I would like to have a discussion about provisioning. Right now, it seems
that the only way we specify a device identifying itself is by giving its
public key, which would require that every device to be provisioned be
entered into some kind of database before it could be known.
Instead I'd like to propose that we have a way of storing and retrieving an
X.509 certificate, which would have that public key in it, along with a
signature chain that could be used to indicate that this device is trusted.
This is commonly done in deployed devices, and we might as well add this
functionality now.
David
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 5:00 PM Abhishek Pandit via TSC <
tsc(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> Any agenda items for the meeting this week?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Abhishek
> --
> TSC mailing list
> TSC(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
>
Attendees
Abhishek Pandit (Arm)
Chris (Cypress)
Ray Ngun (Cypress)
Christian Daudt (Cypress)
Dan Handley (Arm)
David Brown (Linaro)
Joakim Bech (Linaro)
Julius Werner (Google)
Lionel Debieve (ST)
Rajeev Gulati (Data I/O)
Bill Fletcher (Linaro Community Projects)
Notes
Ray: Cypress TF M enablement on PSoC6 dual core (slides circulated
separately)
Chris: PSoC as SMPUs based on v6/v7 ones. Has alignment/size constraints.
Difficult to arrange 1M flash to manage protection regions. Much easier
with the v8.
Build system work complicated.
AP: Getting feedback on build system elsewhere. Not sure if it is CMake.
What’s your view?
Chris: CMake isn’t particularly intuitive. Building secure side veneers -
had to figure out to separate those out.
AP: V8m crashes are hard to debug. Maybe worth having a focus group on
build system.
CD: Implicit assumptin that secure and non-secure are the same ilk and not
the case for PSoC6. Does not have the same facilities/options.
AP: Assumed secured binary comes from one entity and non-secure from
another. That’s how it evolved. Secure people give config and API. Agreed
it’s very v8m centric.
CD: Patches should fix that
AP: Will follow up on why the patches are still pending.
Rajeev: Data I/O Security provisioning (slides circulated separately)
AP: Need to have a follow up task on this. This is just a prelude to what
the TF teams need to do in this area.
Rajeev: We can talk about the provisioning usecases next time.
Joakim: OP-TEE
Pending actions for creating branches for TF gerrit. Not done but have a
clear idea after talking to Dan
Linking TF.org to OP-TEE.org done one way. Plan to fix the other way with a
sit down with Web Admin at Connect.
Security sessions at Connect http://bit.ly/san19swg They will be added to
the public schedule (WIP)
Linaro has PoR (Plan of Record) process to say what work is done. Too early
to say what this will mean but things that are expected to continue:
- Keymaster work. Will look at new features in keymaster4.
- Prototyping work on Armv8 virtualisation.
- PKCS11.
- Widevine work
DH: Expecting that a lot of work will be followed up at Connect.
AP: When will incident handling be finalised?
DH: Not received any comments for a while. Also need steps to make it
active. Which projects will use it? Can spend some time to nail it down at
Connect. Then look to make it active.
--
[image: Linaro] <http://www.linaro.org/>
*Bill Fletcher* | *Field Engineering*
T: +44 7833 498336 <+44+7833+498336>
bill.fletcher(a)linaro.org | Skype: billfletcher2020
Hi All,
Any agenda items? We have following at present:
* Update on Twin CPU enablement work in TF-M (Chris Brand, Cypress)
* Secure provisioning discussion (Data I/O)
Thanks,
Abhishek
This screencast goes through the process I used to manage a CVE as part of
being the CNA for the Zephyr project. Not all of the links will be
accessible, but this should give a rough idea of the kind of work involved
in being a CNA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PksNzJXVDDA
David
Attendees
AbhishekP - Arm
DanH - Arm
DavidB - Linaro
MarkG - TI
JoakimB - Linaro OP-TEE
ChristianD - Cypress
JuliusW - Google
KumarG - Linaro LITE
KevinT - Linaro LITE
BillF - Linaro Community Projects
Agenda
OP-TEE
How to add more maintainers
AOB
Notes:
OP-TEE (Joakim’s slides)
BF: OP-TEE now visible via trustedfirmware.org
DH: No links to code etc
BF: Yes, just a first step that we can reference in any press release/blog
post. It links back to the main material at op-tee.org
JB: Have cleaned up op-tee.org content and not a big job to move it to
trustedfirmware.org
JB: Certifications. Should now revisit. However - there are many - need to
figure out what to spend the money on.
