[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-thaler-teep-otrp-over-http) 00 01

TEEP WG                                                        D. Thaler
Internet-Draft                                                 Microsoft
Intended status: Informational                             June 21, 2019
Expires: December 23, 2019


           HTTP Transport for the Open Trust Protocol (OTrP)
                   draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-00

Abstract

   This document specifies the HTTP transport for the Open Trust
   Protocol (OTrP), which is used to manage code and configuration data
   in a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE).  An implementation of this
   document can run outside of any TEE, but interacts with an OTrP
   implementation that runs inside a TEE.

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 http://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 December 23, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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
   (http://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.



Thaler                  Expires December 23, 2019               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             OTrP HTTP Transport                 June 2019


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Use of Abstract APIs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Use of HTTP as a Transport  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Client Broker Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     5.1.  Receiving a request to install a new Trusted Application    4
       5.1.1.  Session Creation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  Getting a message buffer back from an OTrP Agent  . . . .   5
     5.3.  Receiving an HTTP response  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.4.  Handling checks for policy changes  . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.5.  Error handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Server Broker Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.1.  Receiving an HTTP POST request  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.2.  Getting an empty buffer back from the TAM . . . . . . . .   7
     6.3.  Getting a message buffer from the TAM . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.4.  Error handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Sample message flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs), including Intel SGX, ARM
   TrustZone, Secure Elements, and others, enforce that only authorized
   code can execute within the TEE, and any memory used by such code is
   protected against tampering or disclosure outside the TEE.  The Open
   Trust Protocol (OTrP) is designed to provision authorized code and
   configuration into TEEs.

   To be secure against malware, an OTrP implementation (referred to as
   an OTrP "Agent" on the client side, and a "Trusted Application
   Manager (TAM)" on the server side) must themselves run inside a TEE.
   However, the transport for OTrP, along with typical networking
   stacks, need not run inside a TEE.  This split allows the set of
   highly trusted code to be kept as small as possible, including
   allowing code (e.g., TCP/IP) that only sees encrypted messages to be
   kept out of the TEE.

   The OTrP specification [I-D.ietf-teep-opentrustprotocol] describes
   the behavior of OTrP Agents and TAMs, but does not specify the
   details of the transport, an implementation of which is referred to
   as a "Broker".  The purpose of this document is to provide such



Thaler                  Expires December 23, 2019               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             OTrP HTTP Transport                 June 2019


   details.  That is, the HTTP transport for OTrP is implemented in a
   Broker (typically outside a TEE) that delivers messages up to an OTrP
   implementation, and accepts messages from the OTrP implementation to
   be sent over a network.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   This document also uses various terms defined in
   [I-D.ietf-teep-architecture], including Trusted Execution Environment
   (TEE), Trusted Application (TA), Trusted Application Manager (TAM),
   Agent, and Broker.

3.  Use of Abstract APIs

   This document refers to various APIs between a Broker and an OTrP
   implementation in the abstract, meaning the literal syntax and
   programming language are not specified, so that various concrete APIs
   can be designed (outside of the IETF) that are compliant.

   It is common in some TEE architectures (e.g., SGX) to refer to calls
   into a Trusted Application (TA) as "ECALLs" (or enclave-calls), and
   calls out from a Trusted Application (TA) as "OCALLs" (or out-calls).

   In other TEE architectures, there may be no OCALLs, but merely data
   returned from calls into a TA.  This document attempts to be agnostic
   as to the concrete API architecture.  As such, abstract APIs used in
   this document will refer to calls into a TA as API calls, and will
   simply refer to "passing data" back out of the TA.  A concrete API
   might pass data back via an OCALL or via data returned from an API
   call.

   This document will also refer to passing "no" data back out of a TA.
   In an OCALL-based architecture, this might be implemented by not
   making any such call.  In a return-based architecture, this might be
   implemented by returning 0 bytes.

4.  Use of HTTP as a Transport

   This document uses HTTP [I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics] as a transport.
   When not called out explicitly in this document, all implementation
   recommendations in [I-D.ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis] apply to use of HTTP
   by OTrP.



Thaler                  Expires December 23, 2019               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             OTrP HTTP Transport                 June 2019


   Redirects MAY be automatically followed, and no additional request
   headers beyond those specified by HTTP need be modified or removed
   upon a following such a redirect.

