-uri / 21: "https://example.com/encrypted-firmware"
},
/ directive-fetch / 21, 15,
/ decrypt encrypted firmware /
/ directive-set-component-index / 12, 0 / ['plaintext-firmware'] /,
/ directive-override-parameters / 20, {
/ parameter-encryption-info / 19: << 96([
/ protected: / << {
/ alg / 1: 1 / AES-GCM-128 /
} >>,
/ unprotected: / {
/ IV / 5: h'F14AAB9D81D51F7AD943FE87AF4F70CD'
},
/ payload: / null / detached ciphertext /,
/ recipients: / [
[
/ protected: / << {
} >>,
/ unprotected: / {
/ alg / 1: -3 / A128KW /,
/ kid / 4: 'kid-1'
},
/ payload: /
h'75603FFC9518D794713C8CA8A115A7FB32565A6D59534D62'
/ CEK encrypted with KEK /
]
]
]) >>,
/ parameter-source-component / 22: 1 / ['encrypted-firmware'] /
},
/ directive-copy / 22, 15 / consumes the SUIT_Encryption_Info above /
] >>
} >>
})
¶
In hex format, the SUIT manifest is this:¶
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¶
The following SUIT manifest requests a parser to authenticate the manifest with COSE_Sign1 ES256, to write and decrypt the encrypted payload into a component with the suit-directive-write directive.¶
The SUIT manifest in diagnostic notation (with line breaks added for readability) is shown here:¶
/ SUIT_Envelope_Tagged / 107({
/ authentication-wrapper / 2: << [
<< [
/ digest-algorithm-id: / -16 / SHA256 /,
/ digest-bytes: / h'CEF034223D7F2C39D676876995B4ED4E
8221AC5BF184B6606EE62C41C149C266'
] >>,
<< / COSE_Sign1_Tagged / 18([
/ protected: / << {
/ algorithm-id / 1: -7 / ES256 /
} >>,
/ unprotected: / {},
/ payload: / null,
/ signature: /
h'65E59AAB8A35BDE9547458316D1C769F
FB2CEA304C9FB6151E5C8A88A002A292
C5B8C63C81B5AC0AE31948B610834E12
CBDBB2753EA221544B6733076A92EE20'
]) >>
] >>,
/ manifest / 3: << {
/ manifest-version / 1: 1,
/ manifest-sequence-number / 2: 1,
/ common / 3: << {
/ components / 2: [
['decrypted-firmware']
]
} >>,
/ install / 17: << [
/ directive-set-component-index / 12, 0
/ ['plaintext-firmware'] /,
/ directive-override-parameters / 20, {
/ parameter-content / 18:
h'344FA2D5AD2F43F6F363DA6FF2C337FE69E33E3D63714D
23985BF02499EB0E8B231D45C378245DA3611C160CC511',
/ parameter-encryption-info / 19: << 96([
/ protected: / << {
/ alg / 1: 1 / AES-GCM-128 /
} >>,
/ unprotected: / {
/ IV / 5: h'DAE613B2E0DC55F4322BE38BDBA9DC68'
},
/ payload: / null / detached ciphertext /,
/ recipients: / [
[
/ protected: / << {
/ alg / 1: -29 / ECDH-ES + A128KW /
} >>,
/ unprotected: / {
/ ephemeral key / -1: {
/ kty / 1: 2 / EC2 /,
/ crv / -1: 1 / P-256 /,
/ x / -2: h'FF6E266DABAF51B7207569E31CF72646
183E94CEE64FCDC8695AD9A505AEFDEA',
/ y / -3: h'5FBC4A29844450B3AC22AB30C7F7004B
B59D8BD60D7997734A9FA0124B650895'
},
/ kid / 4: 'kid-2'
},
/ payload: /
h'B0E21628283F3E409F8158D8FFCA567F340E379AC39E49C9'
/ CEK encrypted with KEK /
]
]
]) >>
},
/ directive-write / 18, 15
/ consumes the SUIT_Encryption_Info above /
] >>
} >>
})
¶
In hex format, the SUIT manifest is this:¶
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¶
The following SUIT manifest requests a parser to resolve the dependency.¶
The dependent manifest is signed with another key: ~~~ -----BEGIN EC PRIVATE KEY----- MHcCAQEEIIQa67e56m8CYL5zVaJFiLl30j0qxb8ray2DeUMqH+qYoAoGCCqGSM49 AwEHoUQDQgAEDpCKqPBm2x8ITgw2UsY5Ur2Z8qW9si+eATZ6rQOrpot32hvYrE8M tJC6IQZIv3mrFk1JrTVR1x0xSydJ7kLSmg== -----END EC PRIVATE KEY----- ~~~¶
The dependency manifest is embedded as an integrated-dependency and referred to by the "#dependency-manifest" URI.¶
The SUIT manifest in diagnostic notation (with line breaks added for readability) is shown here:¶
/ SUIT_Envelope_Tagged / 107({
/ authentication-wrapper / 2: << [
<< [
/ digest-algorithm-id: / -16 / SHA256 /,
/ digest-bytes: / h'6A1D9F42E7B4047D2F54046019AE3ED4
3A8ACC467AC16576B17D6F8E633042D2'
] >>,
<< / COSE_Sign1_Tagged / 18([
/ protected: / << {
/ algorithm-id / 1: -7 / ES256 /
} >>,
/ unprotected: / {},
/ payload: / null,
/ signature: /
h'DF493BDBF167EFFB40593C5910D33B66