CD: Don’t certify in a vacuum
JB: Yes - video, payment ...
DH: … common criteria, safety. Generally need to certify a product, but
helps if know what you’re aiming for.
JB: Previously aimed at GC test suite that benefits everyone.
DB: FIPS certification
AP: At Arm have often focussed on ‘certifiable’ rather than certified.
JB: Sounds sane
AP: A lot of certifications have some common stuff - e.g. basic MISRA, some
threat model, lifecycle.
JB: If you clone the git repo you’ll get a test suite - xtest. You will not
get anything from GlobalPlatform. You can include it but you have to be a
member or buy it. It’s $6000 and includes support for 2 years. In Linaro we
have relied on member’s access to use the test suite.
DH: Code audits are good but take a hit - need to have all requirements in
place first like incident handling and lifecycle. They are expensive.
DH: For vulnerability reporting, have discussed increasing embargo period &
especially sensitive stakeholders.
DB: Zephyr is now a CNA. Organisation has to be a CNA but in the scope of
particular project(s). We’re receiving CVEs for the Zephyr project. It
might make sense for TF to become one.
DH: Process supposed to use for OSS doesn’t seem to work at all.
DB: End up going to the CNA of last resort. Much more responsive to CNAs
than random projects.
JB: tf.org/security should go to the various security centres and this
policy that we’re trying to approve.
Action DH to give BF an outline of what should be on the security front page
JB: Any interest on TF TSC that I present the plan for the coming cycle?
Action: JB to check with Mark Orvek if ok to share the OP-TEE information
from the project heathcheck.
CD: Generally take same approach as TF-A and TF-M. Share the information
but TF TSC not to be a bottleneck and have to ‘approve’. If there’s a
specific issue can discuss it at TSC.
DH: For the fork, we’d be trying to keep up with op-tee master and submit
back through the op-tee process. Don’t want to run on a branch for the long
term.
DH: Encrypted TEEs. Has always been a provision for encrypted TA’s.
Architecture allows for it but have had no strong pull for implementing it.
JB: Tricky part is key management
DH: May be a requirement on TF-A to help here.
JB: Haven’t really planned on this but seeing requirements. No requirements
from PSA?
DH: no - the requirements are on authentication, not encryption.
DH: (Next steps) Expand the list of acceptable licenses.
AP: (Documenting answers and decisions) Both TF projects are using
Phabricator.
Action: JB to contact Ben and try out the Phabricator sandbox.
DH: Anything holding back to setup an op-tee project in gerrit?
JB: Have an action to talk to Ben about setting that up
Maintainers
AP: Looking at ways to expand maintainers list since have gaps during
vacation period
JB: Where is the list?
AP: Keep the maintainer list in gerrit
AP: Ask other members to talk about non-confidential items. If there are
external companies - maintainers should be able to invite them to attend.
Action: BF to add link to review.trustedfirmware.org to Nav bar
DB: If I go to developer.trustedfirmware.org and click on
https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/project/ only see TF-A.
CD: Seems that project takes the first query
https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/project/query/edit/. Can an
administrator change the order of the queries?
Action: Move the usability discussion to the mailing list since there are
people actively working on Phabricator.
Attendance:
DH: (In response to KT) anyone should be able to join as long as we know
who they are from a member company. When it comes to voting that’s specific
to reps.
AP: If someone additional invited announce it at the start of the meeting.
Date for the next meeting?
AP: 12th Sept.
--
[image: Linaro] <http://www.linaro.org/>
*Bill Fletcher* | *Field Engineering*
T: +44 7833 498336 <+44+7833+498336>
bill.fletcher(a)linaro.org | Skype: billfletcher2020
Hi Joakim
Thanks for reviewing. Some further comments below.
> From: Joakim Bech <joakim.bech(a)linaro.org>
> Sent: 11 July 2019 13:11
> To: Dan Handley <Dan.Handley(a)arm.com>
> Cc: tsc(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> Subject: Re: [TF-TSC] tf.org security incident handling process (v0.3)
>
> Hi Dan and TF reps,
>
> Thanks for putting this together Dan. I like it and it's pretty short and
> concise. Nothing big from me, but please find a few comments from me inline
> below.
