💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc9393.txt captured on 2023-09-28 at 16:26:46.
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-07-10)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) H. Birkholz
Request for Comments: 9393 Fraunhofer SIT
Category: Standards Track J. Fitzgerald-McKay
ISSN: 2070-1721 National Security Agency
C. Schmidt
The MITRE Corporation
D. Waltermire
NIST
June 2023
Concise Software Identification Tags
Abstract
ISO/IEC 19770-2:2015 Software Identification (SWID) tags provide an
extensible XML-based structure to identify and describe individual
software components, patches, and installation bundles. SWID tag
representations can be too large for devices with network and storage
constraints. This document defines a concise representation of SWID
tags: Concise SWID (CoSWID) tags. CoSWID supports a set of semantics
and features that are similar to those for SWID tags, as well as new
semantics that allow CoSWIDs to describe additional types of
information, all in a more memory-efficient format.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9393.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1. The SWID and CoSWID Tag Lifecycle
1.2. Concise SWID Format
1.3. Requirements Notation
2. Concise SWID Data Definition
2.1. Character Encoding
2.2. Concise SWID Extensions
2.3. The concise-swid-tag Map
2.4. concise-swid-tag Co-constraints
2.5. The global-attributes Group
2.6. The entity-entry Map
2.7. The link-entry Map
2.8. The software-meta-entry Map
2.9. The Resource Collection Definition
2.9.1. The hash-entry Array
2.9.2. The resource-collection Group
2.9.3. The payload-entry Map
2.9.4. The evidence-entry Map
2.10. Full CDDL Specification
3. Determining the Type of CoSWID
4. CoSWID Indexed Label Values
4.1. Version Scheme
4.2. Entity Role Values
4.3. Link Ownership Values
4.4. Link Rel Values
4.5. Link Use Values
5. "swid" and "swidpath" Expressions
5.1. "swid" Expressions
5.2. "swidpath" Expressions
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. CoSWID Items Registry
6.2. Registries for Software ID Values
6.2.1. Registration Procedures
6.2.2. Private Use of Index and Name Values
6.2.3. Expert Review Criteria
6.2.4. Software ID Version Scheme Values Registry
6.2.5. Software ID Entity Role Values Registry
6.2.6. Software ID Link Ownership Values Registry
6.2.7. Software ID Link Relationship Values Registry
6.2.8. Software ID Link Use Values Registry
6.3. swid+cbor Media Type Registration
6.4. CoAP Content-Format Registration
6.5. CBOR Tag Registration
6.6. URI Scheme Registrations
6.6.1. URI Scheme "swid"
6.6.2. URI Scheme "swidpath"
6.7. CoSWID Model for Use in SWIMA Registration
7. Signed CoSWID Tags
8. CBOR-Tagged CoSWID Tags
9. Security Considerations
10. Privacy Considerations
11. References
11.1. Normative References
11.2. Informative References
Acknowledgments
Contributors
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
SWID tags, as defined in ISO-19770-2:2015 [SWID], provide a
standardized XML-based record format that identifies and describes a
specific release of software, a patch, or an installation bundle,
which are referred to as software components in this document.
Different software components, and even different releases of a
particular software component, each have a different SWID tag record
associated with them. SWID tags are meant to be flexible and able to
express a broad set of metadata about a software component.
SWID tags are used to support a number of processes, including but
not limited to:
* Software Inventory Management, representing a part of a Software
Asset Management process [SAM], which requires an accurate list of
discernible deployed software components.
* Vulnerability Assessment, which requires a semantic link between
standardized vulnerability descriptions and software components
installed on IT assets [X.1520].
* Remote Attestation, which requires a link between Reference
Integrity Manifests (RIMs) and Attester-produced event logs that
complement attestation evidence [RFC9334].
While there are very few required fields in SWID tags, there are many
optional fields that support different uses. A SWID tag consisting
of only required fields might be a few hundred bytes in size;
however, a tag containing many of the optional fields can be many
orders of magnitude larger. Thus, real-world instances of SWID tags
can be fairly large, and the communication of SWID tags in usage
scenarios, such as those described earlier, can cause a large amount
of data to be transported. This can be larger than acceptable for
constrained devices and networks. Concise SWID (CoSWID) tags
significantly reduce the amount of data transported as compared to a
typical SWID tag through the use of the Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR) [RFC8949].
Size comparisons between XML SWID and CoSWID mainly depend on domain-
specific applications and the complexity of attributes used in
instances. While the values stored in CoSWID are often unchanged and
therefore not reduced in size compared to an XML SWID, the
scaffolding that the CoSWID encoding represents is significantly
smaller by taking up 10 percent or less in size. This effect is
visible in representation sizes, which in early experiments benefited
from a 50 percent to 85 percent reduction in generic usage scenarios.
Additional size reduction is enabled with respect to the memory
footprint of XML parsing/validation.
In a CoSWID, the human-readable labels of SWID data items are
replaced with more concise integer labels (indices). This approach
allows SWID and CoSWID to share a common implicit information model,
with CoSWID providing an alternate data model [RFC3444]. While SWID
and CoSWID are intended to share the same implicit information model,
this specification does not define this information model or a
mapping between the two data formats. While an attempt to align SWID
and CoSWID tags has been made here, future revisions of ISO/IEC
19770-2:2015 or this specification might cause this implicit
information model to diverge, since these specifications are
maintained by different standards groups.
The use of CBOR to express SWID information in CoSWID tags allows
both CoSWID and SWID tags to be part of an enterprise security
solution for a wider range of endpoints and environments.
1.1. The SWID and CoSWID Tag Lifecycle
In addition to defining the format of a SWID tag record, ISO/IEC
19770-2:2015 defines requirements concerning the SWID tag lifecycle.
Specifically, when a software component is installed on an endpoint,
that software component's SWID tag is also installed. Likewise, when
the software component is uninstalled or replaced, the SWID tag is
deleted or replaced, as appropriate. As a result, ISO/IEC
19770-2:2015 describes a system wherein there is a correspondence
between the set of installed software components on an endpoint and
the presence of the corresponding SWID tags for these components on
that endpoint. CoSWIDs share the same lifecycle requirements as a
SWID tag.
The SWID specification and supporting guidance provided in NIST
Internal Report (NISTIR) 8060 ("Guidelines for the Creation of
Interoperable Software Identification (SWID) Tags") [SWID-GUIDANCE]
define four types of SWID tags: primary, patch, corpus, and
supplemental. The following text is paraphrased from these sources.
Primary Tag: A SWID or CoSWID tag that identifies and describes an
installed software component on an endpoint. A primary tag is
intended to be installed on an endpoint along with the
corresponding software component.
Patch Tag: A SWID or CoSWID tag that identifies and describes an
installed patch that has made incremental changes to a software
component installed on an endpoint. A patch tag is intended to be
installed on an endpoint along with the corresponding software
component patch.
Corpus Tag: A SWID or CoSWID tag that identifies and describes an
installable software component in its pre-installation state. A
corpus tag can be used to represent metadata about an installation
package or installer for a software component, a software update,
or a patch.
Supplemental Tag: A SWID or CoSWID tag that allows additional
information to be associated with a referenced SWID tag. This
allows tools and users to record their own metadata about a
software component without modifying CoSWID primary or patch tags
created by a software provider.
The type of a tag is determined by specific data elements, which are
discussed in Section 3. Section 3 also provides normative language
for CoSWID semantics that implement this lifecycle. The following
information helps to explain how these semantics apply to the use of
a CoSWID tag.
Corpus, primary, and patch tags have similar functions in that they
describe the existence and/or presence of different types of software
components (e.g., software installers, software installations,
software patches) and, potentially, different states of these
software components. Supplemental tags have the same structure as
other tags but are used to provide information not contained in the
referenced corpus, primary, and patch tags. All four tag types come
into play at various points in the software lifecycle and support
software management processes that depend on the ability to
accurately determine where each software component is in its
lifecycle.
+------------+
v |
Software Software Software Software Software
Deployment -> Installation -> Patching -> Upgrading -> Removal
Corpus Primary Primary xPrimary xPrimary
Supplemental Supplemental Supplemental xSupplemental xSupplemental
Patch xPatch
Primary
Supplemental
Figure 1: Use of Tag Types in the Software Lifecycle
Figure 1 illustrates the steps in the software lifecycle and the
relationships among those lifecycle events supported by the four
types of SWID and CoSWID tags. A detailed description of the four
tag types is provided in Section 2.3. The figure identifies the
types of tags that are used in each lifecycle event.
There are many ways in which software tags might be managed for the
host the software is installed on. For example, software tags could
be made available on the host or to an external software manager when
storage is limited on the host.
In these cases, the host or external software manager is responsible
for management of the tags, including deployment and removal of the
tags as indicated by the above lifecycle. Tags are deployed, and
previously deployed tags are typically removed (indicated by an "x"
prefix) at each lifecycle stage as follows:
Software Deployment: Before the software component is installed
(i.e., pre-installation), and while the product is being
deployed, a corpus tag provides information about the
installation files and distribution media (e.g., CD/DVD,
distribution package).
Corpus tags are not actually deployed on the target system but are
intended to support deployment procedures and their dependencies at
install time, such as to verify the installation media.
Software Installation: A primary tag will be installed with the
software component (or subsequently created) to uniquely
identify and describe the software component. Supplemental
tags are created to augment primary tags with additional site-
specific or extended information. While not illustrated in the
figure, patch tags can also be installed during software
installation to provide information about software fixes
deployed along with the base software installation.
Software Patching: When a patch is applied to the software
component, a new patch tag is provided, supplying details about
the patch and its dependencies. While not illustrated in the
figure, a corpus tag can also provide information about the
patch installer and patching dependencies that need to be
installed before the patch.
Software Upgrading: As a software component is upgraded to a new
version, new primary and supplemental tags replace existing
tags, enabling timely and accurate tracking of updates to
software inventory. While not illustrated in the figure, a
corpus tag can also provide information about the upgrade
installer and dependencies that need to be installed before the
upgrade.
| Note: In the context of software tagging, software
| patching and updating differ in an important way. When
| installing a patch, a set of file modifications are made
| to pre-installed software; these modifications do not
| alter the version number or the descriptive metadata of
| an installed software component. An update can also make
| a set of file modifications; in that case, the version
| number or the descriptive metadata of an installed
| software component is changed.
Software Removal: Upon removal of the software component,
relevant SWID tags are removed. This removal event can trigger
timely updates to software inventory reflecting the removal of
the product and any associated patch or supplemental tags.
As illustrated in the figure, supplemental tags can be associated
with any corpus, primary, or patch tag to provide additional metadata
about an installer, installed software, or installed patch,
respectively.
Understanding the use of CoSWIDs in the software lifecycle provides a
basis for understanding the information provided in a CoSWID and the
associated semantics of this information. Each different SWID and
CoSWID tag type provides different sets of information. For example,
a "corpus tag" is used to describe a software component's
installation image on an installation medium, while a "patch tag" is
meant to describe a patch that modifies some other software
component.
1.2. Concise SWID Format
This document defines the CoSWID tag format, which is based on CBOR.
CBOR-based CoSWID tags offer a more concise representation of SWID
information as compared to the XML-based SWID tag representation in
ISO-19770-2:2015. The structure of a CoSWID is described via the
Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL) [RFC8610]. The resulting
CoSWID data definition is aligned with the information able to be
expressed with the XML Schema definition of ISO-19770-2:2015 [SWID].
This alignment allows both SWID and CoSWID tags to represent a common
set of software component information and allows CoSWID tags to
support the same uses as a SWID tag.
The vocabulary (i.e., the CDDL names of the types and members used in
the CoSWID CDDL specification) is mapped to more concise labels
represented as small integer values (indices). The names used in the
CDDL specification and the mapping to the CBOR representation using
integer indices are based on the vocabulary of the XML attribute and
element names defined in ISO/IEC 19770-2:2015.
1.3. Requirements Notation
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.
2. Concise SWID Data Definition
The following describes the general rules and processes for encoding
data using CDDL representation. Prior familiarity with CBOR and CDDL
concepts will be helpful in understanding this CoSWID specification.
This section describes the conventions by which a CoSWID is
represented in the CDDL structure. The CamelCase notation
[CamelCase] used in the XML Schema definition is changed to a hyphen-
separated notation [KebabCase] (e.g., "ResourceCollection" is named
"resource-collection") in the CoSWID CDDL specification. This
deviation from the original notation used in the XML representation
reduces ambiguity when referencing certain attributes in
corresponding textual descriptions. An attribute referred to by its
name in CamelCase notation explicitly relates to XML SWID tags; an
attribute referred to by its name in KebabCase notation explicitly
relates to CBOR CoSWID tags. This approach simplifies the
composition of further work that will reference both XML SWID and
CBOR CoSWID documents.
In most cases, mapping attribute names between SWID and CoSWID can be
done automatically by converting between CamelCase and KebabCase
attribute names. However, some CoSWID CDDL attribute names show
greater variation relative to their corresponding SWID XML Schema
attributes. This is done when the change improves clarity in the
CoSWID specification. For example, the "name" and "version" SWID
fields correspond to the "software-name" and "software-version"
CoSWID fields, respectively. As such, it is not always possible to
mechanically translate between corresponding attribute names in the
two formats. In such cases, a manual mapping will need to be used.
