2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
# What Attestation is
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A computer can use a TPM to demonstrate:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- possession of a valid TPM
|
|
|
|
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
- it being in a trusted state by dint of having executed trusted code
|
|
|
|
to get to that state
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- possession of objects such as asymmetric keypairs being resident on
|
|
|
|
the TPM (objects that might be used in the attestation protocol)
|
|
|
|
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
Possible outputs of succesful attestation:
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
- authorize client to join its network
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
- delivery of configuration metadata to the client
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
- unlocking of storage / filesystems on the client
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
- delivery of various secrets, such credentials for various authentication systems:
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
- issuance of X.509 certificate(s) for TPM-resident attestaion
|
|
|
|
public keys
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For servers these certificates would have `dNSName` subject
|
|
|
|
alternative names (SANs).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For a user device such a certificate might have a subject name
|
|
|
|
and/or SANs identifying the user or device.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- issuance of non-PKIX certificates (e.g., OpenSSH-style certificates)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- issuance of Kerberos host-based service principal long-term keys
|
|
|
|
("keytabs")
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- service account tokens
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- client state tracking
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- etc.
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Possible outputs of unsuccessful attestation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- alerting
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- diagnostics (e.g., which PCR extensions in the PCR quote and eventlog
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
are not recognized, which then might be used to determine what
|
|
|
|
firmware / OS updates a client has installed, or that it has been
|
|
|
|
compromised)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this tutorial we'll focus on attestion of servers in an enterprise
|
|
|
|
environment. However, the concepts described here are applicable to
|
|
|
|
other environments, such as IoTs and personal devices, where the
|
|
|
|
attestation database could be hosted on a user's personal devices for
|
|
|
|
use in joining new devices to the user's set of devices, or for joining
|
|
|
|
new IoTs to the user's SOHO network.
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Attestation Protocols
|
|
|
|
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
Attestation is done by a client computer with a TPM interacting with an
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
attestation service over a network. This requires a network protocol
|
|
|
|
for attestation.
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Notation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- `Encrypt_<name>` == encryption with the named private or secret key
|
|
|
|
(if symmetric, then this primitive is expected to provide
|
|
|
|
authenticated encryption).
|
|
|
|
- `Sign_<name>` == digital signature with the named private key.
|
|
|
|
- `MAC_<name>` == message authentication code keyed with the named
|
|
|
|
secret key.
|
|
|
|
- `CSn` == client-to-server message number `n`
|
|
|
|
- `SCn` == server-to-client message number `n`
|
|
|
|
- `{stuff, more_stuff}` == a sequence of data, a "struct"
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
- `{"key":<value>,...}` == JSON text
|
|
|
|
- `TPM2_MakeCredential(<args>)` == outputs of calling `TPM2_MakeCredential()` with `args` arguments
|
|
|
|
- `TPM2_Certify(<args>)` == outputs of calling `TPM2_Certify()` with `args` arguments
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Proof of Possession of TPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proof of possession of a valid TPM is performed by the attestation
|
|
|
|
client sending its TPM's Endorsement Key (EK) certificate (if one is
|
|
|
|
available, else the attestation service must recognize the EK public
|
|
|
|
key) and then exchanging additional messages by which the client can
|
|
|
|
prove its possession of the EK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proof of possession of an EK is complicated by the fact that EKs are
|
2021-04-29 20:40:06 +00:00
|
|
|
[generally decrypt-only](Decrypt-only-EK.md) (some TPMs also support
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
signing EKs, but the TCG specifications only require decrypt-only EKs).
|
|
|
|
The protocol has to have the attestation service send a challenge (or
|
|
|
|
key) encrypted to the EKpub and then the attestation client demonstrate
|
|
|
|
that it was able to decrypt that with the EK. However, this is not
|
|
|
|
_quite_ how attestation protocols work! Instead of plain asymmetric
|
|
|
|
encryption the server will use
|
2021-05-19 21:15:27 +00:00
|
|
|
[`TPM2_MakeCredential()`](/TPM-Commands/TPM2_MakeCredential.md), while
|
|
|
|
the attestation client will use
|
|
|
|
[`TPM2_ActivateCredential()`](/TPM-Commands/TPM2_ActivateCredential.md)
|
|
|
|
instead of plain asymmetric decryption.