>
>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 at 18:35, Dan Handley via TSC
>> <mailto:tsc@lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote:
>> Hi TF TSC
>>
>> This is a v0.3 update to the proposed http://tf.org security incident
>> handling process, which I sent previously, incorporating the comments I've
>> had since then.
>>
<snip>
>>
>> If you would like replies to be encrypted, please provide your public key.
>> Please note the Trusted Firmware security team cannot guarantee that
>> encrypted information will remain encrypted when shared with trusted third
>> parties.
>>
>> [DH: Is this acceptable? It allows reporters to use encryption without adding
>> too much admin burden on the security team. The alternative is to force
>> everyone receiving embargoed information to provide an encryption key and
>> decrypt/re-encrypt as information is passed around. I think this adds too
>> much overhead without significant security benefit.]
> [JB: I do think this is the right level of dealing with this. The
> communication with the one reporting the issue can (optionally) be encrypted,
> but for sharing between members of the security team I think it's easier to
> use things like LDAP protections, Google docs, GitHub private security
> advisories (https://help.github.com/en/articles/collaborating-in-a-temporary-
> private-fork-to-resolve-a-security-vulnerability) etc.]
>
I'm glad we're in agreement. I hadn't seen that GitHub security advisory support before - thanks!
<snip>
>> 3. After the primary embargo period, the fix and relevant vulnerability
>> information are shared with registered Trusted Stakeholders (see below
>> section). Fix release may be deferred further if a Trusted Stakeholder
>> requests it within 1 working day (Monday to Friday) of being notified,
> [JB: One day is not much time, there is a chance that people on the receiving
> end misses this for both good and bad reasons. However, I don't know how many
> days that would be sufficient. In the end these kind of things require some
> discipline and extra efforts from both sides.]
>
I think you're right this is a bit too aggressive. The window for requesting the primary embargo period is extremely short because we expect ESS security teams to operate 24/7 and we want to minimise the delay in proceeding to the next stage when ESSes are unaffected. But Trusted Stakeholders may need more time. We don't want to unnecessarily delay release of fixes but increasing this window a bit is unlikely to cause a problem in practice: If there is no primary embargo period it's likely we'll need at least a few days to prepare a fix anyway; if there is a primary embargo period, it's likely we'll need a secondary embargo period as well. How about making this window 3 working days?
<snip>
>> [DH: Note, this aggressive release of security fixes is aligned with the
>> kernel process. The existing TF-A process allows for early release of fixes,
>> which we generally do in practice, but that process doesn't really specify a
>> fix embargo period. However it does specify a 4 week embargo on the
>> subsequent security advisory. Also note that OP-TEE's fix embargo period is
>> 90 days, which is aligned with Google's policy.]
> [JB: Right, our initial OP-TEE embargo period was much shorter, but after
> getting feedback from our members it was clear that they preferred a longer
> embargo, which was the reason we went back to 90 days. Did we end up asking
> other people? TF members? Companies that we know are using TF-A/M?]
Sorry, I haven't sought any wider feedback. This is purely based on the Google and OP-TEE policies, which I (and I think TF-A partners would) find reasonable. Given that the fixes are made much earlier, I don't see anyone objecting to this longer advisory embargo, except perhaps some reporters.
>> 4. After the fix is released, details of the security vulnerability are
>> consolidated into a security advisory. This includes a CVE number and the
>> security team will request one if not already done by the reporter. It also
>> includes credit to the reporter unless they indicate otherwise. Drafts of the
>> security advisory are circulated with the reporter, ESSes and Trusted
>> Stakeholders as they become available.
> [JB: Do we want to have our own numbering schema also? If we believe _all_
> issues will get a CVE number then it's not needed. But if there are issues
> that for whatever reasons wouldn't get a CVE, then it's quite useful to have
> some internal numbering system. Out of experience, I know that it can become
> quite messy if you get a report containing lots of potential security issues.
> Having an internal number to use in commits etc has been proven to be quite
> useful.]
>
Yes, I do expect to have our own numbering scheme for the reasons you state. I thought this could be covered by a supplementary internal process, which we could create after this external process is approved. Let me know if you think we should say something here instead.
>> 5. 90 days after the vulnerability was reported, the security advisory is
>> made public at https://www.trustedfirmware.org/. This 90 day window is the
>> public embargo period.