XPath expressions [W3C.REC-xpath20-20101214] need to use SWID names;
see Section 5.2.
The 57 human-readable text labels of the CDDL-based CoSWID vocabulary
are mapped to integer indices via a block of rules at the bottom of
the definition. This allows a more concise integer-based form to be
stored or transported, as compared to the less efficient text-based
form of the original vocabulary.
Through the use of CDDL-based integer labels, CoSWID allows for
future expansion in subsequent revisions of this specification and
through extensions (see Section 2.2). New constructs can be
associated with a new integer index. A deprecated construct can be
replaced by a new construct with a new integer index. An
implementation can use these integer indices to identify the
construct to parse. The "CoSWID Items" registry, defined in
Section 6.1, is used to ensure that new constructs are assigned a
unique index value. This approach avoids the need to have an
explicit CoSWID version.
In a number of places, the value encoding admits both integer values
and text strings. The integer values are defined in a registry
specific to the kind of value; the text values are not intended for
interchange and are exclusively meant for private use as defined in
Section 6.2.2. Encoders SHOULD NOT use string values based on the
names registered in the registry, as these values are less concise
than their index value equivalent; a decoder MUST, however, be
prepared to accept text strings that are not specified in this
document (and ignore the construct if a string is unknown). In the
rest of this document, we call this an "integer label with text
escape".
The root of the CDDL specification provided by this document is the
rule coswid (as defined in Section 8):
start = coswid
In CBOR, an array is encoded using bytes that identify the array, and
the array's length or stop point (see [RFC8949]). To make items that
support one or more values, the following CDDL notation is used.
_name_ = (_label_ => _data_ / [ 2* _data_ ])
The CDDL rule above allows either a single data item or an array of
two or more data values to be provided. When a singleton data value
is provided, the CBOR markers for the array, array length, and stop
point are not needed, saving bytes. When two or more data values are
provided, these values are encoded as an array. This modeling
pattern is used frequently in the CoSWID CDDL specification to allow
for more efficient encoding of singleton values.
Usage of this construct can be simplified using
one-or-more<T> = T / [ 2* T ]
simplifying the above example to
_name_ = (_label_ => one-or-more<_data_>)
The following subsections describe the different parts of the CoSWID
model.
2.1. Character Encoding
The CDDL "text" type is represented in CBOR as a major type 3, which
represents a string of Unicode characters that are encoded as UTF-8
[RFC3629] (see Section 3.1 of [RFC8949]). Thus, both SWID and CoSWID
use UTF-8 for the encoding of characters in text strings.
To ensure that UTF-8 character strings are able to be encoded/decoded
and exchanged interoperably, text strings in CoSWID MUST be encoded
in a way that is consistent with the Net-Unicode definition provided
in [RFC5198].
All names registered with IANA according to the requirements in
Section 6.2 also MUST be valid according to the XML Schema NMTOKEN
data type (see [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028], Section 3.3.4) to
ensure compatibility with the SWID specification where these names
are used.
2.2. Concise SWID Extensions
The CoSWID specification contains two features that are not included
in the SWID specification on which it is based. These features are:
* The explicit definition of types for some attributes in the ISO-
19770-2:2015 XML representation that are typically represented by
the any-attribute item in the SWID model. These are covered in
Section 2.5.
* The inclusion of extension points in the CoSWID specification
using CDDL sockets (see Section 3.9 of [RFC8610]). The use of
CDDL sockets allows for well-formed extensions to be defined in
supplementary CDDL descriptions that support additional uses of
CoSWID tags that go beyond the original scope of ISO-19770-2:2015
tags.
The following CDDL sockets (extension points) are defined in this
document; they allow the addition of new information structures to
their respective CDDL groups.
+=====================+=================================+=========+
| Map Name | CDDL Socket | Defined |
| | | in |
+=====================+=================================+=========+
| concise-swid-tag | $coswid-extension | Section |
| | | 2.3 |
+---------------------+---------------------------------+---------+
| entity-entry | $entity-extension | Section |
| | | 2.6 |
+---------------------+---------------------------------+---------+
| link-entry | $link-extension | Section |
| | | 2.7 |
+---------------------+---------------------------------+---------+
| software-meta-entry | $software-meta-extension | Section |
| | | 2.8 |
+---------------------+---------------------------------+---------+
| resource-collection | $resource-collection-extension | Section |
| | | 2.9.2 |
+---------------------+---------------------------------+---------+
| file-entry | $file-extension | Section |
| | | 2.9.2 |
+---------------------+---------------------------------+---------+
| directory-entry | $directory-extension | Section |
| | | 2.9.2 |
+---------------------+---------------------------------+---------+
| process-entry | $process-extension | Section |
| | | 2.9.2 |
+---------------------+---------------------------------+---------+
| resource-entry | $resource-extension | Section |
| | | 2.9.2 |
+---------------------+---------------------------------+---------+
| payload-entry | $payload-extension | Section |
| | | 2.9.3 |
+---------------------+---------------------------------+---------+
| evidence-entry | $evidence-extension | Section |
| | | 2.9.4 |
+---------------------+---------------------------------+---------+
Table 1: CoSWID CDDL Group Extension Points
The "CoSWID Items" registry, defined in Section 6.1, provides a
registration mechanism allowing new items, and their associated index
values, to be added to the CoSWID model through the use of the CDDL
sockets described in the table above. This registration mechanism
provides for well-known index values for data items in CoSWID
extensions, allowing these index values to be recognized by
implementations supporting a given extension.
The following additional CDDL sockets are defined in this document to
allow for adding new values to corresponding type choices (i.e., to
represent enumerations) via custom CDDL specifications.
+==================+=================+=============+
| Enumeration Name | CDDL Socket | Defined in |
+==================+=================+=============+
| version-scheme | $version-scheme | Section 4.1 |
+------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| role | $role | Section 4.2 |
+------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| ownership | $ownership | Section 4.3 |
+------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| rel | $rel | Section 4.4 |
+------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| use | $use | Section 4.5 |
+------------------+-----------------+-------------+
Table 2: CoSWID CDDL Enumeration Extension Points
A number of IANA registries for CoSWID values are also defined in
Section 6.2; these registries allow new values to be registered with
IANA for the enumerations above. This registration mechanism
supports the definition of new well-known index values and names for
new enumeration values used by CoSWID, which can also be used by
other software tagging specifications. This registration mechanism
allows new standardized enumerated values to be shared between
multiple tagging specifications (and associated implementations) over
time.
2.3. The concise-swid-tag Map
The CDDL specification for the root concise-swid-tag map is as
follows. This rule and its constraints MUST be followed when
creating or validating a CoSWID tag:
concise-swid-tag = {
tag-id => text / bstr .size 16,
tag-version => integer,
? corpus => bool,
? patch => bool,
? supplemental => bool,
software-name => text,
? software-version => text,
? version-scheme => $version-scheme,
? media => text,
? software-meta => one-or-more<software-meta-entry>,
entity => one-or-more<entity-entry>,
? link => one-or-more<link-entry>,
? payload-or-evidence,
* $coswid-extension,
global-attributes,
}
payload-or-evidence //= ( payload => payload-entry )
payload-or-evidence //= ( evidence => evidence-entry )
tag-id = 0
software-name = 1
entity = 2
evidence = 3
link = 4
software-meta = 5
payload = 6
corpus = 8
patch = 9
media = 10
supplemental = 11
tag-version = 12
software-version = 13
version-scheme = 14
$version-scheme /= multipartnumeric
$version-scheme /= multipartnumeric-suffix
$version-scheme /= alphanumeric
$version-scheme /= decimal
$version-scheme /= semver
$version-scheme /= int / text
multipartnumeric = 1
multipartnumeric-suffix = 2
alphanumeric = 3
decimal = 4
semver = 16384
The following list describes each member of the concise-swid-tag root
map.
global-attributes: A list of items, including an optional language
definition to support the processing of text-string values and an
unbounded set of any-attribute items. Described in Section 2.5.
tag-id (index 0): A 16-byte binary string, or a textual identifier,
uniquely referencing a software component. The tag identifier
MUST be globally unique. Failure to ensure global uniqueness can
create ambiguity in tag use, since the tag-id serves as the global
key for matching and lookups. If represented as a 16-byte binary
string, the identifier MUST be a valid Universally Unique
Identifier (UUID) as defined by [RFC4122]. There are no strict
guidelines on how the identifier is structured, but examples
include a 16-byte Globally Unique Identifier (GUID) (e.g., class 4
UUID) [RFC4122], or a DNS domain name followed by a "/" and a text
string, where the domain name serves to ensure uniqueness across
organizations. A textual tag-id value MUST NOT contain a sequence
of two underscores ("__"). This is because a sequence of two
underscores is used to separate the TAG_CREATOR_REGID value and
UNIQUE_ID value in a Software Identifier and a sequence of two
underscores in a tag-id value could create ambiguity when parsing
this identifier. See Section 6.7.
software-name (index 1): A textual item that provides the software
component's name. This name is likely the same name that would
appear in a package management tool. This item maps to
'/SoftwareIdentity/@name' in [SWID].
entity (index 2): Provides information about one or more
organizations responsible for producing the CoSWID tag, and
producing or releasing the software component referenced by this
CoSWID tag. Described in Section 2.6.
evidence (index 3): Can be used to record the results of a software
discovery process used to identify untagged software on an
endpoint or to represent indicators for why software is believed
to be installed on the endpoint. In either case, a CoSWID tag can
be created by the tool performing an analysis of the software
components installed on the endpoint. This item is mutually
exclusive to payload, as evidence is always generated on the
target device ad hoc. Described in Section 2.9.4.
link (index 4): Provides a means to establish relationship arcs
between the tag and another item. A given link can be used to
establish the relationship between tags or to reference another
resource that is related to the CoSWID tag, e.g., vulnerability
database association, Resource-Oriented Lightweight Information
Exchange (ROLIE) Feed [RFC8322], Manufacturer Usage Description
(MUD) resource [RFC8520], software download location, etc.). This
is modeled after the HTML "link" element. Described in
Section 2.7.
software-meta (index 5): An open-ended map of key/value data pairs.
A number of predefined keys can be used within this item providing
for common usage and semantics across the industry. The use of
this map allows any additional attribute to be included in the
tag. It is expected that industry groups will use a common set of
attribute names to allow for interoperability within their
communities. Described in Section 2.8. This item maps to
'/SoftwareIdentity/Meta' in [SWID].
payload (index 6): Represents a collection of software artifacts
(described by child items) that compose the target software. For
example, these artifacts could be the files included with an
installer for a corpus tag or installed on an endpoint when the
software component is installed for a primary or patch tag. The
artifacts listed in a payload may be a superset of the software
artifacts that are actually installed. Based on user selections
at install time, an installation might not include every artifact
that could be created or executed on the endpoint when the
software component is installed or run. This item is mutually
exclusive to evidence, as payload can only be provided by an
external entity. Described in Section 2.9.3.
corpus (index 8): A boolean value that indicates if the tag
identifies and describes an installable software component in its
pre-installation state. Installable software includes an
installation package or installer for a software component, a
software update, or a patch. If the CoSWID tag represents
installable software, the corpus item MUST be set to "true". If
not provided, the default value MUST be considered "false".
patch (index 9): A boolean value that indicates if the tag
identifies and describes an installed patch that has made
incremental changes to a software component installed on an
endpoint. If a CoSWID tag is for a patch, the patch item MUST be
set to "true". If not provided, the default value MUST be
considered "false". A patch item's value MUST NOT be set to
"true" if the installation of the associated software package
changes the version of a software component.
media (index 10): A text value that provides a hint to the tag
consumer to understand what target platform this tag applies to.
This item MUST be formatted as a query as defined by the W3C
"Media Queries Level 3" Recommendation (see
[W3C.REC-mediaqueries-3-20220405]). Support for media queries is
included here for interoperability with [SWID], which does not
provide any further requirements for media query use. Thus, this
specification does not clarify how a media query is to be used for
a CoSWID.
supplemental (index 11): A boolean value that indicates if the tag
is providing additional information to be associated with another
referenced SWID or CoSWID tag. This allows tools and users to
record their own metadata about a software component without
modifying SWID primary or patch tags created by a software
provider. If a CoSWID tag is a supplemental tag, the supplemental
item MUST be set to "true". If not provided, the default value
MUST be considered "false".
tag-version (index 12): An integer value that indicates the specific
release revision of the tag. Typically, the initial value of this
field is set to 0 and the value is increased for subsequent tags
produced for the same software component release. This value
allows a CoSWID tag producer to correct an incorrect tag
previously released without indicating a change to the underlying
software component the tag represents. For example, the tag-
version could be changed to add new metadata, to correct a broken
link, to add a missing payload entry, etc. When producing a
revised tag, the new tag-version value MUST be greater than the
old tag-version value.
software-version (index 13): A textual value representing the
specific release or development version of the software component.
This item maps to '/SoftwareIdentity/@version' in [SWID].
version-scheme (index 14): An integer or textual value representing
the versioning scheme used for the software-version item, as an
integer label with text escape. For the "Version Scheme" values,
see Section 4.1. If an integer value is used, it MUST be an index
value in the range -256 to 65535. Integer values in the range
-256 to -1 are reserved for testing and use in closed environments
(see Section 6.2.2). Integer values in the range 0 to 65535
correspond to registered entries in the IANA "Software ID Version
Scheme Values" registry (see Section 6.2.4).