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Trusted State Attestation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trusted state is attested by sending a quote of Platform Configuration
|
|
|
|
Registers (PCRs) and the `eventlog` describing the evolution of the
|
|
|
|
system's state from power-up to the current state. The attestation
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
service validates the digests used to extend the various PCRs,
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
and perhaps the sequence in which they appear in the eventlog, typically
|
|
|
|
by checking a list of known-trusted digests (these are, for example,
|
|
|
|
checksums of firmware images).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Typically the attestation protocol will have the client generate a
|
|
|
|
signing-only asymmetric public key pair known as the attestation key
|
|
|
|
(AK) with which to sign the PCR quote and eventlog. Binding of the
|
|
|
|
EKpub and AKpub will happen via
|
2021-05-19 21:15:27 +00:00
|
|
|
[`TPM2_MakeCredential()`](/TPM-Commands/TPM2_MakeCredential.md) /
|
|
|
|
[`TPM2_ActivateCredential()`](/TPM-Commands/TPM2_ActivateCredential.md).
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-05-19 21:15:27 +00:00
|
|
|
Note that the [`TPM2_Quote()`](/TPM-Commands/TPM2_Quote.md) function produces a signed
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
message -- signed with a TPM-resident AK named by the caller (and to
|
|
|
|
which they have access), which would be the AK used in the attestation
|
|
|
|
protocol.
|
|
|
|
|
2021-05-19 21:15:27 +00:00
|
|
|
The output of [`TPM2_Quote()`](/TPM-Commands/TPM2_Quote.md) might be the only part of
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
a client's messages to the attestation service that include a signature
|
|
|
|
made with the AK, but integrity protection of everything else can be
|
|
|
|
implied (e.g., the eventlog and PCR values are used to reconstruct the
|
|
|
|
PCR digest signed in the quote). `TPM2_Quote()` signs more than just a
|
|
|
|
digest of the selected PCRs. `TPM2_Quote()` signs all of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- digest of selected PCRs
|
|
|
|
- caller-provided extra data (e.g., a cookie/nonce/timestamp/...),
|
|
|
|
- the TPM's firmware version number,
|
|
|
|
- `clock` (the TPM's time since startup),
|
|
|
|
- `resetCount` (an indirect indicator of reboots),
|
|
|
|
- `restartCount` (an indirect indicator of suspend/resume events)
|
|
|
|
- and `safe` (a boolean indicating whether the `clock` might have ever
|
|
|
|
gone backwards).
|
|
|
|
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
## Binding of Other Keys to EKpub
|
|
|
|
|
2021-05-19 21:15:27 +00:00
|
|
|
The semantics of [`TPM2_MakeCredential()`](/TPM-Commands/TPM2_MakeCredential.md) /
|
|
|
|
[`TPM2_ActivateCredential()`](/TPM-Commands/TPM2_ActivateCredential.md) make it
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
possible to bind a TPM-resident object to the TPM's EKpub.
|
|
|
|
|
2021-05-19 21:15:27 +00:00
|
|
|
[`TPM2_MakeCredential()`](/TPM-Commands/TPM2_MakeCredential.md) encrypts to the EKpub
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
a small secret datum and the name (digest of public part) of the
|
|
|
|
TPM-resident object being bound. The counter-part to this,
|
2021-05-19 21:15:27 +00:00
|
|
|
[`TPM2_ActivateCredential()`](/TPM-Commands/TPM2_ActivateCredential.md), will decrypt
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
that and return the secret to the application IFF (if and only if) the
|
|
|
|
caller has access to the named object.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Typically attestation protocols have the client send its EKpub, EKcert
|
|
|
|
(if it has one), AKpub (the public key of an "attestation key"), and
|
|
|
|
other things (e.g., PCR quote and eventlog signed with the AK), and the
|
|
|
|
server will then send the output of `TPM2_MakeCredential()` that the
|
|
|
|
client can recover a secret from using `TPM2_ActivateCredential()`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The implication is that if the client can extract the cleartext payload
|
|
|
|
of `TPM2_MakeCredential()`, then it must possess a) the EK private key
|
|
|
|
corresponding to the EKpub, b) the AK private key corresponding to the
|
|
|
|
object named by the server.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proof of possession can be completed immediately by demonstrating
|
|
|
|
knowledge of the secret sent by the server. Proof of possession can
|
|
|
|
also be delayed to an eventual use of that secret, allowing for single
|
|
|
|
round trip attestation.
