Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Status




Project Proposal - Project Introduction:

Required Information

Responses (Please list N/A if not applicable)

Name of Project

Secure Device Onboard

Project Description (what it does, why it is valuable, origin and history)

What does Secure Device Onboard do?

Secure Device Onboard (SDO) is an automated “Zero-Touch” onboarding service. To more securely and automatically onboard and provision a device on edge hardware, it only needs to be drop shipped to the point of installation, connected to the network and powered up. SDO does the rest. This zero-touch model simplifies the installer’s role, reduces costs and eliminates poor security practices, such as shipping default passwords.

Why it is valuable?

Easier, faster, less expensive, and more secure onboarding of devices.

Expands TAM for IOT devices, accelerates resulting ecosystem of data processing infrastructure.

Most “Zero touch” automated onboarding solutions require the target platform to be decided at manufacturer.

·         Forces Custom Build-to-Order Model- ODMs must manufacture unique device SKUs for each customer/cloud combination.

SDO “Late Binding”- allows the device’s target platform to be selected “late” in the supply chain, at first power-on.

·         Enables Build-to-Plan Model - ODMs can build identical IOT devices in high volume using a standardized manufacturing process. Reduces inventories, supply cycle times, and costs.

·         Open – service & cloud independent. Devices are bound to target ecosystem at install. Works with existing cloud services, it does not replace them.

Origin and History

Secure Device Onboard was released as open source software by Intel Corporation in February 2020, based on Intel® SDO Version 1.7.

The original Intel® SDO launched in September 2017 as a stand-alone Intel product reflecting the original SDO protocol and architecture specifications.  With the complex ecosystem needed for success of this product, we decided to open source and donate the core functions of Intel® SDO to the community in order to drive an industry standard, resolve key industry friction points, and allow the IOT market to grow faster.  We believe that open sourcing with a vibrant ecosystem will allow SDO to evolve into a true industry standard.

Statement on alignment with Foundation Mission Statement

One of the primary objectives of Secure Device Onboard is to expand TAM for IOT devices.  To achieve this goal, a cross-industry collaboration of device manufacturers; distributors; systems integrators; cloud service providers and device management software vendors is required to accelerate adoption.  The Linux Foundation is the ideal organization to facilitate this collaboration and accelerate adoption of this important technology.

High level assessment of project synergy with existing projects under LF Edge, including how the project compliments/overlaps with existing projects, and potential ways to harmonize over time. Responses may be included both here and/or in accompanying documentation. 

We believe that Secure Device Onboard will accelerate adoption of devices into Home and Industrial ecosystems, helping drive the need for all of the current projects in the LFEdge community.


Integration with FLEDGE enabled devices could simplify the production process and installation of newly manufactured devices.

Link to current Code of Conduct

https://lfprojects.org/policies/code-of-conduct/

Sponsors from TAC, if identified (a sponsor helps mentor projects)

Project license

Apache License 2.0

Source control (GitHub by default)

https://github.com/secure-device-onboard

Issue tracker (GitHub by default)

https://github.com/secure-device-onboard

External dependencies (including licenses)

