Patent Grant
7587607
A client platform such as a processor based system like a personal or handheld computer, or a dedicated device such as an automated teller machine, may need to communicate with an entity, such as a server, in a secure manner. In one example, a personal computer user may desire to use the computer, including software such as a browser executing on an operating system, to securely access a stock account on the web.
Prior to such communication, the client platform usually needs to establish trust with the entity such as the server in the example referenced above. The server may require that the device possess specific security related attributes before the server communicates with the device. In the above example, prior to providing access, the stockbroker's web server may seek reliable information regarding security related characteristics of the user's computer and software executing on the computer.
In some instances this information is provided by a signed attestation report transmitted to the server. Thus the server or other entity, prior to establishing secure communication with the platform, makes an attestation request—and consequently, the server may be termed for the purpose of this scenario, an attestation requestor. The attestation report generated by the client and sent to the server may consist of a description of the platform such as the processor manufacturer and version, chipset manufacturer and version, operating system and version, a list of applications running on the platform and their versions, among other items. The report would then be signed by an attestation identity signature and transmitted to the server, that is, the attestation requestor. The attestation requestor has an attestation identity verification key to verify the attestation identity signature. This verification key may be previously available to the attestation requestor; alternatively, the verification key may be transmitted to the requestor as part of a certificate signed by the manufacturer of the platform. Once verified, the requester can decide by inspecting the received attestation report whether to trust the client platform.
In some instances trust in the attestation report may be increased as a result of the report being generated by a trusted platform module incorporated within the client platform. The trusted platform module may be implemented in hardware, software or firmware and provides a reliable source of trusted platform configuration information trusted by the attestation requester. In such instances, the attestation identity signature is performed by the trusted platform module and the platform configuration information used to create the attestation report is provided by the trusted platform module. Thus by verifying the signature on the attestation report, the requester may verify that the report was generated by a trusted platform module whose characteristics are known.
In one instance, the trusted platform module stores the platform configuration as a set of values in a set of platform configuration registers. Thus one such register may store, for example, the motherboard manufacturer; another, the processor manufacturer; a third, the motherboard version; a fourth, the firmware version for the platform, etc.
More complex data may be stored in the configuration registers. Using a chained hashing technique, a series of items, item1, item2 and item3 may be stored in a single platform configuration register, as follows: Register value is HASH (HASH(HASH(Item 1), HASH(Item 2)), HASH(Item 3)). This allows, for example, the trusted module to record that Item 1 was the first program launched, followed by Item 2 and Item 3.
The mechanism described above for establishing trust generally leads to the attestation requester learning detailed information about the configuration of the client platform from the trusted platform module, including such information as the hardware type and configuration, software available on the platform, software loaded and executing on the platform, network connections to the platform, etc.
A flowchart of processing in one embodiment of the claimed subject matter is shown in
In the embodiment of the figure, an attestation requestor is preparing to participate in some transaction with a platform. The requestor may in some embodiments then initiate a process of establishing trust in the platform by sending a signed request 100, signed with the requestor's authentication key. The request may be authenticated by a requestor verification key sent with the request or previously stored on the platform e.g. from a digital certificate for the requestor. On receipt, the platform verifies the request.
The platform receives a signed acceptable configuration at 130. The configuration may be sent and signed by the attestation requestor or be provided by some third party. It is also possible in some embodiments for the platform to respond to an attestation request by sending a configuration to the requestor, which may then sign and return it. In any case, the platform verifies the received configuration using a configuration verification key. Though in this flowchart, the receipt of an acceptable configuration occurs after the receipt of an attestation request, these two actions may take place in either order. Also, the platform may receive a number of acceptable configurations instead of one from either the requestor or from a third party.
The platform then sends an attestation identity (verification) key to the requestor at 135 and 105. The key will be used by the requester to verify the signed attestation report that is subsequently sent by the platform. The requester in general needs to establish trust in the attestation identity key. This may be done in some embodiments by a third party certification, in which case the steps 135 and 105 do not take place between the platform and the requestor, but rather between a certificate authority and the requestor. It is also possible for the platform to use a zero knowledge protocol to establish directly that the platform's attestation identity authentication key is in a trusted platform module that is trustworthy from the point of view of the attestation requestor. Such a direct proof method is described in pending U.S. patent application entitled SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ESTABLISHING TRUST WITHOUT REVEALING IDENTITY, applicant Ernie F. Brickell, application Ser. No. 10/306,336, and assigned to Intel Corporation (Brickell) and will not be detailed in this specification.
With trust in the attestation identity key established, the attestation requestor generates a single-use random value or nonce that will be used only for this attestation, and sends it to the platform at 110 and 140. Once the nonce is received, the attestation software of the platform then transmits the nonce, the configuration verification key and a signed acceptable configuration or configurations to the trusted platform module at 145 and 160.
The module checks a received configuration against the configuration verification key. Once authenticated, it may then compare the received configuration with its internal stored configuration and reports to the attestation software of the platform either success or failure in meeting an acceptable configuration, at 165 and 150. A response is prepared by the module that contains the nonce, the configuration verification key, and the success or failure bit. (It is important to note that the response does not include which configuration was used.) The response is signed by the trusted module using its attestation identity signing key. The signed response is then forwarded to the requestor along with the nonce at 155 and 115. The requestor then validates the response with the attestation identity verification key at 120 and the stored value of the nonce. Once the attestation is validated, if the indication is that the platform, and the trusted platform module in particular, match an acceptable configuration, the requestor can then proceed to perform a transaction with the client.