429721467DF05800EA66A88B91729CD5
1007981F151FC324745FF43E6F75AAF5
197DD5EC4AA6BCEFCE43E4B1E35C948E'
]) >>
] >>,
/ manifest / 3: << {
/ manifest-version / 1: 1,
/ manifest-sequence-number / 2: 1,
/ common / 3: << {
/ dependencies / 1: {
/ component-index / 1: {
/ dependency-prefix / 1: [
'dependency-manifest.suit'
]
}
},
/ components / 2: [
['decrypted-firmware']
]
} >>,
/ manifest-component-id / 5: [
'dependent-manifest.suit'
],
/ install / 17: << [
/ NOTE: set SUIT_Encryption_Info /
/ directive-set-component-index / 12, 0
/ ['decrypted-firmware'] /,
/ directive-override-parameters / 20, {
/ parameter-content / 18:
h'344FA2D5AD2F43F6F363DA6FF2C337FE69E33E3D63714D
23985BF02499EB0E8B231D45C378245DA3611C160CC511',
/ parameter-encryption-info / 19: << 96([
/ protected: / << {
/ alg / 1: 1 / AES-GCM-128 /
} >>,
/ unprotected: / {
/ IV / 5: h'DAE613B2E0DC55F4322BE38BDBA9DC68'
},
/ payload: / null / detached ciphertext /,
/ recipients: / [
[
/ protected: / << {
/ alg / 1: -29 / ECDH-ES + A128KW /
} >>,
/ unprotected: / {
/ ephemeral key / -1: {
/ kty / 1: 2 / EC2 /,
/ crv / -1: 1 / P-256 /,
/ x / -2: h'FF6E266DABAF51B7207569E31CF72646
183E94CEE64FCDC8695AD9A505AEFDEA',
/ y / -3: h'5FBC4A29844450B3AC22AB30C7F7004B
B59D8BD60D7997734A9FA0124B650895'
},
/ kid / 4: 'kid-2'
},
/ payload: /
h'B0E21628283F3E409F8158D8FFCA567F340E379AC39E49C9'
/ CEK encrypted with KEK /
]
]
]) >>
},
/ NOTE: call dependency-manifest /
/ directive-set-component-index / 12, 1
/ ['dependenty-manifest.suit'] /,
/ directive-override-parameters / 20, {
/ parameter-image-digest / 3: << [
/ algorithm-id / -16 / SHA256 /,
/ digest-bytes / h'1051324059C5193317CAC9A099BBC0B6
AFB56184C04277F566A3A4131F4A1C25'
] >>,
/ parameter-image-size / 14: 247,
/ parameter-uri / 21: "#dependency-manifest"
},
/ directive-fetch / 21, 15,
/ condition-dependency-integrity / 7, 15,
/ directive-process-dependency / 11, 15
] >>
} >>,
"#dependency-manifest": <<
/ SUIT_Envelope_Tagged / 107({
/ authentication-wrapper / 2: << [
<< [
/ digest-algorithm-id: / -16 / SHA256 /,
/ digest-bytes: / h'1051324059C5193317CAC9A099BBC0B6
AFB56184C04277F566A3A4131F4A1C25'
] >>,
<< / COSE_Sign1_Tagged / 18([
/ protected: / << {
/ algorithm-id / 1: -7 / ES256 /
} >>,
/ unprotected: / {},
/ payload: / null,
/ signature: /
h'55990F3745DC4F200FF946643A6DE30D
DCE57B080B7D68DE9896D8190B9A63E2
D60E7C3D9693B67221AA6D07BBF0AB45
314C236827A242C22B5E688DDC467269'
]) >>
] >>,
/ manifest / 3: << {
/ manifest-version / 1: 1,
/ manifest-sequence-number / 2: 1,
/ common / 3: << {
/ components / 2: [
['decrypted-firmware']
],
/ shared-sequence / 4: << [
/ directive-set-componnt-index / 12, 0
/ ['decrypted-firmware'] /,
/ directive-override-parameters / 20, {
/ parameter-image-digest / 3: << [
/ algorithm-id / -16 / SHA256 /,
/ digest-bytes / h'36921488FE6680712F734E11F58D87EE
B66D4B21A8A1AD3441060814DA16D50F'
] >>,
/ parameter-image-size / 14: 30
}
] >>
} >>,
/ manifest-component-id / 5: [
'dependency-manifest.suit'
],
/ validate / 7: << [
/ condition-image-match / 3, 15
] >>,
/ install / 17: << [
/ directive-set-component-index / 12, 0
/ ['decrypted-firmware'] /,
/ directive-write / 18, 15
/ consumes the SUIT_Encryption_Info set by dependent /,
/ condition-image-match / 3, 15
/ check the integrity of the decrypted payload /
] >>
} >>
})
>>
})
¶
In hex format, the SUIT manifest is this:¶
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¶
The algorithms described in this document assume that the party performing payload encryption¶
shares a key-encryption key (KEK) with the recipient (for use with the AES Key Wrap scheme), or¶
is in possession of the public key of the recipient (for use with ES-DH).¶