   Content is not intended to be treated as active by browsers and so
   HTTP responses with content SHOULD have the following headers as
   explained in Section 4.12 of [I-D.ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis]:

       Content-Type: application/otrp+json
       Cache-Control: no-store
       X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff
       Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'none'
       Referrer-Policy: no-referrer

   Only the POST method is specified for TAM resources exposed over
   HTTP.  A URI of such a resource is referred to as a "TAM URI".  A TAM
   URI can be any HTTP(S) URI.  The URI to use is configured in an OTrP
   Agent via an out-of-band mechanism, as discussed in the next section.

   When HTTPS is used, TLS certificates MUST be checked according to
   [RFC2818].

5.  Client Broker Behavior

5.1.  Receiving a request to install a new Trusted Application

   When the Broker receives a notification (e.g., from an application
   installer) that an application has a dependency on a given Trusted
   Application (TA) being available in a given type of TEE, the
   notification will contain the following:

   -  A unique identifier of the TA

   -  Optionally, any metadata to pass to the OTrP Agent.  This might
      include a TAM URI provided in the application manifest, for
      example.

   -  Optionally, any requirements that may affect the choice of TEE, if
      multiple are available to the Broker.

   When such a notification is received, the Broker first identifies in
   an implementation-dependent way which TEE (if any) is most
   appropriate based on the constraints expressed.  If there is only one
   TEE, the choice is obvious.  Otherwise, the choice might be based on
   factors such as capabilities of available TEE(s) compared with TEE
   requirements in the notification.





Thaler                  Expires December 23, 2019               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             OTrP HTTP Transport                 June 2019


   The Broker then informs the OTrP Agent in that TEE by invoking an
   appropriate "RequestTA" API that identifies the TA needed and any
   other associated metadata.  The Broker need not know whether the TEE
   already has such a TA installed or whether it is up to date.

   The OTrP Agent will either (a) pass no data back, (b) pass back a TAM
   URI to connect to, or (c) pass back a message buffer and TAM URI to
   send it to.  The TAM URI passed back may or may not be the same as
   the TAM URI, if any, provided by the broker, depending on the OTrP
   Agent's configuration.  If they differ, the Broker MUST use the TAM
   URI passed back.

5.1.1.  Session Creation

   If no data is passed back, the Broker simply informs its client
   (e.g., the application installer) of success.

   If the OTrP Agent passes back a TAM URI with no message buffer, the
   TEEP Broker attempts to create session state, then sends an HTTP(S)
   POST to the TAM URI with an "Accept: application/otrp+json" header
   and an empty body.  The HTTP request is then associated with the
   Broker's session state.

   If the OTrP Agent instead passes back a TAM URI with a message
   buffer, the TEEP Broker attempts to create session state and handles
   the message buffer as specified in Section 5.2.

   Session state consists of:

   -  Any context (e.g., a handle) that identifies the API session with
      the OTrP Agent.

   -  Any context that identifies an HTTP request, if one is
      outstanding.  Initially, none exists.

5.2.  Getting a message buffer back from an OTrP Agent

   When a message buffer (and TAM URI) is passed to a Broker from an
   OTrP Agent, the Broker MUST do the following, using the Broker's
   session state associated with its API call to the OTrP Agent.

   The Broker sends an HTTP POST request to the TAM URI with "Accept:
   application/otrp+json" and "Content-Type: application/otrp+json"
   headers, and a body containing the OTrP message buffer provided by
   the OTrP Agent.  The HTTP request is then associated with the
   Broker's session state.





Thaler                  Expires December 23, 2019               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             OTrP HTTP Transport                 June 2019


5.3.  Receiving an HTTP response

   When an HTTP response is received in response to a request associated
   with a given session state, the Broker MUST do the following.

   If the HTTP response body is empty, the Broker's task is complete,
   and it can delete its session state, and its task is done.

   If instead the HTTP response body is not empty, the Broker calls a
   "ProcessOTrPMessage" API (Section 6.2 of
   [I-D.ietf-teep-opentrustprotocol]) to pass the response body to the
   OTrP Agent associated with the session.  The OTrP Agent will then
   pass no data back, or pass pack a message buffer.