|
|
|
|
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
## Binding hosts to TPMs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(TBD. Talk about IDevID or similar certificates binding hosts to their
|
|
|
|
factory-installed TPMs, and how to obtain those from vendors.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Attestation Protocol Patterns and Actual Protocols (decrypt-only EKs)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: all the protocols described below are based on decrypt-only TPM
|
|
|
|
endorsement keys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's start with few observations and security considerations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Clients need to know which PCRs to quote. E.g., the [Safe Boot](https://safeboot.dev/)
|
|
|
|
project and the [IBM sample attestation client and server](https://sourceforge.net/projects/ibmtpm20acs/)
|
|
|
|
have the client ask for a list of PCRs and then the client quotes
|
|
|
|
just those.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But clients could just quote all PCRs. It's more data to send, but
|
|
|
|
probably not a big deal, and it saves a round trip if there's no need
|
|
|
|
to ask what PCRs to send.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Some replay protection or freshness indication for client requests is
|
|
|
|
needed. A stateful method of doing this is to use a server-generated
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
nonce (as an encrypted state cookie embedding a timestamp). A
|
|
|
|
stateless method is to use a timestamp and reject requests with old
|
|
|
|
timestamps.
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Replay protection of server to client responses is mostly either not
|
2021-05-19 21:15:27 +00:00
|
|
|
needed or implicitly provided by [`TPM2_MakeCredential()`](TPM2_MakeCredential.md)
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
because `TPM2_MakeCredential()` generates a secret seed that
|
|
|
|
randomizes its outputs even when all the inputs are the same across
|
|
|
|
multiple calls to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Ultimately the protocol *must* make use of
|
2021-05-19 21:15:27 +00:00
|
|
|
[`TPM2_MakeCredential()`](/TPM-Commands/TPM2_MakeCredential.md) and
|
|
|
|
[`TPM2_ActivateCredential()`](/TPM-Commands/TPM2_ActivateCredential.md) in order to
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
authenticate a TPM-running host via its TPM's EKpub.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Privacy protection of client identifiers may be needed, in which case
|
|
|
|
TLS may be desired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Even if a single round trip attestation protocol is adequate, a
|
|
|
|
return routability check may be needed to avoid denial of service
|
|
|
|
attacks. I.e., do not run a single round trip attestation protocol
|
|
|
|
over UDP without first requiring the client to echo a nonce/cookie.
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
- Statelessness on the server side is highly desirable, as that should
|
|
|
|
permit having multiple servers and each of a client's messages can go
|
|
|
|
to different servers. Conversely, keeping state on the server across
|
|
|
|
multiple round trips can cause resource exhaustion / denial of
|
|
|
|
service attack considerations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Statelessness maps well onto HTTP / REST. Indeed, attestation
|
|
|
|
protocol messages could all be idempotent and therefore map well onto
|
|
|
|
HTTP `GET` requests but for the fact that all the things that may be
|
|
|
|
have to be sent may not fit on a URI local part or URI query
|
|
|
|
parameters, therefore HTTP `POST` is the better option.
|
|
|
|
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
### Error Cases Not Shown
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note that error cases are not shown in the protocols described below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Naturally, in case of error the attestation server will send a suitable
|
|
|
|
error message back to the client.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Databases, Log Sinks, and Dashboarding / Alerting Systems Not Shown
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order to simplify the protocol diagrams below, interactions with
|
|
|
|
databases, log sinks, and alerting systems are not shown.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A typical attestation service will, however, have interactions with
|
|
|
|
those components, some or all of which might even be remote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- attestation database
|
|
|
|
- log sinks
|
|
|
|
- dashboarding / alerting
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If an attestation service must be on the critical path for booting an
|
|
|
|
entire datacenter, it may be desirable for the attestation service to be
|
|
|
|
able to run with no remote dependencies, at least for some time. This
|
|
|
|
means, for example, that the attestation database should be locally
|
|
|
|
available and replicated/synchronized only during normal operation. It
|
|
|
|
also means that there should be a local log sink that can be sent to
|
|
|
|
upstream collectors during normal operation.
|
|
|
|
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
### Single Round Trip Attestation Protocol Patterns
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An attestation protocol need not complete proof-of-possession
|
|
|
|
immediately if the successful outcome of the protocol has the client
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
subsequently demonstrate possession to other services/peers. This is a
|
|
|
|
matter of taste and policy. However, one may want to have
|
|
|
|
cryptographically secure "client attested successfully" state on the
|
|
|
|
server without delay, in which case two round trips are the minimum for
|
|
|
|
an attestation protocol.