Both cases require some upfront communication interaction to distribute these keys to the involved communication parties. This interaction may be provided by a device management protocol, as described in [RFC9019], or may be executed earlier in the lifecycle of the device, for example during manufacturing or during commissioning. In addition to the keying material key identifiers and algorithm information need to be provisioned. This specification places no requirements on the structure of the key identifier.¶
In some cases third party companies analyse binaries for known security vulnerabilities. With encrypted payloads, this type of analysis is prevented. Consequently, these third party companies either need to be given access to the plaintext binary before encryption or they need to become authorized recipients of the encrypted payloads. In either case, it is necessary to explicitly consider those third parties in the software supply chain when such a binary analysis is desired.¶
This entire document is about security.¶
It is good security practise to use different keys for different purpose. For example, the KEK used with an AES-KW-based content key distribution method for encryption should be different from the long-term symmetric key used for authentication in a communication security protocol.¶
To further reduce the attack surface it may be beneficial use different long-term keys for the encryption of different types of payloads. For example, KEK_1 may be used with an AES-KW content key distribution method to encrypt a firmware image while KEK_2 would be used to encrypt configuration data.¶
A large part of this document is focused on the content key distribution and two methods are utilized, namely AES Key Wrap (AES-KW) and Ephemeral-Static Diffie-Hellman (ES-DH). In this table we summarize the main properties with respect to their deployment:¶
The use of firmware encryption with IoT devices introduces an battery exhaustion attack. This attack utilizes the fact that flash memory operations are energy-expensive. To perform this attacker, the adversary needs to be able to swap detached payloads and force the device to process a wrong payload. Swapping the payloads is only possible when there is no communication security protocol in place between the device and the distribution system or when the distribution system itself is compromised. The security features provided by the manifest will detect this attack and the device will not boot the incorrectly provided payload. However, at this time the energy-expensive flash operations have already been performed. Consequently, these operations may reduce the lifetime of devices and battery powered IoT devices are particularly vulnerable to such an attack. See Section 9 for further discussion about IoT devices using flash memory.¶
Including the digest of the encrypted payload in the manifest allows the device to detect a battery exhaustion attack before energy consuming decryption and flash memory copy or swap operations took place. When battery exhaustion attacks are not a concern, it is adequate to use the digest of the plaintet payload instead.¶
IANA is asked to add the following value to the SUIT Parameters registry established by Section 11.5 of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]:¶
Label Name Reference ----------------------------------------- TBD19 Encryption Info Section 4¶
[Editor's Note: TBD19: Proposed 19]¶
The following CDDL must be appended to the SUIT Manifest CDDL. The SUIT CDDL is defined in Appendix A of [I-D.ietf-suit-manifest]¶
SUIT_Encryption_Info = #6.96(COSE_Encrypt)
$$SUIT_Parameters //= (suit-parameter-encryption-info =>
bstr .cbor SUIT_Encryption_Info)
suit-parameter-encryption-info = 19
¶
We would like to thank Henk Birkholz for his feedback on the CDDL description in this document. Additionally, we would like to thank Michael Richardson, Øyvind Rønningstad, Dave Thaler, Laurence Lundblade, Christian Amsüss, Ruud Derwig, and Carsten Bormann for their review feedback. Finally, we would like to thank Dick Brooks for making us aware of the challenges encryption imposes on binary analysis.¶