$coswid-extension: A CDDL socket that is used to add new
information structures to the concise-swid-tag root map. See
Section 2.2.
2.4. concise-swid-tag Co-constraints
The following co-constraints apply to the information provided in the
concise-swid-tag group.
* The patch and supplemental items MUST NOT both be set to "true".
* If the patch item is set to "true", the tag MUST contain at least
one link item (see Section 2.7) with both the rel item value of
"patches" and an href item specifying an association with the
software that was patched. Without at least one link item, the
target of the patch cannot be identified and the patch tag cannot
be applied without external context.
* If all of the corpus, patch, and supplemental items are "false" or
if the corpus item is set to "true", then a software-version item
MUST be included with a value set to the version of the software
component.
2.5. The global-attributes Group
The global-attributes group provides a list of items, including an
optional language definition to support the processing of text-string
values, and an unbounded set of any-attribute items allowing for
additional items to be provided as a general point of extension in
the model.
The CDDL for the global-attributes group follows:
global-attributes = (
? lang => text,
* any-attribute,
)
any-attribute = (
label => one-or-more<text> / one-or-more<int>
)
label = text / int
The following list describes each child item of this group.
lang (index 15): A textual language tag that conforms with the IANA
"Language Subtag Registry" [RFC5646]. The context of the
specified language applies to all sibling and descendant textual
values, unless a descendant object has defined a different
language tag. Thus, a new context is established when a
descendant object redefines a new language tag. All textual
values within a given context MUST be considered expressed in the
specified language.
any-attribute: A sub-group that provides a means to include
arbitrary information via label/index ("key") value pairs. Labels
can be either a single integer or text string. Values can be a
single integer, a text string, or an array of integers or text
strings.
2.6. The entity-entry Map
The CDDL for the entity-entry map follows:
entity-entry = {
entity-name => text,
? reg-id => any-uri,
role => one-or-more<$role>,
? thumbprint => hash-entry,
* $entity-extension,
global-attributes,
}
entity-name = 31
reg-id = 32
role = 33
thumbprint = 34
$role /= tag-creator
$role /= software-creator
$role /= aggregator
$role /= distributor
$role /= licensor
$role /= maintainer
$role /= int / text
tag-creator=1
software-creator=2
aggregator=3
distributor=4
licensor=5
maintainer=6
The following list describes each child item of this group.
global-attributes: The global-attributes group as described in
Section 2.5.
entity-name (index 31): The textual name of the organizational
entity claiming the roles specified by the role item for the
CoSWID tag. This item maps to '/SoftwareIdentity/Entity/@name' in
[SWID].
reg-id (index 32): Registration ID. This value is intended to
uniquely identify a naming authority in a given scope (e.g.,
global, organization, vendor, customer, administrative domain,
etc.) for the referenced entity. The value of a registration ID
MUST be a URI as defined in [RFC3986]; it is not intended to be
dereferenced. The scope will usually be the scope of an
organization.
role (index 33): An integer or textual value (integer label with
text escape; see Section 2) representing the relationship(s)
between the entity and this tag or the referenced software
component. If an integer value is used, it MUST be an index value
in the range -256 to 255. Integer values in the range -256 to -1
are reserved for testing and use in closed environments (see
Section 6.2.2). Integer values in the range 0 to 255 correspond
to registered entries in the IANA "Software ID Entity Role Values"
registry (see Section 6.2.5).
The following additional requirements exist for the use of the
role item:
* An entity item MUST be provided with the role of "tag-creator"
for every CoSWID tag. This indicates the organization that
created the CoSWID tag.
* An entity item SHOULD be provided with the role of "software-
creator" for every CoSWID tag, if this information is known to
the tag creator. This indicates the organization that created
the referenced software component.
thumbprint (index 34): Value that provides a hash (i.e., the
thumbprint) of the signing entity's public key certificate. This
item provides an indicator of which entity signed the CoSWID tag,
which will typically be the tag creator. See Section 2.9.1 for
more details on the use of the hash-entry data structure.
$entity-extension: A CDDL socket that can be used to extend the
entity-entry group model. See Section 2.2.
2.7. The link-entry Map
The CDDL for the link-entry map follows:
link-entry = {
? artifact => text,
href => any-uri,
? media => text,
? ownership => $ownership,
rel => $rel,
? media-type => text,
? use => $use,
* $link-extension,
global-attributes,
}
media = 10
artifact = 37
href = 38
ownership = 39
rel = 40
media-type = 41
use = 42
$ownership /= shared
$ownership /= private
$ownership /= abandon
$ownership /= int / text
abandon=1
private=2
shared=3
$rel /= ancestor
$rel /= component
$rel /= feature
$rel /= installationmedia
$rel /= packageinstaller
$rel /= parent
$rel /= patches
$rel /= requires
$rel /= see-also
$rel /= supersedes
$rel /= supplemental
$rel /= -256..65536 / text
ancestor=1
component=2
feature=3
installationmedia=4
packageinstaller=5
parent=6
patches=7
requires=8
see-also=9
supersedes=10
supplemental=11
$use /= optional
$use /= required
$use /= recommended
$use /= int / text
optional=1
required=2
recommended=3
The following list describes each member of this map.
global-attributes: The global-attributes group as described in
Section 2.5.
media (index 10): A value that provides a hint to the consumer of
the link so that the consumer understands what target platform the
link is applicable to. This item represents a query as defined by
the W3C "Media Queries Level 3" Recommendation (see
[W3C.REC-mediaqueries-3-20220405]). As highlighted in the
definition of the media item provided in Section 2.3, support for
media queries is included here for interoperability with [SWID],
which does not provide any further requirements for media query
use. Thus, this specification does not clarify how a media query
is to be used for a CoSWID.
artifact (index 37): To be used with rel="installationmedia". This
item's value provides the absolute filesystem path to the
installer executable or script that can be run to launch the
referenced installation. Links with the same artifact name MUST
be considered mirrors of each other, allowing the installation
media to be acquired from any of the described sources.
href (index 38): A URI-reference [RFC3986] for the referenced
resource. The href item's value can be, but is not limited to,
the following (which is a slightly modified excerpt from [SWID]):
* If no URI scheme is provided, then the URI-reference is a
relative reference to the base URI of the CoSWID tag, i.e., the
URI under which the CoSWID tag was provided -- for example,
"./folder/supplemental.coswid".
* This item can be a physical resource location with any
acceptable URI scheme (e.g., <file://>, <http://>, <https://>,
<ftp://>).
* A URI-like expression with "swid:" as the scheme refers to
another SWID or CoSWID by the referenced tag's tag-id. This
expression needs to be resolved in the context of the endpoint
by software that can look up other SWID or CoSWID tags. For
example, "swid:2df9de35-0aff-4a86-ace6-f7dddd1ade4c" references
the tag with the tag-id value "2df9de35-0aff-
4a86-ace6-f7dddd1ade4c". See Section 5.1 for guidance on the
"swid" expressions.
* This item can be a URI-like expression with "swidpath:" as the
scheme, which refers to another software tag via an XPath query
[W3C.REC-xpath20-20101214] that matches items in that tag
(Section 5.2). This scheme is provided for compatibility with
[SWID]. This specification does not define how to resolve an
XPath query in the context of CBOR. See Section 5.2 for
guidance on the "swidpath" expressions.
ownership (index 39): An integer or textual value (integer label
with text escape; see Section 2). See Section 4.3 for the list of
values available for this item. This item is used when the href
item references another software component to indicate the degree
of ownership between the software component referenced by the
CoSWID tag and the software component referenced by the link. If
an integer value is used, it MUST be an index value in the range
-256 to 255. Integer values in the range -256 to -1 are reserved
for testing and use in closed environments (see Section 6.2.2).
Integer values in the range 0 to 255 correspond to registered
entries in the "Software ID Link Ownership Values" registry.
rel (index 40): An integer or textual value (integer label with text
escape; see Section 2). See Section 4.4 for the list of values
available for this item. This item identifies the relationship
between this CoSWID and the target resource identified by the href
item. If an integer value is used, it MUST be an index value in
the range -256 to 65535. Integer values in the range -256 to -1
are reserved for testing and use in closed environments (see
Section 6.2.2). Integer values in the range 0 to 65535 correspond
to registered entries in the IANA "Software ID Link Relationship
Values" registry (see Section 6.2.7). If a string value is used,
it MUST be either a private use name as defined in Section 6.2.2
or a "Relation Name" from the IANA "Link Relation Types" registry
(see <https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/>) as
defined by [RFC8288]. When a string value defined in the IANA
"Software ID Link Relationship Values" registry matches a Relation
Name defined in the IANA "Link Relation Types" registry, the index
value in the IANA "Software ID Link Relationship Values" registry
MUST be used instead, as this relationship has a specialized
meaning in the context of a CoSWID tag. String values correspond
to registered entries in the "Software ID Link Relationship
Values" registry.
media-type (index 41): Supplies the resource consumer with a hint
regarding what type of resource to expect. A link can point to
arbitrary resources on the endpoint, local network, or Internet
using the href item. (This is a _hint_: there is no obligation
for the server hosting the target of the URI to use the indicated
media type when the URI is dereferenced.) Media types are
identified by referencing a "Name" from the IANA "Media Types"
registry (see <https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/>).
This item maps to '/SoftwareIdentity/Link/@type' in [SWID].
use (index 42): An integer or textual value (integer label with text
escape; see Section 2). See Section 4.5 for the list of values
available for this item. This item is used to determine if the
referenced software component has to be installed before
installing the software component identified by the CoSWID tag.
If an integer value is used, it MUST be an index value in the
range -256 to 255. Integer values in the range -256 to -1 are
reserved for testing and use in closed environments (see
Section 6.2.2). Integer values in the range 0 to 255 correspond
to registered entries in the IANA "Software ID Link Use Values"
registry (see Section 6.2.8). If a string value is used, it MUST
be a private use name as defined in Section 6.2.2. String values
correspond to registered entries in the "Software ID Link Use
Values" registry.
$link-extension: A CDDL socket that can be used to extend the link-
entry map model. See Section 2.2.
2.8. The software-meta-entry Map
The CDDL for the software-meta-entry map follows:
software-meta-entry = {
? activation-status => text,
? channel-type => text,
? colloquial-version => text,
? description => text,
? edition => text,
? entitlement-data-required => bool,
? entitlement-key => text,
? generator => text / bstr .size 16,
? persistent-id => text,
? product => text,
? product-family => text,
? revision => text,
? summary => text,
? unspsc-code => text,
? unspsc-version => text,
* $software-meta-extension,
global-attributes,
}
activation-status = 43
channel-type = 44
colloquial-version = 45
description = 46
edition = 47
entitlement-data-required = 48
entitlement-key = 49
generator = 50
persistent-id = 51
product = 52
product-family = 53
revision = 54
summary = 55
unspsc-code = 56
unspsc-version = 57
The following list describes each child item of this group.
global-attributes: The global-attributes group as described in
Section 2.5.
activation-status (index 43): A textual value that identifies how
the software component has been activated, which might relate to
specific terms and conditions for its use (e.g., trial,
serialized, licensed, unlicensed, etc.) and relate to an
entitlement. This attribute is typically used in supplemental
tags, as it contains information that might be selected during a
specific install.
channel-type (index 44): A textual value that identifies which
sales, licensing, or marketing channel the software component has
been targeted for (e.g., volume, retail, original equipment
manufacturer (OEM), academic, etc.). This attribute is typically
used in supplemental tags, as it contains information that might
be selected during a specific install.
colloquial-version (index 45): A textual value for the software
component's informal or colloquial version. Examples may include
a year value, a major version number, or a similar value used to
identify a group of specific software component releases that are
part of the same release/support cycle. This version can be the
same through multiple releases of a software component, while the
software-version specified in the concise-swid-tag group is much
more specific and will change for each software component release.
This version is intended to be used for string comparison (byte by
byte) only and is not intended to be used to determine if a
specific value is earlier or later in a sequence.
description (index 46): A textual value that provides a detailed
description of the software component. This value MAY be multiple
paragraphs separated by CR LF characters as described by
[RFC5198].
edition (index 47): A textual value indicating that the software
component represents a functional variation of the code base used
to support multiple software components. For example, this item
can be used to differentiate enterprise, standard, or professional
variants of a software component.
entitlement-data-required (index 48): A boolean value that can be
used to determine if accompanying proof of entitlement is needed
when a software license reconciliation process is performed.
entitlement-key (index 49): A vendor-specific textual key that can
be used to identify and establish a relationship to an
entitlement. Examples of an entitlement-key might include a
serial number, product key, or license key. For values that
relate to a given software component install (e.g., license key),
a supplemental tag will typically contain this information. In
other cases, where a general-purpose key can be provided that
applies to all possible installs of the software component on
different endpoints, a primary tag will typically contain this
information. Since CoSWID tags are not intended to contain
confidential information, tag authors are advised not to record
unprotected, private software license keys in this field.
generator (index 50): The name (or tag-id) of the software component
that created the CoSWID tag. If the generating software component
has a SWID or CoSWID tag, then the tag-id for the generating
software component SHOULD be provided.
persistent-id (index 51): A globally unique identifier used to
identify a set of software components that are related. Software
components sharing the same persistent-id can be different
versions. This item can be used to relate software components,
released at different points in time or through different release
channels, that may not be able to be related through the use of
the link item.
product (index 52): A basic name for the software component that can
be common across multiple tagged software components (e.g., Apache
HTTP daemon (HTTPD)).
product-family (index 53): A textual value indicating the software
components' overall product family. This should be used when
multiple related software components form a larger capability that
is installed on multiple different endpoints. For example, some
software families may consist of a server, a client, and shared
service components that are part of a larger capability. Email
systems, enterprise applications, backup services, web
conferencing, and similar capabilities are examples of families.