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the following example the client obtains a certificate (`AKcert`) for
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
its AKpub, filesystem decryption keys, and possibly other things, and
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
eventually it will use those items in ways that -by virtue of having
|
|
|
|
thus been used- demonstrate that it possesses the EK used in the
|
|
|
|
protocol:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
<client knows a priori what PCRs to quote, possibly all, saving a round trip>
|
|
|
|
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
CS0: [ID], EKpub, [EKcert], AKpub, PCRs, eventlog, timestamp,
|
|
|
|
TPM2_Quote(AK, PCRs, extra_data)=Signed_AK({hash-of-PCRs, misc, extra_data})
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
SC0: {TPM2_MakeCredential(EKpub, AKpub, session_key),
|
|
|
|
Encrypt_session_key({AKcert, filesystem_keys, etc.})}
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
<extra_data includes timestamp>
|
|
|
|
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
<subsequent client use of AK w/ AKcert, or of credentials made
|
|
|
|
available by dint of being able to access filesystems unlocked by
|
|
|
|
SC0, demonstrate that the client has attested successfully>
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(`ID` might be, e.g., a hostname.)
|
|
|
|
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
![Protocol Diagram](Protocol-Two-Messages.png)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In this diagram we show the use of a TPM simulator on the server side
|
2021-05-19 21:15:27 +00:00
|
|
|
for implementing [`TPM2_MakeCredential()`](/TPM-Commands/TPM2_MakeCredential.md).)
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
The server will validate that the `timestamp` is near the current time,
|
|
|
|
the EKcert (if provided, else the EKpub), the signature using the
|
|
|
|
asserted (but not yet bound to the EKpub) AKpub, then it will validate
|
|
|
|
the PCR quote and eventlog, and, if everything checks out, will issue a
|
|
|
|
certificate for the AKpub and return various secrets that the client may
|
|
|
|
need.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The client obtains those items IFF (if and only if) the AK is resident
|
|
|
|
in the same TPM as the EK, courtesy of `TPM2_ActivateCredential()`'s
|
|
|
|
semantics.
|
|
|
|
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
NOTE well that in single round trip attestation protocols using only
|
|
|
|
decrypt-only EKs it is *essential* that the AKcert not be logged in any
|
|
|
|
public place since otherwise an attacker can make and send `CS0` using a
|
|
|
|
non-TPM-resident AK and any TPM's EKpub/EKcert known to the attacker,
|
|
|
|
and then it may recover the AK certificate from the log in spite of
|
|
|
|
being unable to recover the AK certificate from `SC1`!
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
Alternatively, a single round trip attestation protocol can be
|
|
|
|
implemented as an optimization to a two round trip protocol when the AK
|
|
|
|
is persisted both, in the client TPM and in the attestation service's
|
|
|
|
database:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
<having previously successfully enrolled AKpub and bound it to EKpub...>
|
|
|
|
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
CS0: timestamp, AKpub, PCRs, eventlog,
|
|
|
|
TPM2_Quote(AK, PCRs, extra_data)=Signed_AK({hash-of-PCRs, misc, extra_data})
|
|
|
|
SC0: {TPM2_MakeCredential(EKpub, AKpub, session_key),
|
|
|
|
Encrypt_session_key({AKcert, filesystem_keys, etc.})}
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Three-Message Attestation Protocol Patterns
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A single round trip protocol using encrypt-only EKpub will not
|
|
|
|
demonstrate proof of possession immediately, but later on when the
|
|
|
|
certified AK is used elsewhere. A proof-of-possession (PoP) may be
|
|
|
|
desirable anyways for monitoring and alerting purposes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
CS0: [ID], EKpub, [EKcert], AKpub, PCRs, eventlog, timestamp,
|
|
|
|
TPM2_Quote(AK, PCRs, extra_data)=Signed_AK({hash-of-PCRs, misc, extra_data})
|
|
|
|
SC0: {TPM2_MakeCredential(EKpub, AKpub, session_key),
|
|
|
|
Encrypt_session_key({AKcert, filesystem_keys, etc.})}
|
|
|
|
CS1: AKcert, Signed_AK(AKcert)
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![Protocol Diagram](Protocol-Three-Messages.png)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In this diagram we show the use of a TPM simulator on the server side
|
2021-05-19 21:15:27 +00:00
|
|
|
for implementing [`TPM2_MakeCredential()`](/TPM-Commands/TPM2_MakeCredential.md).)