>>
>> [DH: This public embargo period aligns with Google and OP-TEE processes,
>> although this proposal releases fixes earlier.]
>>
>> In exceptionally rare cases, the above disclosure plan may be extended in
>> consultation with the reporter, ESSes and Trusted Stakeholders, for example
>> if it is very difficult to develop or deploy a fix, or wider industry
>> consultation is needed.
>>
>> [DH: I'm accommodating for the Spectre/Meltdown case here]
>>
> [JB: So, is it fair to write the complete timeline as Fast case
> | Report given to TF: <X days> | <X days + 1>: first embargo | <+ 1
> | day>: second embargo | <+ 90>: public security advisory |
> i.e "X days + 1 + 1 + 90 = X days + 92"
>
> "Worst" case (mentioned in your attached PDF)
> | Report given to TF: <X days> | <X days + 14>: first embargo | <+ 14
> | day>: second embargo | <+ 90>: public security advisory |
> i.e "X days + 14 + 14 + 90" = X days + 118
>
> Or are the dates running in parallel so to say? Example: public advisory is
> always X days + 90?]
>
The latter! It should always be X days + 90. The above says "90 days after the vulnerability was reported". Let me know if I can make this clearer somehow.
<snip>
>> Note, the security team reserves the right to deny registration or revoke
>> membership to the Trusted Stakeholders list, for example if it has concerns
>> about the confidentiality of embargoed information.
> [JB: Only stakeholders list? What about ESS list?]
>
OK, I'll include that too.
>> [DH: Note, I've not included severity scoring in this proposal, as I think
>> the only value of a score is helping to determine whether a bug is a security
>> vulnerability or not, which in the end has a subjective element. I'm open to
>> the idea of adding this to the process but I'd prefer it to be optional and
>> aligned with CVSSv3 as used by CVE.]
> [JB: Agree and regarding the process I'm quite open to have a look at CVSSv3.
> The current OP-TEE process is better than the first one, but it's still a bit
> rough around the edges. If CVSSv3 works for TF-A/M, then I'll probably also
> work for OP-TEE. Also, something that I've been missing when doing work like
> this is an internal process also. But that's definitely out of scope for this
> discussion.]
>
OK but the process currently doesn't say anything about scoring. I guess we can look at CVSv3 later if there's a need.
I agree we will need internal process documentation as well but that can be worked through later. I can ask the current TF-A security team to help with this.
Regards
Dan.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
Attendees
AbhishekP - Arm
DanH - Arm
DavidB - Linaro
MarkG - TI
ChristianD - Cypress
JuliusW - Google
LionelD - ST
BillF - Linaro Community Projects
Agenda
Pending action items
Round table
Notes
Pending actions:
Bill to find out about cost of internal Sphinx hosting
Gerrit hooks topic was clarified separately
BF: Cost of Sphinx hosting will be more than readthedocs ad-free but
certainly possible
AP: Proposal to go ahead with readthedocs hosting for now and add a link
from the website
No objections in the call.
BF: Will also re-look at Sphinx with TF-A CI ongoing work.
CD: Top 2 Engineering topics would be a good input to the agenda - bring it
into the forum - ongoing ‘topic du jour’.
DH: Is it for knowledge sharing? Not sure TSC is for design review.
CD: Bit of both. Information input and where people raise
flags/concerns.Might not be discussed here but could be separate meetings.
DH: Design reviews should be happening in a public design list.
AP: Are only few open design discussions
DH: Bigger problem in TF-A than TF-M
AP: In TF-M there are some discussions happening on the mailing list
AP: Do you think some of the partner engineers would join design review
calls?
CD: Yes - hence kick off to a separate call from the TSC discussion
BF: Topic for next meeting could be OP-TEE since the vote has been passed
by the Board. Need to make sure Joakim could make it.
DB: Getting close to TF-M bootloader upstreaming
JW: Should we pro-actively cancel if we don’t have items
BF: Will mail the day before to give the option to cancel in future
LD: Open Source Firmware - sponsoring that event. Any plans?
