]> Transforming Information Security LLC

MA USA kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com

Beyond Identity

3 Park Avenue NY NY 10016 USA monty.wiseman@beyondidentity.com

National Institute of Standards and Technology

100 Bureau Drive Gaithersburg MD 20899 USA ajstein.standards@gmail.com https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1092-2642

Dell Technologies

176 South Street MA 01748 USA chandra.nelogal@dell.com

Security This document establishes an architectural pattern whereby a remote attestation could be issued for a complete set of benchmarks or controls that are defined and grouped by an external entity, eliminating the need to send over individual attestations for each item within a benchmark or control framework. This document establishes a pattern to list sets of benchmarks and controls within CWT and JWT formats for use as an Entity Attestation Token (EAT). While the discussion below pertains mostly to TPM, other Roots of Trust such as TCG DICE, and non-TCG defined components will also be included. About This Document The latest revision of this draft can be found at . Status information for this document may be found at . Discussion of this document takes place on the Remote ATtestation ProcedureS (rats) Working Group mailing list (), which is archived at . Subscribe at . Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at .

Introduction Posture assessment has long been desired, but has been difficult to achieve due to complexities of customization requirements at each organization. By using policy and measurement sets that may be offered at various assurance levels, local assessment of evidence can be performed to continuously assess compliance. For example, the Trusted Computing Group's Trusted Platform Module (TPM) format and assessment method can provide this kind of compliance. This and other methods employ a secured log for transparency on the results of the assessed evidence against expected values. In order to support continuous monitoring of posture assessment and integrity in an enterprise or large data center, the local assessments and remediation are useful to reduce load on the network and remote resources. This is currently done today in measured boot mechanisms. It is useful to be able to share these results in order to gain a big picture view of the governance, risk, and compliance posture for a network. As such, communicating a summary result as evidence tied including a link to supporting logs with a remote attestation defined in an Entity Attestation Token (EAT) profile provides a way to accomplish that goal. This level of integration, which includes the ability to remediate, makes posture assessment through remote attestation achievable for organizations of all sizes. This is enabled through integration with existing toolsets and systems, built as an intrinsic capability. The measurement and policy grouping results summarized in an EAT profile may be provided by the vendor or by a neutral third party to enable ease of use and consistent implementations. The local system or server host performs the assessment of posture and remediation. This provides simpler options to enable posture assessment at selected levels by organizations without the need to have in-house expertise. The measurement and policy sets may also be customized, but not necessary to achieve posture assessment to predefined options. This document describes a method to use existing remote attestation formats and protocols. The method described allows for defined profiles of policies, benchmarks, and measurements for specific assurance levels. This provides transparency on posture assessment results summarized with remote attestations.

Conventions and Definitions 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 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

Posture Assessment Scenarios By way of example, the Center for Internet Security (CIS) hosts recommended configuration settings to secure operating systems, applications, and devices in CIS Benchmarks developed with industry experts. Attestations aligned to the CIS Benchmarks or other configuration guide such as a DISA STIG could be used to assert the configuration meets expectations. This has already been done for multiple platforms to demonstrate assurance for firmware according to NIST SP 800-193, Firmware Resiliency Guidelines . In order to scale remote attestation, a single attestation for a set of benchmarks or policies being met with a link to the verification logs from the local assessments, is the evidence that may be sent to the verifier and then the relying party. On traditional servers, assurance to NIST SP 800-193 is provable through attestation from a root of trust (RoT), using the Trusted Computing Group (TCG) Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chip and attestation formats. However, this remains local and one knows the policies and measurements have been met if other functions that rely on the assurance are running. At boot, policy and measurement expectations are verified against a set of "golden policies" from collected evidence and are verified to meet expected values. Device identity and measurements can also be attested at runtime. The attestations on evidence (e.g. hash of boot element) and verification of attestations are typically contained within a system and are limited to the control plane for management. The policy and measurement sets for comparison are protected to assure the result in the attestation verification process for boot element. Event logs and PCR values may be exposed to provide transparency into the verified attestations. The remote attestation defined in this document provides a summary of a local assessment of posture for managed systems and across various layers (operating system, application, containers) in each of these systems in a managed environment as evidence. The Relying Party uses the verified evidence to under stand posture of interconnected operating systems, applications, and systems that are communicated in summary results. There is a balance of exposure and evidence needed to assess posture when providing assurance of controls and system state. Currently, if using the TPM, logs and TPM PCR values may be passed to provide assurance of verification of attestation evidence meeting set requirements. Providing the set of evidence as assurance to a policy set can be accomplished with a remote attestation format such as the Entity Attestation Token (EAT) and a RESTful interface such as ROLIE or RedFish . Policy definition blocks may be scoped to control measurement sets, where the EAT profile asserts compliance to the policy or measurement block specified and may include claims with the log and PCR value evidence. Measurement and Policy sets, referenced in an EAT profile may be published and maintained by separate entities (e.g. CIS Benchmarks, DISA STIGs). The policy and measurement sets should be maintained separately even if associated with the same benchmark or control set. This avoids the need to transition the verifying entity to a remote system for individual policy and measurements which are performed locally for more immediate remediation as well as other functions. Examples of measurement and policy sets that could be defined in EAT profiles include, but are not limited to:

• Hardware attribute certificates, TCG
• Hardware Attribute Certificate Comparison Results, TCG
• Reference Integrity Measurements for firmware, TCG
• Operating system benchmarks at Specified Assurance Levels, CIS
• Application hardening Benchmarks at Specified Assurance Levels, CIS, DISA STIG
• Container security benchmarks at Specified Assurance Levels, CIS

Scale, ease of use, full automation, and consistency for customer consumption of a remote attestation function or service are essential toward the goal of consistently securing systems against known threats and vulnerabilities. Mitigations may be baked into policy. Claim sets of measurements and policy verified to meet or not meet Endorsed values are conveyed in an Entity Attestation Token made available to a RESTful interface in aggregate for the systems managed as evidence for the remote attestation. The Measurement or Policy Set may be registered in the IANA registry created in this document, detailing the specific configuration policies and measurements required to adhere or prove compliance to the associated document to enable interoperability. Levels (e.g. high, medium, low, 1, 2, 3) or vendor specific instances of the policy defined in code required to verify the policy and measurements would be registered using a name for the policy set, that would also be used in the reporting EAT that includes the MPS along with other artifacts to prove compliance.

Policy and Measurement Set Definitions This document defines EAT claims in the JWT and CWT registries to provide attestation to a set of verified claims within a defined grouping. The trustworthiness will be conveyed on original verified evidence as well as the attestation on the grouping. The claims provide the additional information needed for an EAT to convey compliance to a defined policy or measurement set to a system or application collecting evidence on policy and measurement assurance, for instance a Governance, Risk, and Compliance (GRC) system.

Claim	Long Name	Claim Description	Format
mps	Measurement or Policy Set	Name for the MPS
lem	Log Evidence of MPS	Log File or URI
pcr	TPM PCR Values	URI
fma	Format of MPS Attestations	Format of included attestations
hsh	Hash Value/Message Digest	Hash value of claim-set

Supportability and Re-Attestation The remote attestation framework shall include provisions for a Verifier Owner and Relying Party Owner to declare an Appraisal Policy for Attestation Results and Evidence that allows for modification of the Target Environment (e.g. a product, system, or service). Over its lifecycle, the Target Environment may experience modification due to: maintenance, failures, upgrades, expansion, moves, etc.. The Relying Party Owner managing the Target Environment (e.g. customer using the product) can chose to:

• Update the Appraisal Policy for Attestation Results and re-assess posture with this updated policy, summarizing with a remote attestation to the new policy or level, or
• Run remote attestation after modification of the Target Environment as an external validation, or
• Continue operation of the Target Environment as-is, without verification, potentially increasing risk

In the case of Re-Attestation:

• framework needs to invalidate previous Reference Values (e.g. TPM PCR values and tokens),
• framework needs to specify an Appraisal Policy for Evidence that requires fresh Evidence,
• framework needs to maintain history or allow for history to be logged to enable change traceability attestation, and
• framework needs to notify that the previous Attestation Results has been invalidated

Configuration Sets In some cases, it may be difficult to attest to configuration settings for the initial or subsequent attestation and verification processes. The use of an expected hash value for configuration settings can be used to compare the attested configuration set. In this case, the creator of the attestation verification measurements would define a set of values for which a message digest would be created and then signed by the attestor. The expected measurements would include the expected hash value for comparison. The configuration set could be the full attestation set to a Benchmark or a defined subset. These configuration sets can be registered for general use to reduce the need to replicate the policy and measurement assessments by others aiming to assure at the same level for a benchmark or hardening guide. This document creates an IANA registry for this purpose, creating consistency between automated policy and measurement set levels and the systems used to collect and report aggregate views for an organization across systems and applications, such as a GRC platform.

Remediation If policy and configuration settings or measurements attested do not meet expected values, remediation is desireable. Automated remediation performed with alignment to zero trust architecture principles would require that the remediation be performed prior to any relying component executing. The relying component would verify before continuing in a zero trust architecture. Ideally, remediation would occur on system as part of the process to attest to a set of attestations, similar to how attestation is performed for firmware in the boot process. If automated remediation is not possible, an alert should be generated to allow for notification of the variance from expected values.

Security Considerations This document establishes a pattern to list sets of benchmarks and controls within CWT and JWT formats. The contents of the benchmarks and controls are out of scope for this document. This establishes an architectural pattern whereby a remote attestation could be issued for a complete set of benchmarks or controls as defined and grouped by external entities, preventing the need to send over individual attestations for each item within a benchmark or control framework. This document does not add security consideration over what has been described in the EAT, JWT, or CWT specifications.

