Network Working Group E. Lear Internet-Draft Cisco Systems Intended status: Standards Track S. Rose Expires: November 19, 2020 NIST May 18, 2020 SBOM Extension for MUD draft-lear-opsawg-mud-sbom-00 Abstract Software bills of materials (SBOMs) are formal descriptions of what pieces of software are included in a product. This memo specifies a means for manufacturers to state how SBOMs may be retrieved through an extension to manufacturer usage descriptions (MUD). 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 November 19, 2020. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2020 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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Lear & Rose Expires November 19, 2020 [Page 1] Internet-Draft SBOM for MUD May 2020 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. How This Information Is Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. SBOM formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3. Discussion points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. The mud-sbom extension model extension . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. The mud-sbom augmentation to the MUD YANG model . . . . . . . 4 4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. Without ACLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. Located on the Device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.3. SBOM Obtained from Contact Information . . . . . . . . . 9 4.4. With ACLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.1. MUD Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.2. Well-Known Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Appendix A. Changes from Earlier Versions . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1. Introduction Manufacturer Usage Descriptions (MUD) [RFC8520] provides a means for devices to identify what they are and what sort of network access they need. This memo specifies a YANG model [RFC6991] for reporting and a means for transmitting the report, and appropriate extensions to the MUD file to indicate how to report and how often. Software bills of material (SBOMs) are descriptions of what software, including versionioning and dependencies, a device contains. There are different SBOM formats such as Software Package Data Exchange [SPDX] and Software Identity Tags [SWID]. This memo extends the MUD YANG schema to provide location information of an SBOM. These SBOMs are typically found in one of three ways: o on devices themselves o on a web site (e.g., via URI) o through direct contact with the manufacturer. Lear & Rose Expires November 19, 2020 [Page 2] Internet-Draft SBOM for MUD May 2020 Some devices will have interfaces that permit direct SBOM retrieval. Examples of these interfaces might be 'ssh' or an HTTP endpoint for retrieval. There may also be private interfaces as well. When a web site is used, versioning information about the SBOM is implicit based on the MUD file. 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. 1.1. How This Information Is Used SBOMs are used for numerous purposes, including vulnerability assessment, license management, and inventory management. This memo provides means for either automated or semi-automated collection of that information. For devices that can output a MUD URL, the mechanism may be highly automated. For devices that have a MUD URL in either their documentation or within a QR code on a box, the mechanism is semi-automated (someone has to scan the QR code or enter the URL). Note that SBOMs may change more frequently than access control requirements. A change to software does not necessarily mean a change to control channels that are used. Therefore, it is important to retrieve the MUD file as suggested by the manufacturer in the cache-validity period. In many cases, only the SBOM list will have been updated. 1.2. SBOM formats There are multiple ways to express an SBOM. When these are retrieved either directly from the device or directly from a web server, tools will need to observe the content-type header to determine precisely which format is being transmitted. Because IoT devices in particular have limited capabilities, use of a specific Accept: header in HTTP or the Accept Option in CoAP is NOT RECOMMENDED. Instead, backend tooling MUST silently discard SBOM information sent with a media type that is not understood. 1.3. Discussion points The following is discussion to be removed at time of RFC publication. o Is the model structured correctly? Lear & Rose Expires November 19, 2020 [Page 3] Internet-Draft SBOM for MUD May 2020 o Are there other retrieval mechanisms that need to be specified? o Do we need to be more specific in how to authenticate and retrieve SBOMs? o What are the implications if the MUD URL is an extension in a certificate (e.g. an IDevID cert)? 