DH: Matteo has had a session accepted
BF: Also we will have a table and some promotion material
AP: Next meeting proposed to be 8th August
--
[image: Linaro] <http://www.linaro.org/>
*Bill Fletcher* | *Field Engineering*
T: +44 7833 498336 <+44+7833+498336>
bill.fletcher(a)linaro.org | Skype: billfletcher2020
Hi Dan and TF reps,
Thanks for putting this together Dan. I like it and it's pretty short and
concise. Nothing big from me, but please find a few comments from me inline
below.
On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 at 18:35, Dan Handley via TSC <
tsc(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote:
> Hi TF TSC
>
> This is a v0.3 update to the proposed tf.org security incident handling
> process, which I sent previously, incorporating the comments I've had since
> then.
>
> Changes:
> * Changed ESS 1 day response window to be from date of notification, not
> from date of fix availability.
> * Restored the 7 days embargo limit with 14 days in exceptional cases, to
> align with kernel process.
> * Explicitly stated that it is permitted to point others to a public
> vulnerability fix during an embargo period, as long as this is not
> identified as a vulnerability.
>
> I propose that the deadline for feedback is the end of next week (19th
> July), with a view to approving the process at the August TSC meeting. We
> can discuss this more at tomorrow's TSC meeting.
>
> Regards
>
> Dan.
>
> ---
>
> This security incident handling process proposal is broadly based on the
> kernel process [1], with influence from the existing TF-A [2] and OP-TEE
> [3] processes.
>
> [DH: Note the contrast with the kernel process: mailto:security@kernel.org
> is exclusively about fixing the vulnerability; disclosure is delegated to
> mailto:linux-distros@vs.openwall.org [4]. This proposal combines these
> activities.]
>
> Reporting
> =========
> If you think you have found a security vulnerability, then please send an
> email to the Trusted Firmware security team at mailto:
> security(a)trustedfirmware.org. This is a private team of security officers
> who will help verify the security vulnerability, develop and release a fix,
> and disclose the vulnerability details responsibly. Please give us time to
> implement the disclosure plan described in the next section before going
> public. We do our best to respond and fix any issues as soon as possible.
>
> As with any bug, the more information you provide, the easier it is to
> diagnose and fix. If you already have a fix, please include it with your
> report, as that can speed up the process considerably. Any exploit code is
> very helpful. The security team may bring in extra help from area
> maintainers to understand and fix the vulnerability. The security team may
> share any information you provide with trusted third parties and eventually
> the public unless you request otherwise.
>
> [DH: Note, mailto:security@kernel.org provides stronger confidentiality
> guarantees because it is only interested in fixes, not disclosure. In
> practice, I'd expect members of the security team to be sensitive with
> confidential information as with any other open source interactions, and to
> get explicit approval from the reporter for disclosure of sensitive
> information, e.g. identity, organization, product information,...]
>
> You may use this PGP/GPG key [insert link] for encrypting the
> vulnerability information. This key is also available at
> http://keyserver.pgp.com and LDAP port 389 of the same server. The
> fingerprint for this key is:
>
> [Insert Fingerprint]
>
> If you would like replies to be encrypted, please provide your public key.
> Please note the Trusted Firmware security team cannot guarantee that
> encrypted information will remain encrypted when shared with trusted third
> parties.
>
> [DH: Is this acceptable? It allows reporters to use encryption without
> adding too much admin burden on the security team. The alternative is to
> force everyone receiving embargoed information to provide an encryption key
> and decrypt/re-encrypt as information is passed around. I think this adds
> too much overhead without significant security benefit.]
>
[JB: I do think this is the right level of dealing with this. The
communication with the one reporting the issue can (optionally) be
encrypted, but for sharing between members of the security team I think
it's easier to use things like LDAP protections, Google docs, GitHub
private security advisories (
https://help.github.com/en/articles/collaborating-in-a-temporary-private-fo…)
etc.]
>
> If the security team consider the bug not to be a security vulnerability,
> you will be informed and the bug directed to the standard bug fixing
> process.
>
>
> Disclosure
> ==========
> The general security vulnerability disclosure plan is as follows:
>
> 1. For confirmed security vulnerabilities, develop a robust fix as soon as
> possible. During this time, information is only shared with the reporter,
> those needed to develop the fix and Especially Sensitive Stakeholders
> (ESSes). See the "ESS and Trusted Stakeholder registration" section below
> for more information about ESSes.