The use of this item is not intended to represent groups of
software that are bundled or installed together. The persistent-
id or link items SHOULD be used to relate bundled software
components.
revision (index 54): A string value indicating an informal or
colloquial release version of the software. This value can
provide a different version value as compared to the software-
version specified in the concise-swid-tag group. This is useful
when one or more releases need to have an informal version label
that differs from the specific exact version value specified by
software-version. Examples can include SP1, RC1, Beta, etc.
summary (index 55): A short description of the software component.
This MUST be a single sentence suitable for display in a user
interface.
unspsc-code (index 56): An 8-digit United Nations Standard Products
and Services Code (UNSPSC) classification code for the software
component as defined by the UNSPSC [UNSPSC].
unspsc-version (index 57): The UNSPSC version used to define the
unspsc-code value.
$software-meta-extension: A CDDL socket that can be used to extend
the software-meta-entry group model. See Section 2.2.
2.9. The Resource Collection Definition
2.9.1. The hash-entry Array
CoSWID adds explicit support for the representation of hash entries
using algorithms that are registered in the IANA "Named Information
Hash Algorithm Registry" [IANA.named-information]. This array is
used by both the hash (index 7) and thumbprint (index 34) values.
This is the equivalent of the namespace qualified "hash" attribute in
[SWID].
hash-entry = [
hash-alg-id: int,
hash-value: bytes,
]
The number used as a value for hash-alg-id is an integer-based hash
algorithm identifier whose value MUST refer to an ID in the IANA
"Named Information Hash Algorithm Registry" [IANA.named-information]
with a Status of "current" (at the time the generator software was
built or later); other hash algorithms MUST NOT be used. If the
hash-alg-id is not known, then the integer value "0" MUST be used.
This allows for conversion from ISO SWID tags [SWID], which do not
allow an algorithm to be identified for this field.
The hash-value MUST represent the raw hash value as a byte string (as
opposed to, for example, base64 encoded) generated from the
representation of the resource using the hash algorithm indicated by
hash-alg-id.
2.9.2. The resource-collection Group
The resource-collection group provides a list of items used in both
evidence (created by a software discovery process) and payload
(installed in an endpoint) content of a CoSWID tag document to
structure and differentiate the content of specific CoSWID tag types.
Potential content includes directories, files, processes, or
resources.
The CDDL for the resource-collection group follows:
path-elements-group = ( ? directory => one-or-more<directory-entry>,
? file => one-or-more<file-entry>,
)
resource-collection = (
path-elements-group,
? process => one-or-more<process-entry>,
? resource => one-or-more<resource-entry>,
* $resource-collection-extension,
)
filesystem-item = (
? key => bool,
? location => text,
fs-name => text,
? root => text,
)
file-entry = {
filesystem-item,
? size => uint,
? file-version => text,
? hash => hash-entry,
* $file-extension,
global-attributes,
}
directory-entry = {
filesystem-item,
? path-elements => { path-elements-group },
* $directory-extension,
global-attributes,
}
process-entry = {
process-name => text,
? pid => integer,
* $process-extension,
global-attributes,
}
resource-entry = {
type => text,
* $resource-extension,
global-attributes,
}
hash = 7
directory = 16
file = 17
process = 18
resource = 19
size = 20
file-version = 21
key = 22
location = 23
fs-name = 24
root = 25
path-elements = 26
process-name = 27
pid = 28
type = 29
The following list describes each member of the groups and maps
illustrated above.
filesystem-item: A list of common items used for representing the
filesystem root, relative location, name, and significance of a
file or directory item.
global-attributes: The global-attributes group as described in
Section 2.5.
hash (index 7): Value that provides a hash of a file. This item
provides an integrity measurement with respect to a specific file.
See Section 2.9.1 for more details on the use of the hash-entry
data structure.
directory (index 16): Item that allows child directory and file
items to be defined within a directory hierarchy for the software
component.
file (index 17): Item that allows details about a file to be
provided for the software component.
process (index 18): Item that allows details to be provided about
the runtime behavior of the software component, such as
information that will appear in a process listing on an endpoint.
resource (index 19): Item that can be used to provide details about
an artifact or capability expected to be found on an endpoint or
evidence collected related to the software component. This can be
used to represent concepts not addressed directly by the
directory, file, or process items. Examples include registry
keys, bound ports, etc. The equivalent construct in [SWID] is
currently underspecified. As a result, this item might be further
defined through extensions in the future.
size (index 20): The file's size in bytes.
file-version (index 21): The file's version as reported by querying
information on the file from the operating system (if available).
This item maps to
'/SoftwareIdentity/(Payload|Evidence)/File/@version' in [SWID].
key (index 22): A boolean value indicating if a file or directory is
significant or required for the software component to execute or
function properly. These are files or directories that can be
used to affirmatively determine if the software component is
installed on an endpoint.
location (index 23): The filesystem path where a file is expected to
be located when installed or copied. The location MUST be either
an absolute path, a path relative to the path value included in
the parent directory item (preferred), or a path relative to the
location of the CoSWID tag if no parent is defined. The location
MUST NOT include a file's name, which is provided by the fs-name
item.
fs-name (index 24): The name of the directory or file without any
path information. This aligns with a file "name" in [SWID]. This
item maps to
'/SoftwareIdentity/(Payload|Evidence)/(File|Directory)/@name' in
[SWID].
root (index 25): A host-specific name for the root of the
filesystem. The location item is considered relative to this
location if specified. If not provided, the value provided by the
location item is expected to be relative to its parent or the
location of the CoSWID tag if no parent is provided.
path-elements (index 26): Group that allows a hierarchy of directory
and file items to be defined in payload or evidence items. This
is a construction within the CDDL definition of CoSWID to support
shared syntax and does not appear in [SWID].
process-name (index 27): The software component's process name as it
will appear in an endpoint's process list. This aligns with a
process "name" in [SWID]. This item maps to
'/SoftwareIdentity/(Payload|Evidence)/Process/@name' in [SWID].
pid (index 28): The process ID identified for a running instance of
the software component in the endpoint's process list. This is
used as part of the evidence item.
type (index 29): A human-readable string indicating the type of
resource.
$resource-collection-extension: A CDDL socket that can be used to
extend the resource-collection group model. This can be used to
add new specialized types of resources. See Section 2.2.
$file-extension: A CDDL socket that can be used to extend the file-
entry group model. See Section 2.2.
$directory-extension: A CDDL socket that can be used to extend the
directory-entry group model. See Section 2.2.
$process-extension: A CDDL socket that can be used to extend the
process-entry group model. See Section 2.2.
$resource-extension: A CDDL socket that can be used to extend the
resource-entry group model. See Section 2.2.
2.9.3. The payload-entry Map
The CDDL for the payload-entry map follows:
payload-entry = {
resource-collection,
* $payload-extension,
global-attributes,
}
The following list describes each child item of this group.
global-attributes: The global-attributes group as described in
Section 2.5.
resource-collection: The resource-collection group as described in
Section 2.9.2.
$payload-extension: A CDDL socket that can be used to extend the
payload-entry group model. See Section 2.2.
2.9.4. The evidence-entry Map
The CDDL for the evidence-entry map follows:
evidence-entry = {
resource-collection,
? date => integer-time,
? device-id => text,
? location => text,
* $evidence-extension,
global-attributes,
}
date = 35
device-id = 36
The following list describes each child item of this group.
global-attributes: The global-attributes group as described in
Section 2.5.
resource-collection: The resource-collection group as described in
Section 2.9.2.
location (index 23): The filesystem path of the location of the
CoSWID tag generated as evidence. This path is always an absolute
file path (unlike the value of a location item found within a
filesystem-item as described in Section 2.9.2, which can be either
a relative path or an absolute path).
date (index 35): The date and time the information was collected
pertaining to the evidence item in epoch-based date/time format as
specified in Section 3.4.2 of [RFC8949].
device-id (index 36): The endpoint's string identifier from which
the evidence was collected.
$evidence-extension: A CDDL socket that can be used to extend the
evidence-entry group model. See Section 2.2.
2.10. Full CDDL Specification
In order to create a valid CoSWID document, the structure of the
corresponding CBOR message MUST adhere to the following CDDL
specification.
<CODE BEGINS> file "concise-swid-tag.cddl"
concise-swid-tag = {
tag-id => text / bstr .size 16,
tag-version => integer,
? corpus => bool,
? patch => bool,
? supplemental => bool,
software-name => text,
? software-version => text,
? version-scheme => $version-scheme,
? media => text,
? software-meta => one-or-more<software-meta-entry>,
entity => one-or-more<entity-entry>,
? link => one-or-more<link-entry>,
? payload-or-evidence,
* $coswid-extension,
global-attributes,
}
payload-or-evidence //= ( payload => payload-entry )
payload-or-evidence //= ( evidence => evidence-entry )
any-uri = uri
label = text / int
$version-scheme /= multipartnumeric
$version-scheme /= multipartnumeric-suffix
$version-scheme /= alphanumeric
$version-scheme /= decimal
$version-scheme /= semver
$version-scheme /= int / text
any-attribute = (
label => one-or-more<text> / one-or-more<int>
)
one-or-more<T> = T / [ 2* T ]
global-attributes = (
? lang => text,
* any-attribute,
)
hash-entry = [
hash-alg-id: int,
hash-value: bytes,
]
entity-entry = {
entity-name => text,
? reg-id => any-uri,
role => one-or-more<$role>,
? thumbprint => hash-entry,
* $entity-extension,
global-attributes,
}
$role /= tag-creator
$role /= software-creator
$role /= aggregator
$role /= distributor
$role /= licensor
$role /= maintainer
$role /= int / text
link-entry = {
? artifact => text,
href => any-uri,
? media => text,
? ownership => $ownership,
rel => $rel,
? media-type => text,
? use => $use,
* $link-extension,
global-attributes,
}
$ownership /= shared
$ownership /= private
$ownership /= abandon
$ownership /= int / text
$rel /= ancestor
$rel /= component
$rel /= feature
$rel /= installationmedia
$rel /= packageinstaller
$rel /= parent
$rel /= patches
$rel /= requires
$rel /= see-also
$rel /= supersedes
$rel /= supplemental
$rel /= -256..65536 / text
$use /= optional
$use /= required
$use /= recommended
$use /= int / text
software-meta-entry = {
? activation-status => text,
? channel-type => text,
? colloquial-version => text,
? description => text,
? edition => text,
? entitlement-data-required => bool,
? entitlement-key => text,
? generator => text / bstr .size 16,
? persistent-id => text,
? product => text,
? product-family => text,
? revision => text,
? summary => text,
? unspsc-code => text,
? unspsc-version => text,
* $software-meta-extension,
global-attributes,
}
path-elements-group = ( ? directory => one-or-more<directory-entry>,
? file => one-or-more<file-entry>,
)
resource-collection = (
path-elements-group,
? process => one-or-more<process-entry>,
? resource => one-or-more<resource-entry>,
* $resource-collection-extension,
)
file-entry = {
filesystem-item,
? size => uint,
? file-version => text,
? hash => hash-entry,
* $file-extension,
global-attributes,
}
directory-entry = {
filesystem-item,
? path-elements => { path-elements-group },
* $directory-extension,
global-attributes,
}
process-entry = {
process-name => text,
? pid => integer,
* $process-extension,
global-attributes,
}
resource-entry = {
type => text,
* $resource-extension,
global-attributes,
}
filesystem-item = (
? key => bool,
? location => text,
fs-name => text,
? root => text,
)
payload-entry = {
resource-collection,
* $payload-extension,
global-attributes,
}
evidence-entry = {
resource-collection,
? date => integer-time,
? device-id => text,
? location => text,
* $evidence-extension,
global-attributes,
}
integer-time = #6.1(int)
; "global map member" integer indices
tag-id = 0
software-name = 1
entity = 2
evidence = 3
link = 4
software-meta = 5
payload = 6
hash = 7
corpus = 8
patch = 9
media = 10
supplemental = 11
tag-version = 12
software-version = 13
version-scheme = 14
lang = 15
directory = 16
file = 17
process = 18
resource = 19
size = 20
file-version = 21
key = 22
location = 23
fs-name = 24
root = 25
path-elements = 26
process-name = 27
pid = 28
type = 29
entity-name = 31
reg-id = 32
role = 33
thumbprint = 34
date = 35
device-id = 36
artifact = 37
href = 38
ownership = 39
rel = 40
media-type = 41
use = 42
activation-status = 43
channel-type = 44
colloquial-version = 45
description = 46
edition = 47
entitlement-data-required = 48
entitlement-key = 49
generator = 50
persistent-id = 51
product = 52
product-family = 53
revision = 54
summary = 55
unspsc-code = 56
unspsc-version = 57
; "version-scheme" integer indices
multipartnumeric = 1
multipartnumeric-suffix = 2
alphanumeric = 3
decimal = 4
semver = 16384
; "role" integer indices
tag-creator=1
software-creator=2
aggregator=3
distributor=4
licensor=5
maintainer=6
; "ownership" integer indices
abandon=1
private=2
shared=3
; "rel" integer indices
ancestor=1
component=2
feature=3
installationmedia=4
packageinstaller=5
parent=6
patches=7
requires=8
see-also=9
supersedes=10
; supplemental=11 ; already defined
; "use" integer indices
optional=1
required=2
recommended=3
<CODE ENDS>
3. Determining the Type of CoSWID
The operational model for SWID and CoSWID tags was introduced in
Section 1.1, which described four different CoSWID tag types. The
following additional rules apply to the use of CoSWID tags to ensure
that created tags properly identify the tag type.