   If no data is passed back, the Broker's task is complete, and it can
   delete its session state, and inform its client (e.g., the
   application installer) of success.

   If instead the OTrP Agent passes back a message buffer, the TEEP
   Broker handles the message buffer as specified in Section 5.2.

5.4.  Handling checks for policy changes

   An implementation MUST provide a way to periodically check for OTrP
   policy changes.  This can be done in any implementation-specific
   manner, such as:

   A) The Broker might call into the OTrP Agent at an interval
   previously specified by the OTrP Agent.  This approach requires that
   the Broker be capable of running a periodic timer.

   B) The Broker might be informed when an existing TA is invoked, and
   call into the OTrP Agent if more time has passed than was previously
   specified by the OTrP Agent.  This approach allows the device to go
   to sleep for a potentially long period of time.

   C) The Broker might be informed when any attestation attempt
   determines that the device is out of compliance, and call into the
   OTrP Agent to remediate.

   The Broker informs the OTrP Agent by invoking an appropriate
   "RequestPolicyCheck" API.  The OTrP Agent will either (a) pass no
   data back, (b) pass back a TAM URI to connect to, or (c) pass back a
   message buffer and TAM URI to send it to.  Processing then continues
   as specified in Section 5.1.1.






Thaler                  Expires December 23, 2019               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             OTrP HTTP Transport                 June 2019


5.5.  Error handling

   If any local error occurs where the Broker cannot get a message
   buffer (empty or not) back from the OTrP Agent, the Broker deletes
   its session state, and informs its client (e.g., the application
   installer) of a failure.

   If any HTTP request results in an HTTP error response or a lower
   layer error (e.g., network unreachable), the Broker calls the OTrP
   Agent's "ProcessError" API, and then deletes its session state and
   informs its client of a failure.

6.  Server Broker Behavior

6.1.  Receiving an HTTP POST request

   When an HTTP POST request is received with an empty body, the Broker
   invokes the TAM's "ProcessConnect" API.  The TAM will then pass back
   a (possibly empty) message buffer.

   When an HTTP POST request is received with a non-empty body, the
   Broker calls the TAM's "ProcessOTrPMessage" API to pass it the
   request body.  The TAM will then pass back a (possibly empty) message
   buffer.

6.2.  Getting an empty buffer back from the TAM

   If the TAM passes back an empty buffer, the Broker sends a successful
   (2xx) response with no body.

6.3.  Getting a message buffer from the TAM

   If the TAM passes back a non-empty buffer, the Broker generates a
   successful (2xx) response with a "Content-Type: application/
   otrp+json" header, and with the message buffer as the body.

6.4.  Error handling

   If any error occurs where the Broker cannot get a message buffer
   (empty or not) back from the TAM, the Broker generates an appropriate
   HTTP error response.

7.  Sample message flow

   1.   An application installer determines (e.g., from an app manifest)
        that the application has a dependency on TA "X", and passes this
        notification to the Client Broker.  The Client Broker picks an




Thaler                  Expires December 23, 2019               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             OTrP HTTP Transport                 June 2019


        OTrP Agent (e.g., the only one available) based on this
        notification.

   2.   The Client Broker calls the OTrP Agent's "RequestTA" API,
        passing TA Needed = X.

   3.   The OTrP Agent finds that no such TA is already installed, but
        that it can be obtained from a given TAM.  The OTrP Agent passes
        the TAM URI (e.g., "https://example.com/tam") to the Client
        Broker.  (If the OTrP Agent already had a cached TAM certificate
        that it trusts, it could skip to step 9 instead and generate a
        GetDeviceStateResponse.)

   4.   The Client Broker sends an HTTP POST request to the TAM URI:



           POST /tam HTTP/1.1
           Host: example.com
           Accept: application/otrp+json
           Content-Length: 0
           User-Agent: Foo/1.0

   5.   The Server Broker receives the HTTP POST request, and calls the
        TAM's "ProcessConnect" API.

   6.   The TAM generates an OTrP message (typically
        GetDeviceStateRequest is the first message) and passes it to the
        Server Broker.