>
> 2. After a robust fix becomes available, our preference is to publicly
> release it as soon as possible. This will automatically happen if the
> vulnerability is already publicly known. However, release may be deferred
> if the reporter or an ESS requests it within 1 calendar day of being
> notified, and the security team agree the criticality of the vulnerability
> requires more time. The requested deferral period should be as short as
> possible, up to 7 calendar days after the fix becomes available, with an
> exceptional extension to 14 calendar days. The only valid reason for
> release deferral is to accommodate deployment of the fix by ESSes. If it is
> immediately clear that ESSes are unaffected by the vulnerability then this
> stage is skipped. This 0-14 day deferral is the primary embargo period.
>
> [DH: Note, this stage is only relevant for TF-A currently.]
>
> [DH: Note, this assumes that ESS security teams operate 7 days a week.]
>
> 3. After the primary embargo period, the fix and relevant vulnerability
> information are shared with registered Trusted Stakeholders (see below
> section). Fix release may be deferred further if a Trusted Stakeholder
> requests it within 1 working day (Monday to Friday) of being notified,
[JB: One day is not much time, there is a chance that people on the
receiving end misses this for both good and bad reasons. However, I don't
know how many days that would be sufficient. In the end these kind of
things require some discipline and extra efforts from both sides.]
> and the security team agree the criticality of the vulnerability requires
> more time. The requested deferral period should be as short as possible, up
> to 7 calendar days after the Trusted Stakeholder is notified, with an
> exceptional extension to 14 days. The only valid reason for further release
> deferral is to accommodate deployment of the fix by a Trusted Stakeholder.
> This further 1-14 day deferral is the secondary embargo period.
>
> Note, security fixes contain the minimum information required to fix the
> bug. The accompanying vulnerability details are disclosed later.
>
> [DH: Note, the Trusted Stakeholder required response time is slightly
> relaxed compared to the ESS response time; 1 working day as oppose to 1
> calendar day.]
>
> [DH: Note, this aggressive release of security fixes is aligned with the
> kernel process. The existing TF-A process allows for early release of
> fixes, which we generally do in practice, but that process doesn't really
> specify a fix embargo period. However it does specify a 4 week embargo on
> the subsequent security advisory. Also note that OP-TEE's fix embargo
> period is 90 days, which is aligned with Google's policy.]
>
[JB: Right, our initial OP-TEE embargo period was much shorter, but after
getting feedback from our members it was clear that they preferred a longer
embargo, which was the reason we went back to 90 days. Did we end up asking
other people? TF members? Companies that we know are using TF-A/M?]
>
> 4. After the fix is released, details of the security vulnerability are
> consolidated into a security advisory. This includes a CVE number and the
> security team will request one if not already done by the reporter. It also
> includes credit to the reporter unless they indicate otherwise. Drafts of
> the security advisory are circulated with the reporter, ESSes and Trusted
> Stakeholders as they become available.
>
[JB: Do we want to have our own numbering schema also? If we believe _all_
issues will get a CVE number then it's not needed. But if there are issues
that for whatever reasons wouldn't get a CVE, then it's quite useful to
have some internal numbering system. Out of experience, I know that it can
become quite messy if you get a report containing lots of potential
security issues. Having an internal number to use in commits etc has been
proven to be quite useful.]
>
> [DH: Note, the existing TF-A process only shares information with Trusted
> Stakeholders in the form of security advisories. This proposal is more
> aligned with the kernel process and means we can focus on fix development
> by sharing raw vulnerability information in the early stages.]
>
> 5. 90 days after the vulnerability was reported, the security advisory is
> made public at https://www.trustedfirmware.org/. This 90 day window is
> the public embargo period.
>
> [DH: This public embargo period aligns with Google and OP-TEE processes,
> although this proposal releases fixes earlier.]
>
> In exceptionally rare cases, the above disclosure plan may be extended in
> consultation with the reporter, ESSes and Trusted Stakeholders, for example
> if it is very difficult to develop or deploy a fix, or wider industry
> consultation is needed.
>
> [DH: I'm accommodating for the Spectre/Meltdown case here]
[JB: So, is it fair to write the complete timeline as
Fast case
| Report given to TF: <X days> | <X days + 1>: first embargo | <+ 1 day>:
second embargo | <+ 90>: public security advisory |
i.e "X days + 1 + 1 + 90 = X days + 92"
"Worst" case (mentioned in your attached PDF)
| Report given to TF: <X days> | <X days + 14>: first embargo | <+ 14 day>:
second embargo | <+ 90>: public security advisory |
i.e "X days + 14 + 14 + 90" = X days + 118
Or are the dates running in parallel so to say? Example: public advisory is
always X days + 90?]