The first matching rule MUST determine the type of the CoSWID tag.
Primary Tag: A CoSWID tag MUST be considered a primary tag if the
corpus, patch, and supplemental items are "false".
Supplemental Tag: A CoSWID tag MUST be considered a supplemental tag
if the supplemental item is set to "true".
Corpus Tag: A CoSWID tag MUST be considered a corpus tag if the
corpus item is "true".
Patch Tag: A CoSWID tag MUST be considered a patch tag if the patch
item is "true".
| Note: It is possible for some or all of the corpus, patch, and
| supplemental items to simultaneously have values set as "true".
| The rules above provide a means to determine the tag's type in
| such a case. For example, a SWID or CoSWID tag for a patch
| installer might have both corpus and patch items set to "true".
| In such a case, the tag is a "corpus tag". The tag installed
| by this installer would have only the patch item set to "true",
| making the installed tag type a "patch tag".
4. CoSWID Indexed Label Values
This section defines multiple kinds of indexed label values that are
maintained in several IANA registries. See Section 6 for details.
These values are represented as positive integers. In each registry,
the value 0 is marked as Reserved.
4.1. Version Scheme
The following table contains a set of values for use in the concise-
swid-tag group's version-scheme item. The "Index" value indicates
the value to use as the version-scheme item's value. Strings in the
"Version Scheme Name" column provide human-readable text for the
value and match the version schemes defined in the ISO/IEC
19770-2:2015 specification [SWID]. The "Definition" column describes
the syntax of allowed values for each entry.
+=======+=========================+===============================+
| Index | Version Scheme Name | Definition |
+=======+=========================+===============================+
| 1 | multipartnumeric | Numbers separated by dots, |
| | | where the numbers are |
| | | interpreted as decimal |
| | | integers (e.g., 1.2.3, |
| | | 1.2.3.4.5.6.7, 1.4.5, 1.21) |
+-------+-------------------------+-------------------------------+
| 2 | multipartnumeric+suffix | Numbers separated by dots, |
| | | where the numbers are |
| | | interpreted as decimal |
| | | integers with an additional |
| | | textual suffix (e.g., 1.2.3a) |
+-------+-------------------------+-------------------------------+
| 3 | alphanumeric | Strictly a string, no |
| | | interpretation as number |
+-------+-------------------------+-------------------------------+
| 4 | decimal | A single decimal floating- |
| | | point number |
+-------+-------------------------+-------------------------------+
| 16384 | semver | A semantic version as defined |
| | | by [SWID]. Also see the |
| | | [SEMVER] specification for |
| | | more information |
+-------+-------------------------+-------------------------------+
Table 3: Version Scheme Values
"multipartnumeric" and the numbers part of "multipartnumeric+suffix"
are interpreted as a sequence of numbers and are sorted in
lexicographical order by these numbers (i.e., not by the digits in
the numbers) and then the textual suffix (for
"multipartnumeric+suffix"). "alphanumeric" strings are sorted
lexicographically as character strings. "decimal" version numbers
are interpreted as single floating-point numbers (e.g., 1.25 is less
than 1.3).
The values above are registered in the IANA "Software ID Version
Scheme Values" registry, defined in Section 6.2.4. Additional
entries will likely be registered over time in this registry.
A CoSWID producer that is aware of the version scheme that has been
used to select the version value SHOULD include the optional version-
scheme item to avoid semantic ambiguity. If the CoSWID producer does
not have this information, it SHOULD omit the version-scheme item.
The following heuristics can be used by a CoSWID consumer, based on
the version schemes' partially overlapping value spaces:
* "decimal" and "multipartnumeric" partially overlap in their value
space when a value matches a decimal number. When a corresponding
software-version item's value falls within this overlapping value
space, it is expected that the "decimal" version scheme is used.
* "multipartnumeric" and "semver" partially overlap in their value
space when a "multipartnumeric" value matches the semantic
versioning syntax. When a corresponding software-version item's
value falls within this overlapping value space, it is expected
that the "semver" version scheme is used.
* "alphanumeric" and other version schemes might overlap in their
value space. When a corresponding software-version item's value
falls within this overlapping value space, it is expected that the
other version scheme is used and "alphanumeric" is not used.
Note that these heuristics are imperfect and can guess wrong, which
is the reason the version-scheme item SHOULD be included by the
producer.
4.2. Entity Role Values
The following table indicates the index value to use for the entity-
entry group's role item (see Section 2.6). These values match the
entity roles defined in the ISO/IEC 19770-2:2015 specification
[SWID]. The "Index" value indicates the value to use as the role
item's value. Items in the "Role Name" column provide human-readable
text for the value. The "Definition" column describes the semantic
meaning of each entry.
+=======+=================+========================================+
| Index | Role Name | Definition |
+=======+=================+========================================+
| 1 | tagCreator | The person or organization that |
| | | created the containing SWID or CoSWID |
| | | tag. |
+-------+-----------------+----------------------------------------+
| 2 | softwareCreator | The person or organization entity that |
| | | created the software component. |
+-------+-----------------+----------------------------------------+
| 3 | aggregator | From [SWID], "An organization or |
| | | system that encapsulates software from |
| | | their own and/or other organizations |
| | | into a different distribution process |
| | | (as in the case of virtualization), or |
| | | as a completed system to accomplish a |
| | | specific task (as in the case of a |
| | | value added reseller)." |
+-------+-----------------+----------------------------------------+
| 4 | distributor | From [SWID], "An entity that furthers |
| | | the marketing, selling and/or |
| | | distribution of software from the |
| | | original place of manufacture to the |
| | | ultimate user without modifying the |
| | | software, its packaging or its |
| | | labelling." |
+-------+-----------------+----------------------------------------+
| 5 | licensor | From [SAM], as a "software licensor", |
| | | a "person or organization who owns or |
| | | holds the rights to issue a software |
| | | license for a specific software |
| | | [component]." |
+-------+-----------------+----------------------------------------+
| 6 | maintainer | The person or organization that is |
| | | responsible for coordinating and |
| | | making updates to the source code for |
| | | the software component. This SHOULD |
| | | be used when the "maintainer" is a |
| | | different person or organization than |
| | | the original "softwareCreator". |
+-------+-----------------+----------------------------------------+
Table 4: Entity Role Values
The values above are registered in the IANA "Software ID Entity Role
Values" registry, defined in Section 6.2.5. Additional values will
likely be registered over time.
4.3. Link Ownership Values
The following table indicates the index value to use for the link-
entry group's ownership item (see Section 2.7). These values match
the link ownership values defined in the ISO/IEC 19770-2:2015
specification [SWID]. The "Index" value indicates the value to use
as the link-entry group ownership item's value. Items in the
"Ownership Type" column provide human-readable text for the value.
The "Definition" column describes the semantic meaning of each entry.
+=======+===========+===============================================+
| Index | Ownership | Definition |
| | Type | |
+=======+===========+===============================================+
| 1 | abandon | If the software component referenced |
| | | by the CoSWID tag is uninstalled, |
| | | then the referenced software SHOULD |
| | | NOT be uninstalled. |
+-------+-----------+-----------------------------------------------+
| 2 | private | If the software component referenced |
| | | by the CoSWID tag is uninstalled, |
| | | then the referenced software SHOULD |
| | | be uninstalled as well. |
+-------+-----------+-----------------------------------------------+
| 3 | shared | If the software component referenced |
| | | by the CoSWID tag is uninstalled, |
| | | then the referenced software SHOULD |
| | | be uninstalled if no other |
| | | components are sharing the software. |
+-------+-----------+-----------------------------------------------+
Table 5: Link Ownership Values
The values above are registered in the IANA "Software ID Link
Ownership Values" registry, defined in Section 6.2.6. Additional
values will likely be registered over time.
4.4. Link Rel Values
The following table indicates the index value to use for the link-
entry group's rel item (see Section 2.7). These values match the
link rel values defined in the ISO/IEC 19770-2:2015 specification
[SWID]. The "Index" value indicates the value to use as the link-
entry group ownership item's value. Items in the "Relationship Type"
column provide human-readable text for the value. The "Definition"
column describes the semantic meaning of each entry.
+=======+===================+======================================+
| Index | Relationship Type | Definition |
+=======+===================+======================================+
| 1 | ancestor | The link references a software tag |
| | | for a previous release of this |
| | | software. This can be useful to |
| | | define an upgrade path. |
+-------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 2 | component | The link references a software tag |
| | | for a separate component of this |
| | | software. |
+-------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 3 | feature | The link references a configurable |
| | | feature of this software that can be |
| | | enabled or disabled without changing |
| | | the installed files. |
+-------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 4 | installationmedia | The link references the installation |
| | | package that can be used to install |
| | | this software. |
+-------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 5 | packageinstaller | The link references the installation |
| | | software needed to install this |
| | | software. |
+-------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 6 | parent | The link references a software tag |
| | | that is the parent of the |
| | | referencing tag. This relationship |
| | | can be used when multiple software |
| | | components are part of a software |
| | | bundle, where the "parent" is the |
| | | software tag for the bundle and each |
| | | child is a "component". In such a |
| | | case, each child component can |
| | | provide a "parent" link relationship |
| | | to the bundle's software tag, and |
| | | the bundle can provide a "component" |
| | | link relationship to each child |
| | | software component. |
+-------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 7 | patches | The link references a software tag |
| | | that the referencing software |
| | | patches. Typically only used for |
| | | patch tags (see Section 1.1). |
+-------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 8 | requires | The link references a prerequisite |
| | | for installing this software. A |
| | | patch tag (see Section 1.1) can use |
| | | this to represent base software or |
| | | another patch that needs to be |
| | | installed first. |
+-------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 9 | see-also | The link references other software |
| | | that may be of interest that relates |
| | | to this software. |
+-------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10 | supersedes | The link references other software |
| | | (e.g., an older software version) |
| | | that this software replaces. A |
| | | patch tag (see Section 1.1) can use |
| | | this to represent another patch that |
| | | this patch incorporates or replaces. |
+-------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 11 | supplemental | The link references a software tag |
| | | that the referencing tag |
| | | supplements. Used on supplemental |
| | | tags (see Section 1.1). |
+-------+-------------------+--------------------------------------+
Table 6: Link Relationship Values
The values above are registered in the IANA "Software ID Link
Relationship Values" registry, defined in Section 6.2.7. Additional
values will likely be registered over time.
4.5. Link Use Values
The following table indicates the index value to use for the link-
entry group's use item (see Section 2.7). These values match the
link use values defined in the ISO/IEC 19770-2:2015 specification
[SWID]. The "Index" value indicates the value to use as the link-
entry group use item's value. Items in the "Use Type" column provide
human-readable text for the value. The "Definition" column describes
the semantic meaning of each entry.
+=======+=============+========================================+
| Index | Use Type | Definition |
+=======+=============+========================================+
| 1 | optional | From [SWID], "Not absolutely required; |
| | | the [Link]'d software is installed |
| | | only when specified." |
+-------+-------------+----------------------------------------+
| 2 | required | From [SWID], "The [Link]'d software is |
| | | absolutely required for an operation |
| | | software installation." |
+-------+-------------+----------------------------------------+
| 3 | recommended | From [SWID], "Not absolutely required; |
| | | the [Link]'d software is installed |
| | | unless specified otherwise." |
+-------+-------------+----------------------------------------+
Table 7: Link Use Values
The values above are registered in the IANA "Software ID Link Use
Values" registry, defined in Section 6.2.8. Additional values will
likely be registered over time.
5. "swid" and "swidpath" Expressions
This specification defines the following scheme names for use in
CoSWID and to provide interoperability with scheme names used in
[SWID]. Because both the "swid" and "swidpath" scheme names are to
be interpreted within a local (rather than a global) context, neither
of these are technically URI scheme names as defined in [RFC3986].
For this reason, the "swid" and "swidpath" scheme names are
registered with IANA as provisional, rather than permanent, scheme
names. However, registering these scheme names as provisional
ensures that the scheme names are reserved and that they are properly
defined going forward.
The swid and swidpath expressions conform to all rules for URI
syntax. All uses of these expressions encountered within a CoSWID
are to be interpreted as described in this section.