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTE well that in this protocol, like single round trip attestation
|
|
|
|
protocols using only decrypt-only EKs, it is *essential* that the AKcert
|
|
|
|
not be logged in any public place since otherwise an attacker can make
|
|
|
|
and send `CS0` using a non-TPM-resident AK and any TPM's EKpub/EKcert
|
|
|
|
known to the attacker, and then it may recover the AK certificate from
|
|
|
|
the log in spite of being unable to recover the AK certificate from
|
|
|
|
`SC1`!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If such a protocol is instantiated over HTTP or TCP, it will really be
|
|
|
|
more like a two round trip protocol:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
CS0: [ID], EKpub, [EKcert], AKpub, PCRs, eventlog, timestamp,
|
|
|
|
TPM2_Quote(AK, PCRs, extra_data)=Signed_AK({hash-of-PCRs, misc, extra_data})
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
SC0: {TPM2_MakeCredential(EKpub, AKpub, session_key),
|
|
|
|
Encrypt_session_key({AKcert, filesystem_keys, etc.})}
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
CS1: AKcert, Signed_AK(AKcert)
|
|
|
|
SC1: <empty>
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Two Round Trip Stateless Attestation Protocol Patterns
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We can add a round trip to the protocol in the previous section to make
|
|
|
|
the client prove possession of the EK and binding of the AK to the EK
|
|
|
|
before it can get the items it needs. This avoids the security
|
|
|
|
consideration of having to not log the AKcert.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Below is a sketch of a stateless, two round trip attestation protocol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actual protocols tend to use a secret challenge that the client echoes
|
|
|
|
back to the server rather than a secret key possesion of which is proven
|
|
|
|
with symmetriclly-keyed cryptographic algorithms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
CS0: [ID], EKpub, [EKcert], AKpub, PCRs, eventlog, timestamp,
|
|
|
|
TPM2_Quote(AK, PCRs, extra_data)=Signed_AK({hash-of-PCRs, misc, extra_data})
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
SC0: {TPM2_MakeCredential(EKpub, AKpub, session_key), ticket}
|
|
|
|
CS1: {ticket, MAC_session_key(CS0), CS0}
|
|
|
|
SC1: Encrypt_session_key({AKcert, filesystem_keys, etc.})
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<extra_data includes timestamp>
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where `session_key` is an ephemeral secret symmetric authenticated
|
|
|
|
encryption key, and `ticket` is an authenticated encrypted state cookie:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
ticket = {vno, Encrypt_server_secret_key({session_key, timestamp,
|
|
|
|
MAC_session_key(CS0)})}
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
![Protocol Diagram](Protocol-Four-Messages.png)
|
|
|
|
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
where `server_secret_key` is a key known only to the attestation service
|
|
|
|
and `vno` identifies that key (in order to support key rotation without
|
|
|
|
having to try authenticated decryption twice near key rotation events).
|
|
|
|
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
[Note: `ticket` here is not in the sense used by TPM specifications, but
|
|
|
|
in the sense of "TLS session resumption ticket" or "Kerberos ticket",
|
|
|
|
and, really, it's just an encrypted state cookie so that the server can
|
|
|
|
be stateless.]
|
|
|
|
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
The attestation server could validate that the `timestamp` is recent
|
|
|
|
upon receipt of `CS0`. But the attestation server can delay validation
|
|
|
|
of EKcert, signatures, and PCR quote and eventlog until receipt of
|
|
|
|
`CS1`. In order to produce `SC0` the server need only digest the AKpub
|
|
|
|
to produce the name input of `TPM2_MakeCredential()`. Upon receipt of
|
|
|
|
`CS1` (which repeats `CS0`), the server can decrypt the ticket, validate
|
|
|
|
the MAC of `CS0`, validate `CS0`, and produce `SC1` if everything checks
|
|
|
|
out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this protocol the client must successfully call
|
|
|
|
`TPM2_ActivateCredential()` to obtain the `session_key` that it then
|
|
|
|
proves possession of in `CS1`, and only then does the server send the
|
|
|
|
`AKcert` and/or various secret values to the client, this time saving
|
|
|
|
the cost of asymmetric encryption by using the `session_key` to key a
|
|
|
|
symmetric authenticated cipher.
|
|
|
|
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
(The `server_secret_key`, `ticket`, `session_key`, and proof of
|
|
|
|
possession used in `CS1` could even conform to Kerberos or encrypted JWT
|
|
|
|
and be used for authentication, possibly with an off-the-shelf HTTP
|
|
|
|
stack.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An HTTP API binding for this protocol could look like:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
POST /get-attestation-ticket
|
|
|
|
Body: CS0
|
|
|
|
Response: SC0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
POST /attest
|
|
|
|
Body: CS1
|
|
|
|
Response: SC1
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
Here the attestation happens in the first round trip, but the proof of
|
|
|
|
possession is completed in the second, and the delivery of secrets and
|
|
|
|
AKcert also happens in the second round trip.