>
> Handling embargoed information
> ==============================
> On receipt of embargoed information, you must not disclose any of the
> provided information beyond the group of people in your organization that
> need to know about it. During the primary and secondary embargo periods,
> that group of people should be limited to those entrusted to assess the
> impact of the vulnerability on your organization and deploy fixes to your
> products. After the secondary embargo period but during the public embargo
> period, that group of people may be expanded in order to prepare your
> organization's public response. The embargoed information must not be
> shared outside your organization during the public embargo period under any
> circumstances. It is permitted to point others to a public vulnerability
> fix during an embargo period, as long as this is not identified as a
> vulnerability.
>
> If you think another individual/organization requires access to the
> embargoed information, then please ask them to register as a Trusted
> Stakeholder (see next section). If you believe there has been a leak of
> embargoed information then please notify the security team immediately.
>
> [DH: This section is stronger than the existing TF-A and OP-TEE processes,
> but not as strong as the linux distros policy [4]. I hope I've struck the
> right balance here.]
>
> The security team welcomes feedback on embargoed information at any time.
>
>
> ESS and Trusted Stakeholder registration
> ========================================
> [DH: This is broadly based on the OP-TEE policy.]
>
> The security team maintains a vetted list of organizations and individuals
> who are considered ESSes and Trusted Stakeholders of Trusted Firmware
> security vulnerabilities. Contact <mailto:security@trustedfirmware.org>
> if you wish to be added to one of the lists, providing the following
> information:
>
> 1. Which list you want to be on. This will almost always be the Trusted
> Stakeholder list.
>
> 2. A justification of why you should be on the list. That is, why you
> should know about security vulnerabilities and have access to security
> fixes before they are made public. A valid reason to be on the Trusted
> Stakeholder list for example, is that you use Trusted Firmware in a
> deployed product. The ESS list is strictly limited to those organizations
> with large scale deployments of Trusted Firmware that provide bare-metal
> access on multi-tenancy systems.
>
> 3. An organization email address (not gmail, yahoo or similar addresses).
> It is preferable for each organization to provide an email alias that you
> can manage yourselves rather than providing a long list of individual
> addresses.
>
> 4. Confirmation that the individuals in your organization will handle
> embargoed information responsibly as described in the previous section.
>
> Note, the security team reserves the right to deny registration or revoke
> membership to the Trusted Stakeholders list, for example if it has concerns
> about the confidentiality of embargoed information.
>
[JB: Only stakeholders list? What about ESS list?]
>
> [DH: Note, becoming a Trusted Stakeholder in the current TF-A process
> requires having a valid NDA with Arm and requesting to be added via Arm
> account management. I propose that Arm send a mail to all existing
> stakeholders to invite them to register for the new process.]
>
> [DH: Note, I expect each TF project to maintain its own ESS/Trusted
> Stakeholder lists.]
>
[JB: Makes sense!]
>
> [DH: Note, I've not included severity scoring in this proposal, as I think
> the only value of a score is helping to determine whether a bug is a
> security vulnerability or not, which in the end has a subjective element.
> I'm open to the idea of adding this to the process but I'd prefer it to be
> optional and aligned with CVSSv3 as used by CVE.]
>
[JB: Agree and regarding the process I'm quite open to have a look at
CVSSv3. The current OP-TEE process is better than the first one, but it's
still a bit rough around the edges. If CVSSv3 works for TF-A/M, then I'll
probably also work for OP-TEE. Also, something that I've been missing when
doing work like this is an internal process also. But that's definitely out
of scope for this discussion.]
>
> [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/admin-guide/security-bugs.html
> [2]
> https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a.git/about/docs/secu…
> [3] https://optee.readthedocs.io/general/disclosure.html
> [4]
> https://oss-security.openwall.org/wiki/mailing-lists/distros#how-to-use-the…
>
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are
> confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the
> contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the
> information in any medium. Thank you.
> --
> TSC mailing list
> TSC(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
Regards,
Joakim