IANA Considerations Draft section - authors know more work is needed to properly define the registry and claims. This section is here now to assist in understanding the concepts. This document requests the creation of a Measurement and Policy Set (MPS) registry. The MPS registry will contain the names of the Benchmarks, Policy sets, DISA STIGS, controls, or other groupings as a policy and measurement set that MAY correlate to standards documents containing assurance guidelines, compliance requirements, or other defined claim sets for verification of posture assessment to that MPS. The MPS registry will include the policy definition for specific levels of MPS assurance to enable interoperability between assertions of compliance (or lack thereof) and reporting systems.

MPS Name	MPS Description	File with MPS definition
Ubuntu-CIS-L1	Ubuntu CIS Benchmark, level 1 assurance	http:// /Ubuntu-CIS-L1.txt

The MPS name includes versions or level information, allowing for distinct policy or measurement sets and definitions of those sets (including the supporting formats used to write the definitions).

Additions to the JWT and CWT registries requested This document requests the following JWT claims per the specification requirement required for the JSON Web Token (JWT) registry defined in RFC7519.

Claim	Long Name	Claim Description
MPS	Measurement or Policy Set	Name for the MPS
LEM	Log Evidence of MPS	Log File or URI
PCR	TPM PCR Values	URI
FMA	Format of MPS Attestations	Format of included attestations
HSH	Hash Value/Message Digest	Hash value of claim-set

MPS (Measurement or Policy Set) Claim The MPS (Measurement or Policy Set) claim identifies the policy and measurement set being reported. The MPS MAY be registered to the MPS IANA registry. The MPS may be specified to specific levels of assurance to hardening, loosening guides or benchmarks to provide interoperability in reporting. The processing of this claim is generally application specific. The MPS value is a case-sensitive string containing a StringOrURI value. Use of this claim is OPTIONAL. This document requests the following CWT claims per the specification requirement required for the CBOR Web Token (CWT) registry defined in RFC8392.

Claim	Long Name	Claim Description	JWT Claim Name
MPS	Measurement or Policy Set	Name for the MPS	MPS
LEM	Log Evidence of MPS	Log File or URI	LEM
PCR	TPM PCR Values	URI	PCR
FMA	Format of MPS Attestations	Format of included attestations	FMA
HSH	Hash Value/Message Digest	Hash value of claim-set	HSH

References Normative References In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. CBOR Web Token (CWT) is a compact means of representing claims to be transferred between two parties. The claims in a CWT are encoded in the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR), and CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) is used for added application-layer security protection. A claim is a piece of information asserted about a subject and is represented as a name/value pair consisting of a claim name and a claim value. CWT is derived from JSON Web Token (JWT) but uses CBOR rather than JSON. JSON Web Token (JWT) is a compact, URL-safe means of representing claims to be transferred between two parties. The claims in a JWT are encoded as a JSON object that is used as the payload of a JSON Web Signature (JWS) structure or as the plaintext of a JSON Web Encryption (JWE) structure, enabling the claims to be digitally signed or integrity protected with a Message Authentication Code (MAC) and/or encrypted. In network protocol exchanges, it is often useful for one end of a communication to know whether the other end is in an intended operating state. This document provides an architectural overview of the entities involved that make such tests possible through the process of generating, conveying, and evaluating evidentiary Claims. It provides a model that is neutral toward processor architectures, the content of Claims, and protocols. Security Theory LLC Mediatek USA Qualcomm Technologies Inc. Red Hound Software, Inc. An Entity Attestation Token (EAT) provides an attested claims set that describes state and characteristics of an entity, a device like a smartphone, IoT device, network equipment or such. This claims set is used by a relying party, server or service to determine the type and degree of trust placed in the entity. An EAT is either a CBOR Web Token (CWT) or JSON Web Token (JWT) with attestation-oriented claims. RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings. Informative References This document defines a resource-oriented approach for security automation information publication, discovery, and sharing. Using this approach, producers may publish, share, and exchange representations of software descriptors, security incidents, attack indicators, software vulnerabilities, configuration checklists, and other security automation information as web-addressable resources. Furthermore, consumers and other stakeholders may access and search this security information as needed, establishing a rapid and on-demand information exchange network for restricted internal use or public access repositories. This specification extends the Atom Publishing Protocol and Atom Syndication Format to transport and share security automation resource representations. National Institute of Standards and Technology n.d.

Contributors Thank you to reviewers and contributors who helped to improve this document. Thank you to Nick Grobelney, Dell Technologies, for your review and contribution to separate out the policy and measurement sets. Thank you, Samant Kakarla and Huijun Xie from Dell Technologies, for your detailed review and corrections on boot process details. Section 3 has been contributed by Rudy Bauer from Dell as well and an author will be added on the next revision. IANA section added in version 7 by Kathleen Moriarty, expanding the claims registered and adding a proposed registry to define policy and measurement sets. Thank you to Henk Birkholz for his review and edits. Thanks to Thomas Fossati, Michael Richardson, and Eric Voit for their detailed reviews on the mailing list. Thank you to A.J. Stein for converting the XMLMind workflow to Markdown and GitHub, editorial contributions, and restructuring of the document.