|
|
|
|
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
### Actual Protocols: ibmacs
|
|
|
|
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
The [`IBM TPM Attestation Client Server`](https://sourceforge.net/projects/ibmtpm20acs/)
|
|
|
|
(`ibmacs`) open source project has sample code for a "TCG attestation
|
|
|
|
application".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It implements a stateful (state is kept in a database) attestation and
|
|
|
|
enrollment protocol over TCP sockets that consists of JSON texts of the
|
|
|
|
following form, sent prefixed with a 32-bit message length in host byte
|
|
|
|
order:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
CS0: {"command":"nonce","hostname":"somehostname",
|
|
|
|
"userid":"someusername","boottime":"2021-04-29 16:37:06"}
|
|
|
|
SC0: {"response":"nonce","nonce":"<hex>", "pcrselect":"<hex>", ...}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<nonce is used in production of signed PCR quote>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CS1: {"command":"quote","hostname":"somehostname",
|
|
|
|
"quoted":"<hex>","signature":"<hex>",
|
|
|
|
"event1":"<hex>","imaevent0":"<hex>"}
|
|
|
|
SC1: {"response":"quote"}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CS2: {"command":"enrollrequest","hostname":"somehost",
|
|
|
|
"tpmvendor":"...","ekcert":"<PEM>","akpub":"<hex(DER)>"}
|
|
|
|
SC2: {"response":"enrollrequest",
|
|
|
|
"credentialblob":"<hex of credentialBlob output of TPM2_MakeCredential()>",
|
|
|
|
"secret":"<hex of secret output of TPM2_MakeCredential()>"}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CS3: {"command":"enrollcert","hostname":"somecert","challenge":"<hex>"}
|
|
|
|
SC3: {"response":"enrollcert","akcert":"<hex>"}
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The server keeps state across round trips.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note that this protocol has *up to* four (4) round trips. Because the
|
|
|
|
`ibmacs` server keeps state in a database, it should be possible to
|
|
|
|
elide some of these round trips in attestations subsequent to
|
|
|
|
enrollment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The messages of the second and third round trips could be combined since
|
|
|
|
there should be no need to wait for PCR quote validation before sending
|
|
|
|
the EKcert and AKpub. The messages of the first round trip too could be
|
|
|
|
combined with the messages of the second and third round trip by using a
|
|
|
|
timestamp as a nonce -- with those changes this protocol would get down
|
|
|
|
to two round trips.
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Actual Protocols: safeboot.dev
|
|
|
|
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
CS0: <empty>
|
|
|
|
SC0: nonce, PCR_list
|
|
|
|
CS1: [ID], EKpub, [EKcert], AKpub, PCRs, eventlog, nonce,
|
|
|
|
TPM2_Quote(AK, PCRs, extra_data)=Signed_AK({hash-of-PCRs, misc, extra_data})
|
|
|
|
SC1: {TPM2_MakeCredential(EKpub, AKpub, session_key),
|
|
|
|
Encrypt_session_key({filesystem_keys})}
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonce validation is currently not well-developed in Safeboot.
|
|
|
|
If a timestamp is used instead of a nonce, and if the client assumes all
|
|
|
|
PCRs are desired, then this becomes a one round trip protocol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An AKcert will be added to the Safeboot protocol soon.
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Actual Protocols: ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(TBD)
|
|
|
|
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
## Attestation Protocol Patterns and Actual Protocols (signing-only EKs)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some TPMs come provisioned with signing-only endorsement keys in
|
|
|
|
addition to decrypt-only EKs. For example, vTPMs in Google cloud
|
|
|
|
provides both, decrypt-only and signing-only EKs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signing-only EKs can be used for attestation as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Ideally signing-only EKs can be restricted to force the use of
|
|
|
|
`TPM2_Certify()`? Restricted signing keys can only sign payloads that
|
|
|
|
start with a magic value, whereas unrestricted signing keys can sign any
|
|
|
|
payload.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signing-only EKs make single round trip attestation protocols possible
|
|
|
|
that also provide immediate attestation status because signing provides
|
|
|
|
proof of possession non-interactively, whereas asymmetric encryption
|
|
|
|
requires interaction to prove possession:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
CS0: timestamp, [ID], EKpub, [EKcert], AKpub, PCRs, eventlog,
|
|
|
|
TPM2_Certify(EKpub, AKpub), TPM2_Quote()
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
SC0: AKcert
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If secrets need to be sent back, then a decrypt-only EK also neds to be
|
|
|
|
used:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
CS0: timestamp, [ID], EKpub_signing, EKpub_encrypt,
|
|
|
|
[EKcert_signing], [EKcert_encrypt], AKpub, PCRs, eventlog,
|
|
|
|
TPM2_Certify(EKpub, AKpub), TPM2_Quote()
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
SC0: {TPM2_MakeCredential(EKpub_encrypt, AKpub, session_key),
|
|
|
|
Encrypt_session_key({AKcert, filesystem_keys, etc.})}
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
# Long-Term State Kept by Attestation Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Attestation servers need to keep some long-term state:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- binding of `EKpub` and `ID`
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
- PCR validation profile(s) for each identified client
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
- resetCount (for reboot detection)
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Log-like attestation state:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- client attestation status (last time successfully attested, last time
|
|
|
|
unsuccessfully attested)
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The PCR validation profile for a client consists of a set of required
|
|
|
|
and/or acceptable digests that must appear in each PCR's extension log.