5.1. "swid" Expressions
Expressions specifying the "swid" scheme are used to reference a
software tag by its tag-id. A tag-id referenced in this way can be
used to identify the tag resource in the context of where it is
referenced from. For example, when a tag is installed on a given
device, that tag can reference related tags on the same device using
expressions with this scheme.
For expressions that use the "swid" scheme, the scheme-specific part
MUST consist of a referenced software tag's tag-id. This tag-id MUST
be URI encoded according to Section 2.1 of [RFC3986].
The following expression is a valid example:
swid:2df9de35-0aff-4a86-ace6-f7dddd1ade4c
5.2. "swidpath" Expressions
Expressions specifying the "swidpath" scheme are used to filter tags
out of a base collection, so that matching tags are included in the
identified tag collection. The XPath expression
[W3C.REC-xpath20-20101214] references the data that must be found in
a given software tag out of the base collection for that tag to be
considered a matching tag. Tags to be evaluated (the base
collection) include all tags in the context of where the "swidpath"
expression is referenced from. For example, when a tag is installed
on a given device, that tag can reference related tags on the same
device using an expression with this scheme.
For URIs that use the "swidpath" scheme, the following requirements
apply:
* The scheme-specific part MUST be an XPath expression as defined by
[W3C.REC-xpath20-20101214]. The included XPath expression will be
URI encoded according to Section 2.1 of [RFC3986].
* This XPath is evaluated over SWID tags, or CoSWID tags transformed
into SWID tags, found on a system. A given tag MUST be considered
a match if the XPath evaluation result value has an effective
boolean value of "true" according to [W3C.REC-xpath20-20101214],
Section 2.4.3.
6. IANA Considerations
This document has a number of IANA considerations, as described in
the following subsections. In summary, six new registries are
established by this document, with initial entries provided for each
registry. New values for five other registries are also defined.
6.1. CoSWID Items Registry
This document defines a new registry titled "CoSWID Items". This
registry uses integer values as index values in CBOR maps. Future
registrations for this registry are to be made based on [BCP26] as
follows:
+==================+=====================================+
| Range | Registration Procedures |
+==================+=====================================+
| 0-32767 | Standards Action with Expert Review |
+------------------+-------------------------------------+
| 32768-4294967295 | Specification Required |
+------------------+-------------------------------------+
Table 8: CoSWID Items Registration Procedures
All negative values are reserved for private use.
Initial registrations for the "CoSWID Items" registry are provided
below. Assignments consist of an integer index value, the item name,
and a reference to the defining specification.
+===============+===========================+===========+
| Index | Item Name | Reference |
+===============+===========================+===========+
| 0 | tag-id | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 1 | software-name | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 2 | entity | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 3 | evidence | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 4 | link | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 5 | software-meta | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 6 | payload | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 7 | hash | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 8 | corpus | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 9 | patch | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 10 | media | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 11 | supplemental | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 12 | tag-version | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 13 | software-version | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 14 | version-scheme | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 15 | lang | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 16 | directory | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 17 | file | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 18 | process | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 19 | resource | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 20 | size | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 21 | file-version | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 22 | key | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 23 | location | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 24 | fs-name | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 25 | root | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 26 | path-elements | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 27 | process-name | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 28 | pid | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 29 | type | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 30 | Unassigned | |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 31 | entity-name | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 32 | reg-id | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 33 | role | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 34 | thumbprint | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 35 | date | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 36 | device-id | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 37 | artifact | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 38 | href | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 39 | ownership | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 40 | rel | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 41 | media-type | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 42 | use | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 43 | activation-status | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 44 | channel-type | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 45 | colloquial-version | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 46 | description | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 47 | edition | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 48 | entitlement-data-required | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 49 | entitlement-key | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 50 | generator | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 51 | persistent-id | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 52 | product | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 53 | product-family | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 54 | revision | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 55 | summary | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 56 | unspsc-code | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 57 | unspsc-version | RFC 9393 |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 58-4294967295 | Unassigned | |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+
Table 9: CoSWID Items Initial Registrations
6.2. Registries for Software ID Values
The following IANA registries provide a mechanism for new values to
be added over time to common enumerations used by SWID and CoSWID.
While neither the CoSWID specification nor the SWID specification is
subordinate to the other and will evolve as their respective
standards group chooses, there is value in supporting alignment
between the two standards. Shared use of common code points, as
spelled out in these registries, will facilitate this alignment --
hence the intent for shared use of these registries and the decision
to use "swidsoftware-id" (rather than "swid" or "coswid") in registry
names.
6.2.1. Registration Procedures
The following registries allow for the registration of index values
and names. New registrations will be permitted through either a
Standards Action with Expert Review policy or a Specification
Required policy [BCP26].
The following registries also reserve the integer-based index values
in the range of -1 to -256 for private use as defined by Section 4.1
of [BCP26]. This allows values -1 to -24 to be expressed as a single
uint8_t in CBOR and values -25 to -256 to be expressed using an
additional uint8_t in CBOR.
6.2.2. Private Use of Index and Name Values
The integer-based index values in the private use range (-1 to -256)
are intended for testing purposes and closed environments; values in
other ranges SHOULD NOT be assigned for testing.
For names that correspond to private use index values, an
Internationalized Domain Name prefix MUST be used to prevent name
conflicts using the form
domainprefix/name
where both "domainprefix" and "name" MUST each be either a Non-
Reserved LDH (NR-LDH) label or a U-label as defined by [RFC5890], and
"name" also MUST be a unique name within the namespace defined by the
"domainprefix". ("LDH" is an abbreviation for "letters, digits,
hyphen".) Using a prefix in this way allows for a name to be used in
the private use range. This is consistent with the guidance in
[BCP178].
6.2.3. Expert Review Criteria
Designated experts MUST ensure that new registration requests meet
the following additional criteria:
* The requesting specification MUST provide a clear semantic
definition for the new entry. This definition MUST clearly
differentiate the requested entry from other previously registered
entries.
* The requesting specification MUST describe the intended use of the
entry, including any co-constraints that exist between (1) the use
of the entry's index value or name and (2) other values defined
within the SWID/CoSWID model.
* Index values and names outside the private use space MUST NOT be
used without registration. This is considered "squatting" and
MUST be avoided. Designated experts MUST ensure that reviewed
specifications register all appropriate index values and names.
* Standards Track documents MAY include entries registered in the
range reserved for entries under the Specification Required
policy. This can occur when a Standards Track document provides
further guidance on the use of index values and names that are in
common use but were not registered with IANA. This situation
SHOULD be avoided.
* All registered names MUST be valid according to the XML Schema
NMTOKEN data type (see [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028],
Section 3.3.4). This ensures that registered names are compatible
with the SWID format [SWID] where they are used.
* Registration of vanity names SHOULD be discouraged. The
requesting specification MUST provide a description of how a
requested name will allow for use by multiple stakeholders.
6.2.4. Software ID Version Scheme Values Registry
This document establishes a new registry titled "Software ID Version
Scheme Values". This registry provides index values for use as
version-scheme item values in this document and Version Scheme Names
for use in [SWID].
This registry uses the registration procedures defined in
Section 6.2.1, with the following associated ranges:
+=============+=====================================+
| Range | Registration Procedures |
+=============+=====================================+
| 0-16383 | Standards Action with Expert Review |
+-------------+-------------------------------------+
| 16384-65535 | Specification Required |
+-------------+-------------------------------------+
Table 10: Software ID Version Scheme Registration
Procedures
Assignments MUST consist of an integer index value, the Version
Scheme Name, and a reference to the defining specification.
Initial registrations for the "Software ID Version Scheme Values"
registry are provided below and are derived from the textual Version
Scheme Names defined in [SWID].
+=============+=========================+=======================+
| Index | Version Scheme Name | Reference |
+=============+=========================+=======================+
| 0 | Reserved | |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
| 1 | multipartnumeric | RFC 9393, Section 4.1 |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
| 2 | multipartnumeric+suffix | RFC 9393, Section 4.1 |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
| 3 | alphanumeric | RFC 9393, Section 4.1 |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
| 4 | decimal | RFC 9393, Section 4.1 |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
| 5-16383 | Unassigned | |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
| 16384 | semver | RFC 9393, Section 4.1 |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
| 16385-65535 | Unassigned | |
+-------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
Table 11: Software ID Version Scheme Initial Registrations
Registrations MUST conform to the expert review criteria defined in
Section 6.2.3.
Designated experts MUST also ensure that newly requested entries
define a value space for the corresponding software-version item that
is unique from other previously registered entries.
| Note: The initial registrations violate this requirement but
| are included for backwards compatibility with [SWID]. See also
| Section 4.1.
6.2.5. Software ID Entity Role Values Registry
This document establishes a new registry titled "Software ID Entity
Role Values". This registry provides index values for use as entity-
entry role item values in this document and entity role names for use
in [SWID].
This registry uses the registration procedures defined in
Section 6.2.1, with the following associated ranges:
+=========+=====================================+
| Range | Registration Procedures |
+=========+=====================================+
| 0-127 | Standards Action with Expert Review |
+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 128-255 | Specification Required |
+---------+-------------------------------------+
Table 12: Software ID Entity Role
Registration Procedures
Assignments consist of an integer index value, a role name, and a
reference to the defining specification.
Initial registrations for the "Software ID Entity Role Values"
registry are provided below and are derived from the textual entity
role names defined in [SWID].
+=======+=================+=======================+
| Index | Role Name | Reference |
+=======+=================+=======================+
| 0 | Reserved | |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------------+
| 1 | tagCreator | RFC 9393, Section 4.2 |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------------+
| 2 | softwareCreator | RFC 9393, Section 4.2 |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------------+
| 3 | aggregator | RFC 9393, Section 4.2 |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------------+
| 4 | distributor | RFC 9393, Section 4.2 |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------------+
| 5 | licensor | RFC 9393, Section 4.2 |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------------+
| 6 | maintainer | RFC 9393, Section 4.2 |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------------+
| 7-255 | Unassigned | |
+-------+-----------------+-----------------------+
Table 13: Software ID Entity Role Initial
Registrations
Registrations MUST conform to the expert review criteria defined in
Section 6.2.3.
6.2.6. Software ID Link Ownership Values Registry
This document establishes a new registry titled "Software ID Link
Ownership Values". This registry provides index values for use as
link-entry ownership item values in this document and link ownership
names for use in [SWID].
This registry uses the registration procedures defined in
Section 6.2.1, with the following associated ranges:
+=========+=====================================+
| Range | Registration Procedures |
+=========+=====================================+
| 0-127 | Standards Action with Expert Review |
+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 128-255 | Specification Required |
+---------+-------------------------------------+
Table 14: Software ID Link Ownership
Registration Procedures
Assignments consist of an integer index value, an ownership type
name, and a reference to the defining specification.
Initial registrations for the "Software ID Link Ownership Values"
registry are provided below and are derived from the textual entity
role names defined in [SWID].
+=======+=====================+=======================+
| Index | Ownership Type Name | Reference |
+=======+=====================+=======================+
| 0 | Reserved | |
+-------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| 1 | abandon | RFC 9393, Section 4.3 |
+-------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| 2 | private | RFC 9393, Section 4.3 |
+-------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| 3 | shared | RFC 9393, Section 4.3 |
+-------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| 4-255 | Unassigned | |
+-------+---------------------+-----------------------+
Table 15: Software ID Link Ownership Initial
Registrations
Registrations MUST conform to the expert review criteria defined in
Section 6.2.3.
6.2.7. Software ID Link Relationship Values Registry
This document establishes a new registry titled "Software ID Link
Relationship Values". This registry provides index values for use as
link-entry rel item values in this document and link ownership names
for use in [SWID].
This registry uses the registration procedures defined in
Section 6.2.1, with the following associated ranges:
+=============+=====================================+
| Range | Registration Procedures |
+=============+=====================================+
| 0-32767 | Standards Action with Expert Review |
+-------------+-------------------------------------+
| 32768-65535 | Specification Required |
+-------------+-------------------------------------+
Table 16: Software ID Link Relationship
Registration Procedures
Assignments consist of an integer index value, the relationship type
name, and a reference to the defining specification.
Initial registrations for the "Software ID Link Relationship Values"
registry are provided below and are derived from the link
relationship values defined in [SWID].
+==========+========================+=======================+
| Index | Relationship Type Name | Reference |
+==========+========================+=======================+
| 0 | Reserved | |
+----------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| 1 | ancestor | RFC 9393, Section 4.4 |
+----------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| 2 | component | RFC 9393, Section 4.4 |
+----------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| 3 | feature | RFC 9393, Section 4.4 |
+----------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| 4 | installationmedia | RFC 9393, Section 4.4 |
+----------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| 5 | packageinstaller | RFC 9393, Section 4.4 |
+----------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| 6 | parent | RFC 9393, Section 4.4 |
+----------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| 7 | patches | RFC 9393, Section 4.4 |
+----------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| 8 | requires | RFC 9393, Section 4.4 |
+----------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| 9 | see-also | RFC 9393, Section 4.4 |
+----------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| 10 | supersedes | RFC 9393, Section 4.4 |
+----------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| 11 | supplemental | RFC 9393, Section 4.4 |
+----------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| 12-65535 | Unassigned | |
+----------+------------------------+-----------------------+
Table 17: Software ID Link Relationship Initial Registrations
Registrations MUST conform to the expert review criteria defined in
Section 6.2.3.