As will be clear to one of skill in the art, the described steps of the above referenced embodiments allow a platform with a trusted module to indicate in a trustworthy manner to an attestation requester whether the client platform matches an acceptable configuration without providing the requester with any information, in some embodiments, or any precise information, in others, about the actual configuration of the client platform.
The form of the acceptable configuration may vary from embodiment to embodiment. In one embodiment, the trusted platform module may store a current platform configuration as attribute value pairs implemented as a set of platform configuration registers as described in the Background section above. Thus, each register corresponds to an attribute and the stored value in the register to the value for the attribute.
In such an embodiment an acceptable configuration received by the platform may simply be a list of attribute value pairs, each of which is to be compared against the values stored in the registers in the trusted platform module. The module responds indicating success if and only if all elements in the list match the configuration registers of the module.
More complex attribute expressions may be used in other embodiments. In one embodiment, an attribute expression may be recursively defined using standard BNF notation as follows:
As will be apparent to one skilled in the art, the above notation is used to specify that an attribute expression form may either simply be an attribute-value pair list, or it may be two attribute expression forms connected by the logical operator OR, or it may be two attribute expression forms connected by the logical operator AND, or it may be an attribute expression form preceded by the logical prefix NOT.
To interpret the above expressions in this embodiment, the following process is used. An expression is true if and only if the following is true:
In a general sense, an expression in the above form consists of attribute-value pair lists connected by logical operators. In this sense, therefore, each attribute-value pair lists in such an expression may be considered a basic expression.
In such an embodiment, the attestation software on the platform or the trusted platform module receives an acceptable configuration in the form of an expression as described. It then evaluates the expressions as described above and returns an attestation response based on the truth value obtained by evaluation of the expression with respect to the attributes and values stored in the platform configuration registers. In such an embodiment, each attribute-value pair list in the expression is analogous to the basic version of a configuration described above. Thus, each such pair list in the expression could be signed independently, just as basic configurations were signed, by the signature configuration key. (This is the private key which corresponds to the public configuration verification key.) Then when the module is checking the validity of a configuration, the module would check the signature on each basic expression, or attribute-value pair list, in the expression using the same configuration verification key.
In yet other embodiments, the value for an attribute may be a pair of values signifying a range of values that are acceptable for an attribute. In general, many variations of the format and evaluation of expressions denoting platform configurations are possible, including one that incorporates both the logical operators described above and ranges simultaneously, and many others.
Many other implementations are, of course, possible including, in one instance an embodiment where the platform is implemented entirely as a logic circuit and does not have an architecture as depicted in
While certain exemplary embodiments of the invention have been described above and shown in the accompanying drawings, it is to be understood that such embodiments are merely illustrative of and not restrictive on the broad aspects of various embodiments of the invention, and that these embodiments not be limited to the specific constructions and arrangements shown and described, since various other modifications are possible. It is possible to implement the embodiments of the invention or some of their features in hardware, programmable devices, firmware, software or a combination thereof.
Embodiments in accordance with the claimed subject matter may be provided as a computer program product that may include a machine-readable medium having stored thereon data which when accessed by a machine may cause the machine to perform a process according to the claimed subject matter. The machine-readable medium may include, but is not limited to, floppy diskettes, optical disks, DVD-ROM disks, DVD-RAM disks, DVD−RW disks, DVD+RW disks, CD-R disks, CD-RW disks, CD-ROM disks, and magneto-optical disks, ROMs, RAMs, EPROMs, EEPROMs, magnet or optical cards, flash memory, or other type of media/machine-readable medium suitable for storing electronic instructions. Moreover, embodiments of the claimed subject matter may also be downloaded as a computer program product, wherein the program may be transferred from a remote computer to a requesting computer by way of data signals embodied in a carrier wave or other propagation medium via a communication link (e.g., a modem or network connection).
Many of the methods are described in their most basic form but steps can be added to or deleted from any of the methods and information can be added or subtracted from any of the described messages without departing from the basic scope of the claimed subject matter. It will be apparent to those skilled in the art that many further modifications and adaptations can be made. The particular embodiments are not provided to limit the invention but to illustrate it. The scope of the claimed subject matter is not to be determined by the specific examples provided above but only by the claims below.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5680547 | Chang | Oct 1997 | A |
| 5815665 | Teper et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5832089 | Kravitz et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5872844 | Yacobi | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5901229 | Fujisaki et al. | May 1999 | A |
| 5953422 | Angelo et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5987131 | Clapp | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5999627 | Lee | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6138239 | Veil | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6473508 | Young et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6473800 | Jerger et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6871276 | Simon | Mar 2005 | B1 |
| 6959086 | Ober et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
| 6988250 | Proudler et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
| 6990579 | Herbert et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
| 6996710 | Ellison et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
| 7013481 | Ellison et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
| 7028149 | Grawrock et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
| 7103771 | Grawrock | Sep 2006 | B2 |
| 7165181 | Brickell | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 20020004900 | Patel | Jan 2002 | A1 |
| 20020154782 | Chow et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20030002668 | Graunke et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030028807 | Lawman et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030037089 | Cota-Robles et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030037246 | Goodman et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030093687 | Westhoff et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030112008 | Hennig | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030188156 | Yasala et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030226031 | Proudler et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20030226040 | Challener et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20030235175 | Naghian et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20040003288 | Wiseman et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040103281 | Brickell | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040193888 | Wiseman et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040205341 | Brickell | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20050021968 | Zimmer et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050069135 | Brickell | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050071677 | Khanna et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050132202 | Dillaway et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050137889 | Wheeler | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050137898 | Wood | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20050138384 A1 | Jun 2005 | US |