|
|
|
|
These required and/or acceptable digests may be digests of firmware
|
|
|
|
images, boot loaders, boot loader configurations (e.g., `menu.lst`, for
|
|
|
|
Grub), operating system kernels, `initrd` images, filesystem root hashes
|
|
|
|
(think ZFS), etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some of these are obtained by administrators on a trust-on-first-use
|
|
|
|
(TOFU) basis.
|
|
|
|
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
Things to log:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- client attestation attempts and outcomes
|
|
|
|
- AK certificates issued (WARNING: see note about single round trip
|
|
|
|
attestation protocols above -- do not log AKcerts in public places
|
|
|
|
when using single round trip attestation protocols!)
|
|
|
|
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
## Long-Term State Created or Updated by Attestation Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- An attestation service might support creation of host<->EKpub
|
|
|
|
bindings on a first-come-first-served basis. In this mode the
|
|
|
|
attestation server might validate an EKcert and that the desired
|
|
|
|
hostname has not been bound to an EK, then create the binding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- An attestation service might support deletion of host PCR validation
|
|
|
|
profiles that represent past states upon validation of PCR quotes
|
|
|
|
using newer profiles. This could be used to permit firmware and/or
|
|
|
|
operating system upgrades and then disallow downgrades after evidence
|
|
|
|
of successful upgrade.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- An attestation service might keep track of client reboots so as to:
|
|
|
|
- revoke old AKcerts when the client reboots (but note that this is
|
|
|
|
really not necessary if we trust the client's TPM, since then the
|
|
|
|
previous AKs will never be usable again)
|
|
|
|
- alert if the reboot count ever goes backwards
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Schema for Attestation Server Database
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A schema for the attestation server's database entries might look like:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```JSON
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
"EKpub": "<EKpub>",
|
|
|
|
"hostname": "<hostname>",
|
|
|
|
"EKcert": "<EKcert in PEM, if available>",
|
|
|
|
"previous_firmware_profile": "FWProfile0",
|
|
|
|
"current_firmware_profiles": ["FWProfile1", "FWProfile2", "..."],
|
|
|
|
"previous_operating_system_profiles": "OSProfile0",
|
|
|
|
"current_operating_system_profiles": ["OSProfile1", "OSProfile2", "..."],
|
|
|
|
"previous_PCRs": "<...>",
|
|
|
|
"proposed_PCRs": "<...>",
|
|
|
|
"ak_cert_template": "<AKCertTemplate>",
|
|
|
|
"secrets": "<secrets>",
|
|
|
|
"resetCount": "<resetCount value from last quote>"
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
```
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
The attestation server's database should have two lookup keys:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- EKpub
|
|
|
|
- hostname
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The attestation server's database's entry for any client should provide,
|
|
|
|
de minimis:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- a way to validate the root of trust measurements in the client's
|
|
|
|
quoted PCRs, for which two methods are possible:
|
|
|
|
- save the PCRs quoted last as the ones expected next time
|
|
|
|
- or, name profiles for validating firmware RTM PCRs and profiles
|
|
|
|
for validating operating system RTM PCRs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A profile for validating PCRs should contain a set of expected extension
|
|
|
|
values for each of a set of PCRs. The attestation server can then check
|
|
|
|
that the eventlog submitted by the client lists exactly those extension
|
|
|
|
values and no others. PCR extension order in the eventlog probably
|
|
|
|
doesn't matter here. If multiple profiles are named, then one of those
|
|
|
|
must match -- this allows for upgrades and downgrades.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```JSON
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
"profile_name":"SomeProfile",
|
|
|
|
"values":[
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
"PCR":0,
|
|
|
|
"values":["aaaaaaa","bbbbbb","..."]
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
"PCR":1,
|
|
|
|
"values":["ccccccc","dddddd","..."]