2. The mud-sbom extension model extension We now formally define this extension. This is done in two parts. First, the extension name "sbom" is listed in the "extensions" array of the MUD file. Second, the "mud" container is augmented with a list of SBOM sources. This is done as follows: module: ietf-mud-sbom augment /mud:mud: +--rw sboms* [version-info] +--rw version-info string +--rw (sbom-type)? +--:(url) | +--rw sbom-url? inet:uri +--:(local-uri) | +--rw sbom-local* enumeration +--:(contact-info) +--rw contact-uri? inet:uri 3. The mud-sbom augmentation to the MUD YANG model file "ietf-mud-sbom@2020-03-06.yang" module ietf-mud-sbom { yang-version 1.1; namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-mud-sbom"; prefix mud-sbom; import ietf-inet-types { prefix inet; } import ietf-mud { prefix mud; } organization "IETF OPSAWG (Ops Area) Working Group"; contact Lear & Rose Expires November 19, 2020 [Page 4] Internet-Draft SBOM for MUD May 2020 "WG Web: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/opsawg/ WG List: opsawg@ietf.org Author: Eliot Lear lear@cisco.com "; description "This YANG module augments the ietf-mud model to provide for reporting of SBOMs. Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself for full legal notices. 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 (RFC 2119) (RFC 8174) when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. "; revision 2020-03-06 { description "Initial proposed standard."; reference "RFC XXXX: Extension for MUD Reporting"; } grouping mud-sbom-extension { description "SBOM extension grouping"; list sboms { key "version-info"; leaf version-info { type string; description "A version string that is applicable for this SBOM list entry. The format of this string is left to the device manufacturer. How the network administrator determines the version of software running on the device is beyond the scope of this memo."; Lear & Rose Expires November 19, 2020 [Page 5] Internet-Draft SBOM for MUD May 2020 } choice sbom-type { case url { leaf sbom-url { type inet:uri; description "A statically located URI."; } } case local-uri { leaf-list sbom-local { type enumeration { enum coap { description "Use COAP schema to retrieve SBOM"; } enum coaps { description "Use COAPS schema to retrieve SBOM"; } enum http { description "Use HTTP schema to retrieve SBOM"; } enum https { description "Use HTTPS schema to retrieve SBOM"; } } description "The choice of sbom-local means that the SBOM resides at a location indicated by an indicted scheme for the device in question, at well known location '/.well-known/sbom'. For example, if the MUD file indicates that coaps is to be used and the host is located at address 10.1.2.3, the SBOM could be retrieved at 'coaps://10.1.2.3/.well-known/sbom'. N.B., coap and http schemes are NOT RECOMMENDED."; } } case contact-info { leaf contact-uri { type inet:uri; description "This MUST be either a tel, http, https, or mailto uri schema that customers can use to contact someone for SBOM information."; } Lear & Rose Expires November 19, 2020 [Page 6] Internet-Draft SBOM for MUD May 2020 } description "choices for SBOM retrieval."; } description "list of methods to get an SBOM."; } } augment "/mud:mud" { description "Add extension for SBOMs."; uses mud-sbom-extension; } } 4. Examples In this example MUD file that uses a cloud service, the Frobinator presents a location of the SBOM in a URL. Note, the ACLs in a MUD file are NOT required, although they are a very good idea for IP- based devices. The first MUD file demonstrates how to get the SBOM without ACLs, and the second has ACLs. 4.1. Without ACLS Lear & Rose Expires November 19, 2020 [Page 7] Internet-Draft SBOM for MUD May 2020 { "ietf-mud:mud": { "mud-version": 1, "mud-url": "https://iot-device.example.com/dnsname", "last-update": "2019-01-15T10:22:47+00:00", "cache-validity": 48, "is-supported": true, "systeminfo": "device that wants to talk to a cloud service", "mfg-name": "Example, Inc.", "documentation": "https://frobinator.example.com/doc/frob2000", "model-name": "Frobinator 2000", "extensions" : [ "sbom" ], "sboms" : [ { "version-info" : "FrobOS Release 1.1", "sbom-url" : "https://frobinator.example.com/sboms/f20001.1", } ] } } 4.2. Located on the Device { "ietf-mud:mud": { "mud-version": 1, "mud-url": "https://iot-device.example.com/dnsname", "last-update": "2019-01-15T10:22:47+00:00", "cache-validity": 48, "is-supported": true, "systeminfo": "device that wants to talk to a cloud service", "mfg-name": "Example, Inc.", "documentation": "https://frobinator.example.com/doc/frob2000", "model-name": "Frobinator 2000", "extensions" : [ "sbom" ], "sboms" : [ { "version-info" : "FrobOS Release 1.1", "sbom-local" : "coaps:///.well-known/sbom", } ] } } Lear & Rose Expires November 19, 2020 [Page 8] Internet-Draft SBOM for MUD May 2020 4.3. SBOM Obtained from Contact Information { "ietf-mud:mud": { "mud-version": 1, "mud-url": "https://iot-device.example.com/dnsname", "last-update": "2019-01-15T10:22:47+00:00", "cache-validity": 