Designated experts MUST also ensure that a newly requested entry
documents the URI schemes allowed to be used in an href associated
with the link relationship and the expected resolution behavior of
these URI schemes. This will help to ensure that applications
processing software tags are able to interoperate when resolving
resources referenced by a link of a given type.
6.2.8. Software ID Link Use Values Registry
This document establishes a new registry titled "Software ID Link Use
Values". This registry provides index values for use as link-entry
use item values in this document and link use names for use in
[SWID].
This registry uses the registration procedures defined in
Section 6.2.1, with the following associated ranges:
+=========+=====================================+
| Range | Registration Procedures |
+=========+=====================================+
| 0-127 | Standards Action with Expert Review |
+---------+-------------------------------------+
| 128-255 | Specification Required |
+---------+-------------------------------------+
Table 18: Software ID Link Use Registration
Procedures
Assignments consist of an integer index value, the link use type
name, and a reference to the defining specification.
Initial registrations for the "Software ID Link Use Values" registry
are provided below and are derived from the link relationship values
defined in [SWID].
+=======+====================+=======================+
| Index | Link Use Type Name | Reference |
+=======+====================+=======================+
| 0 | Reserved | |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| 1 | optional | RFC 9393, Section 4.5 |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| 2 | required | RFC 9393, Section 4.5 |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| 3 | recommended | RFC 9393, Section 4.5 |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| 4-255 | Unassigned | |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------------+
Table 19: Software ID Link Use Initial Registrations
Registrations MUST conform to the expert review criteria defined in
Section 6.2.3.
6.3. swid+cbor Media Type Registration
IANA has added the following to the "Media Types" registry
[IANA.media-types].
Type name: application
Subtype name: swid+cbor
Required parameters: none
Optional parameters: none
Encoding considerations: Binary (encoded as CBOR [RFC8949]). See
RFC 9393 for details.
Security considerations: See Section 9 of RFC 9393.
Interoperability considerations: Applications MAY ignore any key
value pairs that they do not understand. This allows backwards-
compatible extensions to this specification.
Published specification: RFC 9393
Applications that use this media type: The type is used by software
asset management systems and vulnerability assessment systems and
is used in applications that use remote integrity verification.
Fragment Identifier Considerations: The syntax and semantics of
fragment identifiers specified for "application/swid+cbor" are as
specified for "application/cbor". (At publication of RFC 9393,
there is no fragment identification syntax defined for
"application/cbor".)
Additional information:
Magic number(s): If tagged, the first five bytes in hex: da 53 57
49 44 (see Section 8 of RFC 9393).
File extension(s): coswid
Macintosh file type code(s): none
Macintosh Universal Type Identifier code: org.ietf.coswid
conforms to public.data.
Person & email address to contact for further information:
IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Intended usage: COMMON
Restrictions on usage: none
Author: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>
Change controller: IESG
6.4. CoAP Content-Format Registration
IANA has assigned a CoAP Content-Format ID for the CoSWID media type
in the "CoAP Content-Formats" subregistry, from the "IETF Review or
IESG Approval" space (256..999), within the "CoRE Parameters"
registry [RFC7252] [IANA.core-parameters]:
+=======================+================+=====+===========+
| Content Type | Content Coding | ID | Reference |
+=======================+================+=====+===========+
| application/swid+cbor | - | 258 | RFC 9393 |
+-----------------------+----------------+-----+-----------+
Table 20: CoAP Content-Format IDs
6.5. CBOR Tag Registration
IANA has allocated a tag in the "CBOR Tags" registry
[IANA.cbor-tags]:
+============+===========+=====================+===========+
| Tag | Data Item | Semantics | Reference |
+============+===========+=====================+===========+
| 1398229316 | map | Concise Software | RFC 9393 |
| | | Identifier (CoSWID) | |
+------------+-----------+---------------------+-----------+
Table 21: CoSWID CBOR Tag
6.6. URI Scheme Registrations
The ISO 19770-2:2015 SWID specification [SWID] describes the use of
the "swid" and "swidpath" URI schemes, which are currently in use in
implementations. This document continues this use for CoSWID. The
following subsections provide registrations for these schemes to
ensure that a registration for these schemes exists that is suitable
for use in the SWID and CoSWID specifications.
URI schemes are registered within the "Uniform Resource Identifier
(URI) Schemes" registry maintained at [IANA.uri-schemes].
6.6.1. URI Scheme "swid"
IANA has registered the URI scheme "swid". This registration
complies with [RFC7595].
Scheme name: swid
Status: Provisional
Applications/protocols that use this scheme name: Applications that
require Software IDs (SWIDs) or Concise Software IDs (CoSWIDs);
see Section 5.1 of RFC 9393.
Contact: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Change controller: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Reference: Section 5.1 of RFC 9393
| Note: This scheme has been documented by an IETF working group
| and is mentioned in an IETF Standard specification. However,
| as it describes a locally scoped, limited-purpose form of
| identification, it does not fully meet the requirements for
| permanent registration.
|
| As long as this specification (or any successors that describe
| this scheme) is a current IETF specification, this scheme
| should be considered to be "in use" and not considered for
| removal from the registry.
6.6.2. URI Scheme "swidpath"
IANA has registered the URI scheme "swidpath". This registration
complies with [RFC7595].
Scheme name: swidpath
Status: Provisional
Applications/protocols that use this scheme name: Applications that
require Software IDs (SWIDs) or Concise Software IDs (CoSWIDs);
see Section 5.2 of RFC 9393.
Contact: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Change controller: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Reference: Section 5.2 of RFC 9393
| Note: This scheme has been documented by an IETF working group
| and is mentioned in an IETF Standard specification. However,
| as it describes a locally scoped, limited-purpose form of
| identification, it does not fully meet the requirements for
| permanent registration.
|
| As long as this specification (or any successors that describe
| this scheme) is a current IETF specification, this scheme
| should be considered to be "in use" and not considered for
| removal from the registry.
6.7. CoSWID Model for Use in SWIMA Registration
"Software Inventory Message and Attributes (SWIMA) for PA-TNC"
[RFC8412] defines a standardized method for collecting an endpoint
device's software inventory. A CoSWID can provide evidence of
software installation that can then be used and exchanged with SWIMA.
This registration adds a new entry to the IANA "Software Data Model
Types" registry defined by [RFC8412] and [IANA.pa-tnc-parameters] to
support CoSWID use in SWIMA as follows:
Pen: 0
Integer: 2
Name: Concise Software Identifier (CoSWID)
Reference: RFC 9393
Deriving Software Identifiers: A Software Identifier generated from
a CoSWID tag is expressed as a concatenation of the form used in
[RFC5234] as follows --
TAG_CREATOR_REGID "_" "_" UNIQUE_ID
where TAG_CREATOR_REGID is the reg-id item value of the tag's
entity item having the role value of 1 (corresponding to "tag-
creator"), and the UNIQUE_ID is the same tag's tag-id item. If
the tag-id item's value is expressed as a 16-byte binary string,
the UNIQUE_ID MUST be represented using the UUID string
representation defined in [RFC4122], including the "urn:uuid:"
prefix.
The TAG_CREATOR_REGID and the UNIQUE_ID are connected with a
double underscore (_), without any other connecting character or
whitespace.
7. Signed CoSWID Tags
SWID tags, as defined in the ISO-19770-2:2015 XML Schema, can include
cryptographic signatures to protect the integrity of the SWID tag.
In general, tags are signed by the tag creator (typically, although
not exclusively, the vendor of the software component that the SWID
tag identifies). Cryptographic signatures can make any modification
of the tag detectable, which is especially important if the integrity
of the tag is important, such as when the tag is providing RIMs for
files. The ISO-19770-2:2015 XML Schema uses XML Digital Signatures
(XMLDSIG) to support cryptographic signatures.
Signing CoSWID tags follows the procedures defined in CBOR Object
Signing and Encryption (COSE) [RFC9052]. A CoSWID tag MUST be
wrapped in a COSE Signature structure, either COSE_Sign1 or
COSE_Sign. In the first case, a Single Signer Data Object
(COSE_Sign1) contains a single signature and MUST be signed by the
tag creator. The following CDDL specification defines a restrictive
subset of COSE header parameters that MUST be used in the protected
header in this case.
<CODE BEGINS> file "sign1.cddl"
COSE_Sign1-coswid<payload> = [
protected: bstr .cbor protected-signed-coswid-header,
unprotected: unprotected-signed-coswid-header,
payload: bstr .cbor payload,
signature: bstr,
]
cose-label = int / tstr
cose-values = any
protected-signed-coswid-header = {
1 => int, ; algorithm identifier
3 => "application/swid+cbor",
* cose-label => cose-values,
}
unprotected-signed-coswid-header = {
* cose-label => cose-values,
}
<CODE ENDS>
The COSE_Sign structure allows for more than one signature, one of
which MUST be issued by the tag creator, to be applied to a CoSWID
tag and MAY be used. The corresponding usage scenarios are domain
specific and require well-specified application guidance.
<CODE BEGINS> file "sign.cddl"
COSE_Sign-coswid<payload> = [
protected: bstr .cbor protected-signed-coswid-header1,
unprotected: unprotected-signed-coswid-header,
payload: bstr .cbor payload,
signature: [ * COSE_Signature ],
]
protected-signed-coswid-header1 = {
3 => "application/swid+cbor",
* cose-label => cose-values,
}
protected-signature-coswid-header = {
1 => int, ; algorithm identifier
* cose-label => cose-values,
}
unprotected-signed-coswid-header = {
* cose-label => cose-values,
}
COSE_Signature = [
protected: bstr .cbor protected-signature-coswid-header,
unprotected: unprotected-signed-coswid-header,
signature: bstr
]
<CODE ENDS>
Additionally, the COSE header countersignature MAY be used as an
attribute in the unprotected header map of the COSE envelope of a
CoSWID [RFC9338]. The application of countersigning enables second
parties to provide a signature on a signature allowing for proof that
a signature existed at a given time (i.e., a timestamp).
A CoSWID MUST be signed, using the above mechanism, to protect the
integrity of the CoSWID tag. See Section 9 ("Security
Considerations") for more information on why a signed CoSWID is
valuable in most cases.
8. CBOR-Tagged CoSWID Tags
This specification allows for tagged and untagged CBOR data items
that are CoSWID tags. Consequently, the CBOR tag defined by this
document (Table 21) for CoSWID tags SHOULD be used in conjunction
with CBOR data items that are CoSWID tags. Other CBOR tags MUST NOT
be used with a CBOR data item that is a CoSWID tag. If tagged, both
signed and unsigned CoSWID tags MUST use the CoSWID CBOR tag. If a
signed CoSWID is tagged, a CoSWID CBOR tag MUST be appended before
the COSE envelope, whether it is a COSE_Untagged_Message or a
COSE_Tagged_Message. If an unsigned CoSWID is tagged, a CoSWID CBOR
tag MUST be appended before the CBOR data item that is the CoSWID
tag.
<CODE BEGINS> file "tags.cddl"
coswid = unsigned-coswid / signed-coswid
unsigned-coswid = concise-swid-tag / tagged-coswid<concise-swid-tag>
signed-coswid1 = signed-coswid-for<unsigned-coswid>
signed-coswid = signed-coswid1 / tagged-coswid<signed-coswid1>
tagged-coswid<T> = #6.1398229316(T)
signed-coswid-for<payload> = #6.18(COSE_Sign1-coswid<payload>)
/ #6.98(COSE_Sign-coswid<payload>)
<CODE ENDS>
This specification allows for a CBOR-tagged CoSWID tag to reside in a
COSE envelope that is also tagged with a CoSWID CBOR tag. In cases
where a tag creator is not a signer (e.g., hand-offs between entities
in a trusted portion of a supply chain), retaining CBOR tags attached
to unsigned CoSWID tags can be of great use. Nevertheless, redundant
use of tags SHOULD be avoided when possible.
9. Security Considerations
The following security considerations for the use of CoSWID tags
focus on:
* ensuring the integrity and authenticity of a CoSWID tag
* the application of CoSWID tags to address security challenges
related to unmanaged or unpatched software
* reducing the potential for unintended disclosure of a device's
software load
A tag is considered "authoritative" if the CoSWID tag was created by
the software provider. An authoritative CoSWID tag contains
information about a software component provided by the supplier of
the software component, who is expected to be an expert in their own
software. Thus, authoritative CoSWID tags can represent
authoritative information about the software component. The degree
to which this information can be trusted depends on the tag's chain
of custody and the ability to verify a signature provided by the
supplier if present in the CoSWID tag. The provisioning and
validation of CoSWID tags are handled by local policy and are outside
the scope of this document.
A signed CoSWID tag (see Section 7) whose signature has been
validated can be relied upon to be unchanged since the time at which
it was signed. By contrast, the data contained in unsigned tags can
be altered by any user or process with write access to the tag. To
support signature validation, there is a need to associate the right
key with the software provider or party originating the signature in
a secure way. This operation is application specific and needs to be
addressed by the application or a user of the application; a specific
approach for this topic is out of scope for this document.