   7.   The Server Broker sends an HTTP successful response with the
        OTrP message in the body:



           HTTP/1.1 200 OK
           Content-Type: application/otrp+json
           Content-Length: [length of OTrP message here]
           Server: Bar/2.2
           Cache-Control: no-store
           X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff
           Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'none'
           Referrer-Policy: no-referrer

           [OTrP message here]






Thaler                  Expires December 23, 2019               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             OTrP HTTP Transport                 June 2019


   8.   The Client Broker gets the HTTP response, extracts the OTrP
        message and calls the OTrP Agent's "ProcessOTrPMessage" API to
        pass it the message.

   9.   The OTrP Agent processes the OTrP message, and generates an OTrP
        response (e.g., GetDeviceStateResponse) which it passes back to
        the Client Broker.

   10.  The Client Broker gets the OTrP message buffer and sends an HTTP
        POST request to the TAM URI, with the OTrP message in the body:



          POST /tam HTTP/1.1
          Host: example.com
          Accept: application/otrp+json
          Content-Type: application/otrp+json
          Content-Length: [length of OTrP message here]
          User-Agent: Foo/1.0

          [OTrP message here]

   11.  The Server Broker receives the HTTP POST request, and calls the
        TAM's "ProcessOTrPMessage" API.

   12.  Steps 6-11 are then repeated until the TAM passes no data back
        to the Server Broker in step 6.

   13.  The Server Broker sends an HTTP successful response with no
        body:



          HTTP/1.1 204 No Content
          Server: Bar/2.2

   14.  The Client Broker deletes its session state.

8.  Security Considerations

   Although OTrP is protected end-to-end inside of HTTP, there is still
   value in using HTTPS for transport, since HTTPS can provide
   additional protections as discussed in Section 6 of
   [I-D.ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis].  As such, Broker implementations MUST
   support HTTPS.  The choice of HTTP vs HTTPS at runtime is up to
   policy, where an administrator configures the TAM URI to be used, but
   it is expected that real deployments will always use HTTPS TAM URIs.




Thaler                  Expires December 23, 2019               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             OTrP HTTP Transport                 June 2019


9.  IANA Considerations

   [[NOTE: This section should probably be moved to the OTrP spec.]]

   This section requests that IANA assign the "application/otrp+json"
   media type.

   Type name: application

   Subtype name: otrp+json

   Required parameters: none

   Optional parameters: none

   Encoding considerations: Same as encoding considerations of
   application/json as specified in Section 11 of [RFC7159].

   Security considerations: See Section 12 of [RFC7159] and Section 8 of
   this document.

   Interoperability considerations: Same as interoperability
   considerations of application/json as specified in [RFC7159].

   Published specification: [I-D.ietf-teep-opentrustprotocol]

   Applications that use this media type: OTrP implementations.

   Fragment identifier considerations: N/A

   Additional information:
       Deprecated alias names for this type: N/A
       Magic number(s): N/A
       File extension(s): N/A
       Macintosh file type code(s): N/A

   Person & email address to contact for further information:
   teep@ietf.org

   Intended usage: COMMON

   Restrictions on usage: none

   Author: See the "Authors' Addresses" section of this document.

   Change controller: IETF





Thaler                  Expires December 23, 2019              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft             OTrP HTTP Transport                 June 2019


10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics]
              Fielding, R., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke, "HTTP
              Semantics", draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-04 (work in
              progress), March 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-teep-opentrustprotocol]
              Pei, M., Atyeo, A., Cook, N., Yoo, M., and H. Tschofenig,
              "The Open Trust Protocol (OTrP)", draft-ietf-teep-
              opentrustprotocol-03 (work in progress), May 2019.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2818]  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc2818>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis]
              Nottingham, M., "Building Protocols with HTTP", draft-
              ietf-httpbis-bcp56bis-08 (work in progress), November
              2018.

   [I-D.ietf-teep-architecture]
              Pei, M., Tschofenig, H., Wheeler, D., Atyeo, A., and D.
              Liu, "Trusted Execution Environment Provisioning (TEEP)
              Architecture", draft-ietf-teep-architecture-02 (work in
              progress), March 2019.

   [RFC7159]  Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
              Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March
              2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.








Thaler                  Expires December 23, 2019              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft             OTrP HTTP Transport                 June 2019


Author's Address

   David Thaler
   Microsoft

   EMail: dthaler@microsoft.com













































Thaler                  Expires December 23, 2019              [Page 12]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/