48, "is-supported": true, "systeminfo": "device that wants to talk to a cloud service", "mfg-name": "Example, Inc.", "documentation": "https://frobinator.example.com/doc/frob2000", "model-name": "Frobinator 2000", "extensions" : [ "sbom" ], "sboms" : [ { "version-info" : "FrobOS Release 1.1", "contact-uri" : "mailto:sbom-requst@example.com", } ] } } 4.4. With ACLS { "ietf-mud:mud": { "mud-version": 1, "mud-url": "https://iot-device.example.com/dnsname", "last-update": "2019-01-15T10:22:47+00:00", "cache-validity": 48, "is-supported": true, "systeminfo": "device that wants to talk to a cloud service", "mfg-name": "Example, Inc.", "documentation": "https://frobinator.example.com/doc/frob2000", "model-name": "Frobinator 2000", "extensions" : [ "sbom" ], "sboms" : [ { "version-info" : "FrobOS Release 1.1", "sbom-url" : "https://frobinator.example.com/sboms/f20001.1", } ], "from-device-policy": { Lear & Rose Expires November 19, 2020 [Page 9] Internet-Draft SBOM for MUD May 2020 "access-lists": { "access-list": [ { "name": "mud-96898-v4fr" }, { "name": "mud-96898-v6fr" } ] } }, "to-device-policy": { "access-lists": { "access-list": [ { "name": "mud-96898-v4to" }, { "name": "mud-96898-v6to" } ] } } }, "ietf-access-control-list:acls": { "acl": [ { "name": "mud-96898-v4to", "type": "ipv4-acl-type", "aces": { "ace": [ { "name": "cl0-todev", "matches": { "ipv4": { "ietf-acldns:src-dnsname": "cloud-service.example.com" } }, "actions": { "forwarding": "accept" } } ] } }, { "name": "mud-96898-v4fr", "type": "ipv4-acl-type", Lear & Rose Expires November 19, 2020 [Page 10] Internet-Draft SBOM for MUD May 2020 "aces": { "ace": [ { "name": "cl0-frdev", "matches": { "ipv4": { "ietf-acldns:dst-dnsname": "cloud-service.example.com" } }, "actions": { "forwarding": "accept" } } ] } }, { "name": "mud-96898-v6to", "type": "ipv6-acl-type", "aces": { "ace": [ { "name": "cl0-todev", "matches": { "ipv6": { "ietf-acldns:src-dnsname": "cloud-service.example.com" } }, "actions": { "forwarding": "accept" } } ] } }, { "name": "mud-96898-v6fr", "type": "ipv6-acl-type", "aces": { "ace": [ { "name": "cl0-frdev", "matches": { "ipv6": { "ietf-acldns:dst-dnsname": "cloud-service.example.com" } }, "actions": { Lear & Rose Expires November 19, 2020 [Page 11] Internet-Draft SBOM for MUD May 2020 "forwarding": "accept" } } ] } } ] } } At this point, the management system can attempt to retrieve the SBOM, and determine which format is in use through the content-type header on the response to a GET request. 5. Security Considerations SBOMs provide an inventory of software. If firmware is available to an attacker, the attacker may well already be able to derive this very same software inventory. Manufacturers MAY restrict access to SBOM information using appropriate authorization semantics within HTTP. In particular, if a system attempts to retrieve an SBOM via HTTP, if the client is not authorized, the server MUST produce an appropriate error, with instructions on how to register a particular client. One example may be to issue a certificate to the client for this purpose after a registration process has taken place. Another example would involve the use of OAUTH in combination with a federations of SBOM servers. To further mitigate attacks against a device, manufacturers SHOULD recommend access controls through the normal MUD mechanism. 6. IANA Considerations 6.1. MUD Extension The IANA is requested to add "controller-candidate" to the MUD extensions registry as follows: Extension Name: sbom Standard reference: This document 6.2. Well-Known Prefix The following well known URI is requested in accordance with [RFC8615]: Lear & Rose Expires November 19, 2020 [Page 12] Internet-Draft SBOM for MUD May 2020 URI suffix: "sbom" Change controller: "IETF" Specification document: This memo Related information: See ISO/IEC 19970-2 and SPDX.org 7. References 7.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types", RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC8520] Lear, E., Droms, R., and D. Romascanu, "Manufacturer Usage Description Specification", RFC 8520, DOI 10.17487/RFC8520, March 2019, . [RFC8615] Nottingham, M., "Well-Known Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 8615, DOI 10.17487/RFC8615, May 2019, . 7.2. Informative References [SPDX] The Linux Foundation, "SPDX Specification 2.1", 2016. [SWID] ISO/IEC, "Information technology -- IT asset management -- Part 2: Software identification tag", ISO 19770-2:2015, 2015. Appendix A. Changes from Earlier Versions Draft -00: o Initial revision Lear & Rose Expires November 19, 2020 [Page 13] Internet-Draft SBOM for MUD May 2020 Authors' Addresses Eliot Lear Cisco Systems Richtistrasse 7 Wallisellen CH-8304 Switzerland Phone: +41 44 878 9200 Email: lear@cisco.com Scott Rose NIST 100 Bureau Dr Gaithersburg MD 20899 USA Phone: +1 301-975-8439 Email: scott.rose@nist.gov Lear & Rose Expires November 19, 2020 [Page 14]