When an authoritative tag is signed, the originator of the signature
can be verified. A trustworthy association between the signature and
the originator of the signature can be established via trust anchors.
A certification path between a trust anchor and a certificate,
including a public key enabling the validation of a tag signature,
can realize the assessment of trustworthiness of an authoritative
tag. Verifying that the software provider is the signer is a
different matter. This requires verifying that the party that signed
the tag is the same party given in the software-creator role of the
tag's entity item. No mechanism is defined in this document to make
this association; therefore, this association will need to be handled
by local policy. As always, the validity of a signature does not
imply the veracity of the signed statements: anyone can sign
assertions such that the software is from a specific software-creator
or that a specific persistent-id applies; policy needs to be applied
to evaluate these statements and to determine their suitability for a
specific use.
Loss of control of signing credentials used to sign CoSWID tags would
cast doubt on the authenticity and integrity of any CoSWID tags
signed using the compromised keys. In such cases, the legitimate tag
signer (namely, the software provider for an authoritative CoSWID
tag) can employ uncompromised signing credentials to create a new
signature on the original tag. The tag's version number would not be
incremented, since the tag itself was not modified. Consumers of
CoSWID tags would need to validate the tag using the new credentials
and would also need to make use of revocation information available
for the compromised credentials to avoid validating tags signed with
them. The process for doing this is beyond the scope of this
specification.
The CoSWID format allows the use of hash values without an
accompanying hash algorithm identifier. This exposes the tags to
some risk of cross-algorithm attacks. We believe that this can
become a practical problem only if some implementations allow the use
of insecure hash algorithms. Since it may not become known
immediately when an algorithm becomes insecure, this leads to a
strong recommendation to only include support for hash algorithms
that are generally considered secure, and not just marginally so.
CoSWID tags are intended to contain public information about software
components and, as such, the contents of a CoSWID tag (as opposed to
the set of tags that apply to the endpoint; see below) do not need to
be protected against unintended disclosure on an endpoint.
Conversely, generators of CoSWID tags need to ensure that only public
information is disclosed. The entitlement-key item is an example of
information for which particular care is required; tag authors are
advised not to record unprotected, private software license keys in
this field.
CoSWID tags are intended to be easily discoverable by authorized
applications and users on an endpoint in order to make it easy to
determine the tagged software load. Access to the collection of an
endpoint's CoSWID tags needs to be limited to authorized applications
and users using an appropriate access control mechanism.
Since the tag-id of a CoSWID tag can be used as a global index value,
failure to ensure the tag-id's uniqueness can cause collisions or
ambiguity in CoSWID tags that are retrieved or processed using this
identifier. CoSWID is designed to not require a registry of
identifiers. As a result, CoSWID requires the tag creator to employ
a method of generating a unique tag identifier. Specific methods of
generating a unique identifier are beyond the scope of this
specification. A collision in tag-ids may result in false positives/
negatives in software integrity checks or misidentification of
installed software, undermining CoSWID use cases such as
vulnerability identification, software inventory, etc. If such a
collision is detected, then the tag consumer may want to contact the
maintainer of the CoSWID to have them issue a correction addressing
the collision; however, this also discloses to the maintainer that
the consumer has the other tag with the given tag-id in their
database. More generally speaking, a tag consumer needs to be robust
against such collisions lest the collision become a viable attack
vector.
CoSWID tags are designed to be easily added and removed from an
endpoint along with the installation or removal of software
components. On endpoints where the addition or removal of software
components is tightly controlled, the addition or removal of CoSWID
tags can be similarly controlled. On more open systems, where many
users can manage the software inventory, CoSWID tags can be easier to
add or remove. On such systems, it can be possible to add or remove
CoSWID tags in a way that does not reflect the actual presence or
absence of corresponding software components. Similarly, not all
software products automatically install CoSWID tags, so products can
be present on an endpoint without providing a corresponding CoSWID
tag. As such, any collection of CoSWID tags cannot automatically be
assumed to represent either a complete or fully accurate
representation of the software inventory of the endpoint. However,
especially on endpoint devices that more strictly control the ability
to add or remove applications, CoSWID tags are an easy way to provide
a preliminary understanding of that endpoint's software inventory.
As CoSWID tags do not expire, inhibiting new CoSWID tags from
reaching an intended consumer would render that consumer stuck with
outdated information, potentially leaving associated vulnerabilities
or weaknesses unmitigated. Therefore, a CoSWID tag consumer should
actively check for updated tag-versions via more than one means.
This specification makes use of relative paths (e.g., filesystem
paths) in several places. A signed CoSWID tag cannot make use of
these to derive information that is considered to be covered under
the signature. Typically, relative filesystem paths will be used to
identify targets for an installation, not sources of tag information.
Any report of an endpoint's CoSWID tag collection provides
information about the software inventory of that endpoint. If such a
report is exposed to an attacker, this can tell them which software
products and versions thereof are present on the endpoint. By
examining this list, the attacker might learn of the presence of
applications that are vulnerable to certain types of attacks. As
noted earlier, CoSWID tags are designed to be easily discoverable by
authorized applications and users on an endpoint, but this does not
present a significant risk, since an attacker would already need to
have access to the endpoint to view that information. However, when
the endpoint transmits its software inventory to another party or
that inventory is stored on a server for later analysis, this can
potentially expose this information to attackers who do not yet have
access to the endpoint. For this reason, it is important to protect
the confidentiality of CoSWID tag information that has been collected
from an endpoint in transit and at rest, not because those tags
individually contain sensitive information but because the collection
of CoSWID tags and their association with an endpoint reveals
information about that endpoint's attack surface.
Finally, both the ISO-19770-2:2015 XML Schema SWID definition and the
CoSWID CDDL specification allow for the construction of "infinite"
tags with link item loops or tags that contain malicious content with
the intent of creating non-deterministic states during validation or
processing of those tags. While software providers are unlikely to
do this, CoSWID tags can be created by any party and the CoSWID tags
collected from an endpoint could contain a mixture of tags created by
vendors and tags not created by vendors. For this reason, a CoSWID
tag might contain potentially malicious content. Input sanitization,
loop detection, and signature verification are ways that
implementations can address this concern.
More generally speaking, the Security Considerations sections of
[RFC8949], [RFC9052], and [RFC9338] apply.
10. Privacy Considerations
As noted in Section 9, collected information about an endpoint's
software load, such as what might be represented by an endpoint's
CoSWID tag collection, could be used by attackers to identify
vulnerable software. Collections of endpoint software information
also can have privacy implications for users. The set of
applications a user installs can provide clues regarding personal
matters such as political affiliation, banking and investments,
gender, sexual orientation, medical concerns, etc. While the
collection of CoSWID tags on an endpoint wouldn't increase privacy
risks (since a party able to view those tags could also view the
applications themselves), if those CoSWID tags are gathered and
stored in a repository somewhere, visibility into the repository now
also provides visibility into a user's application collection. For
this reason, not only do repositories of collected CoSWID tags need
to be protected against collection by malicious parties but even
authorized parties will need to be vetted and made aware of privacy
responsibilities associated with having access to this information.
Likewise, users should be made aware that their software inventories
are being collected from endpoints. Furthermore, when collected and
stored by authorized parties or systems, the inventory data needs to
be protected as both security and privacy-sensitive information.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[BCP178] Saint-Andre, P., Crocker, D., and M. Nottingham,
"Deprecating the "X-" Prefix and Similar Constructs in
Application Protocols", BCP 178, RFC 6648, June 2012.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp178>
[BCP26] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, June 2017.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp26>
[IANA.cbor-tags]
IANA, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/cbor-tags>.
[IANA.core-parameters]
IANA, "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE)
Parameters",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters>.
[IANA.media-types]
IANA, "Media Types",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types>.
[IANA.named-information]
IANA, "Named Information",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/named-information>.
[IANA.pa-tnc-parameters]
IANA, "Posture Attribute (PA) Protocol Compatible with
Trusted Network Connect (TNC) Parameters",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/pa-tnc-parameters>.
[IANA.uri-schemes]
IANA, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Schemes",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes>.
[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>.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC5198] Klensin, J. and M. Padlipsky, "Unicode Format for Network
Interchange", RFC 5198, DOI 10.17487/RFC5198, March 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5198>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC5646] Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for Identifying
Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, DOI 10.17487/RFC5646,
September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5646>.
[RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
RFC 5890, DOI 10.17487/RFC5890, August 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5890>.
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
[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>.
[RFC8288] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 8288,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8288, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8288>.
[RFC8412] Schmidt, C., Haynes, D., Coffin, C., Waltermire, D., and
J. Fitzgerald-McKay, "Software Inventory Message and
Attributes (SWIMA) for PA-TNC", RFC 8412,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8412, July 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8412>.
[RFC8610] Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data
Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and
JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610,
June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8610>.
[RFC8949] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949>.
[RFC9052] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE):
Structures and Process", STD 96, RFC 9052,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9052, August 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9052>.
[RFC9338] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE):
Countersignatures", STD 96, RFC 9338,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9338, December 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9338>.
[SAM] "Information technology - IT asset management - Part 5:
Overview and vocabulary", ISO/IEC 19770-5:2015, August
2015, <https://www.iso.org/standard/68291.html>.
[SWID] "Information technology - IT asset management - Part 2:
Software identification tag", ISO/IEC 19770-2:2015,
October 2015, <https://www.iso.org/standard/65666.html>.
[UNSPSC] "United Nations Standard Products and Services Code",
2022, <https://www.unspsc.org/>.
[W3C.REC-mediaqueries-3-20220405]
Rivoal, F., Ed., "Media Queries Level 3", W3C
Recommendation REC-mediaqueries-3-20220405, 5 April 2022,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/mediaqueries-3/>.
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028]
Biron, P. V., Ed. and A. Malhotra, Ed., "XML Schema Part
2: Datatypes Second Edition", W3C Recommendation REC-
xmlschema-2-20041028, 28 October 2004,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/>.
[W3C.REC-xpath20-20101214]
Berglund, A., Ed., Boag, S., Ed., Chamberlin, D., Ed.,
Fernández, M. F., Ed., Kay, M., Ed., Robie, J., Ed., and
J. Siméon, Ed., "XML Path Language (XPath) 2.0 (Second
Edition)", W3C Recommendation REC-xpath20-20101214, 14
December 2010,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-xpath20-20101214/>.
11.2. Informative References
[CamelCase]
"Camel Case (upper camel case)", 18 December 2014,
<http://wiki.c2.com/?CamelCase>.
[KebabCase]
"Kebab Case", 29 August 2014,
<http://wiki.c2.com/?KebabCase>.
[RFC3444] Pras, A. and J. Schoenwaelder, "On the Difference between
Information Models and Data Models", RFC 3444,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3444, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3444>.
[RFC4122] Leach, P., Mealling, M., and R. Salz, "A Universally
Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace", RFC 4122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4122, July 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4122>.
[RFC7595] Thaler, D., Ed., Hansen, T., and T. Hardie, "Guidelines
and Registration Procedures for URI Schemes", BCP 35,
RFC 7595, DOI 10.17487/RFC7595, June 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7595>.
[RFC8322] Field, J., Banghart, S., and D. Waltermire, "Resource-
Oriented Lightweight Information Exchange (ROLIE)",
RFC 8322, DOI 10.17487/RFC8322, February 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8322>.
[RFC8520] Lear, E., Droms, R., and D. Romascanu, "Manufacturer Usage
Description Specification", RFC 8520,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8520, March 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8520>.
[RFC9334] Birkholz, H., Thaler, D., Richardson, M., Smith, N., and
W. Pan, "Remote ATtestation procedureS (RATS)
Architecture", RFC 9334, DOI 10.17487/RFC9334, January
2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9334>.
[SEMVER] Preston-Werner, T., "Semantic Versioning 2.0.0",
<https://semver.org/spec/v2.0.0.html>.
[SWID-GUIDANCE]
Waltermire, D., Cheikes, B. A., Feldman, L., and G. Witte,
"Guidelines for the Creation of Interoperable Software
Identification (SWID) Tags", NISTIR 8060, April 2016,
<https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8060>.
[X.1520] ITU-T, "Common vulnerabilities and exposures", ITU-T
Recommendation X.1520, January 2014,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.1520>.
Acknowledgments
This document draws heavily on the concepts defined in the ISO/IEC
19770-2:2015 specification. The authors of this document are
grateful for the prior work of the 19770-2 contributors.
We are also grateful for the careful reviews provided by the IESG
reviewers. Special thanks go to Benjamin Kaduk.
Contributors
Carsten Bormann
Universität Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440
D-28359 Bremen
Germany
Phone: +49-421-218-63921
Email: cabo@tzi.org
Carsten Bormann contributed to the CDDL specifications and the IANA
considerations.
Authors' Addresses
Henk Birkholz
Fraunhofer SIT
Rheinstrasse 75
64295 Darmstadt
Germany
Email: henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de
Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay
National Security Agency
9800 Savage Road
Ft. Meade, Maryland 20755
United States of America
Email: jmfitz2@cyber.nsa.gov
Charles Schmidt
The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road
Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
United States of America
Email: cmschmidt@mitre.org
David Waltermire
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877
United States of America
Email: david.waltermire@nist.gov