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
```
|
2021-04-29 01:55:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
Using the PCR values from the previous attestation makes upgrades
|
|
|
|
tricky, probably requiring an authenticated and authorized administrator
|
|
|
|
to bless new PCR values after an upgrade. A client that presents a PCR
|
|
|
|
quote that does not match the previous one would cause the
|
|
|
|
`proposed_PCRs` field to be updated but otherwise could not continue,
|
|
|
|
then an administrator would confirm that the client just did a
|
|
|
|
firmware/OS upgrade and if so replace the `previous_PCRs` with the
|
|
|
|
`proposed_PCRs`, then the client could attempt attestation again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Dealing with Secrets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An attestation server might want to return storage/filesystem decryption
|
|
|
|
key-encryption-keys to a client. But one might not want to store those
|
|
|
|
keys in the clear on the attestation server. As well, one might want a
|
|
|
|
break-glass way to recover those secrets.
|
|
|
|
|
2021-05-18 22:20:49 +00:00
|
|
|
For break-glass recovery, the simplest thing to do is to store
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
`Encrypt_backupKey({EKpub, hostname, secrets})`, where `backupKey` is an
|
|
|
|
asymmetric key whose private key is stored offline (e.g., in a safe, or
|
|
|
|
in an offline HSM). To break the glass and recover the key, just bring
|
|
|
|
the ciphertext to the offline system where the private backup key is
|
|
|
|
kept, decrypt it, and then use the secrets manually to recover the
|
|
|
|
affected system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here are some ideas for how to make an attestation client depend on the
|
|
|
|
attestation server giving it keys needed to continue booting after
|
|
|
|
successful attestation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Store `TPM2_MakeCredential(EKpub, someObjectName, key0), Encrypt_key0(secrets)`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this mode the server sends the client the stored data, then client
|
2021-05-18 22:20:49 +00:00
|
|
|
gets to recreate `someObject` (possibly by loading a saved object or
|
|
|
|
by re-creating it on the same non-NULL hierarchy from the same
|
|
|
|
primary seed using the same template and extra entropy) on its TPM so
|
|
|
|
that the corresponding call to `TPM2_ActivateCredential()` can
|
|
|
|
succeed, then the client recovers `key0` and decrypts the encrypted
|
|
|
|
secrets. Here `someObject` can be trivial and need only exist to
|
|
|
|
make the `{Make,Activate}Credential` machinery work.
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TPM replacement and/or migration of a host from one physical system
|
|
|
|
to another can be implemented by learning the new system's TPM's
|
|
|
|
EKpub and using the offline `backupKey` to compute
|
|
|
|
`TPM2_MakeCredential(EKpub_new, someObjectName, key0)` and update the
|
|
|
|
host's entry.
|
|
|
|
|
2021-05-18 22:20:49 +00:00
|
|
|
- Alternatively generate a non-restricted decryption private key using
|
|
|
|
a set template and extra entropy, on the same non-NULL hierarchy
|
|
|
|
(i.e., from the same seed), enroll the public key to this private key
|
|
|
|
in an attestation protocol, and have the attestation server store
|
|
|
|
secrets encrypted to that public key.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(The EK cannot be used this way because it is restricted.)
|
|
|
|
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
- Store a secret value that will be extended into an application PCR
|
|
|
|
that is used as a policy PCR for unsealing a persistent object stored
|
|
|
|
on the client's TPM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this mode the server sends the client the secret PCR extension
|
|
|
|
value, and the client uses it to extend a PCR such that it can then
|
|
|
|
unseal the real storage / filesystem decryption keys.
|
|
|
|
|
2021-05-18 22:20:49 +00:00
|
|
|
Using a PCR and a policy on the key object allows for a clever
|
|
|
|
break-glass secret recovery mechanism by using a compound extended
|
|
|
|
authorization (EA) policy that allows either unsealing based on a
|
|
|
|
PCR, or maybe based on an password-based HMAC (with machine passwords
|
|
|
|
stored in a safe).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- A hybrid of the previous options, where the server stores a secret
|
|
|
|
PCR extension value wrapped with `TPM2_MakeCredential()`.
|
2021-05-08 21:21:18 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other ideas?
|
2021-04-29 22:41:39 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# References
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- [TCG TPM Library part 1: Architecture, sections 23 and 24](https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/wp-content/uploads/TCG_TPM2_r1p59_Part1_Architecture_pub.pdf)
|
|
|
|
- https://sourceforge.net/projects/ibmtpm20acs/
|
|
|
|
- https://safeboot.dev/
|
|
|
|
- https://github.com/osresearch/safeboot/
|