mbedTLS

Apache License 2.0

Apache Commons Collections

Apache License 2.0

Apache Commons IO

Apache License 2.0

Apache Commons Pool

Apache License 2.0

Apache HttpComponents HttpClient

Apache License 2.0

Apache ServiceMix :: Bundles :: spring-aspects

Apache License 2.0

Apache Tomcat

Apache License 2.0

Bouncy Castle PKIX, CMS, EAC, TSP, PKCS, OCSP, CMP, and CRMF APIs

MIT License

BouncyCastle

MIT License

CryptoAuthLib

Microchip Proprietary License

epid-sdk

Apache 2.0

FasterXML jackson-core

Apache License 2.0

guava-libraries

Apache License 2.0

H2 Database Engine

Apache License 2.0

Hamcrest

BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License

Jackson-annotations

Apache License 2.0

jackson-core

Apache License 2.0

jackson-databind

Apache License 2.0

Jackson-modules-java8

Apache License 2.0

javax.annotation API

Sun GPL With Classpath Exception v2.0

jaxb-v2

GNU General Public License v2.0 w/Classpath exception

jedis

MIT License

JUnit

Eclipse Public License 1.0

junit 5

Common Public License 1.0

jwtk/jjwt

Apache License 2.0

Legion of the Bouncy Castle

MIT License

Log4J API

Apache License 2.0

Log4J Core

Apache License 2.0

Log4j Implemented Over SLF4J

Apache License 2.0

Logstash - logstash-logback-encoder

Apache License 2.0

MariaDB Client Library for Java Applications

GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later

Mockito

MIT License

MS SQL Server JDBC Driver

MIT

Objenesis

Apache License 2.0

OpenJDK

GNU General Public License v2.0 w/Classpath exception

OpenJRE 8

GPL-2.0-with-classpath-exception

openssl

OpenSSL Combined License

OpenSSL

OpenSSL Combined License

PowerMock

Apache License 2.0

Project Lombok

MIT License

reactor reactor-core

Apache 2.0

Safestring

MIT License

SLF4J

MIT License

Spring-Boot

Apache License 2.0

spring-framework

Apache License 2.0

System Rules

Common Public License 1.0

TestNG

Apache License 2.0

tpm2-abrmd

BSD-2

tpm2-tss

BSD-2

Release methodology and mechanics

Secure Device Onboard currently follows a release cadence of approximately 12 weeks, typically with 9 weeks allocated for development, two weeks for integration test, and one week for final validation. Defects identified in the two-week integration test phase are resolved and the code base updated to create a release candidate for the final week of validation.  Release artifacts are generated by a fully automated CI system.  Integration test and validation includes both automated and manual testing and provides end-to-end testing of the SDO component running in concert to execute all phases of the SDO protocol and service lifecycle across multiple platforms.

Names of initial committers, if different from those submitting proposal

N/A

Current number of code contributors to proposed project

20

Current number of organizations contributing to proposed project

Intel Corporation

Briefly describe the project's leadership team and decision-making process

We recognize that in order to be a viable open source project, a neutral diverse technical governance is critical.  We will be actively seeking TSC leaders from companies who are committed to SDO success.  Our initial proposal is that Intel will contribute 3 of 7 TSC seats and by the end of Q2’20 we will hold elections for the other 4 seats.

Currently the leadership of the project is as follows:

Rich Rodgers (Intel) is the “product owner” and is responsible for identifying the feature roadmap for the secure device onboard project. He collaborates with members of the Secure Device Onboard ecosystem to identify emerging requirements and features. We anticipate that this process will expand to include others in a Secure Device Onboard technical steering committee comprised of community contributors and ecosystem stakeholders.

Tom Barnes (Intel) is the project manager for Secure Device Onboard where he is responsible for planning and processes. He has previously contributed to the LF Hyperledger Sawtooth, Avalon, and Private Data Objects projects.  We anticipate that Tom will be an initial maintainer for the Secure Device Onboard project.

Saurabh Dadu (Intel) is the chief architect for Secure Device Onboard. He is responsible for translating the feature roadmap into technical requirements and architectural specifications, for maintenance of the Secure Device Onboard protocol specification, and for the overall security architecture of Secure Device Onboard.  We anticipate that he will continue in this role as part of the Secure Device Onboard Technical Steering Committee.

John Easterday (Intel) and Tushar Ranjan Behera (Intel) are the technical leads for the Secure Device Onboard project.  They are responsible for software development as well as for oversite of devops and validation activities. We anticipate that they will be initial maintainers for the Secure Device Onboard project, with responsibility for ensuring contributions are properly and promptly reviewed and approved, and that they will eventually be joined by other contributors as the community of contributors grows.

Richard Kerslake: Secure Device Onboard – Director. (Intel)

Hussein Alayan: Secure Device Onboard – Program Manager/Deputy Product owner (Intel)

SDO is a complex project comprising five sub-components spanning embedded devices to cloud services.  As the community of contributors grows, we anticipate that the governance model will evolve into a core team/sub-team model similar to the one used by the Rust project as described here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1068-rust-governance.md.

Preferred maturity level (see stages here)

Secure Device Onboard is applying for Stage 1: At Large Projects

For Projects applying at the Growth (Phase 2) or Impact Stage (Phase 3), please outline how your project successfully meets/exceeds the requirements as defined under each category. Responses may be included both here and/or in accompanying documentation.

N/A

List of project's official communication channels (slack, irc, mailing lists)

As a recently opening open source project, we plan to work with LFEdge in setting up communication and net presence (slack, website, social media, etc...)

Link to project's website

As a recently opening open source project, we plan to work with LFEdge in setting up communication and net presence (slack, website, social media, etc...)

Links to social media accounts

As a recently opening open source project, we plan to work with LFEdge in setting up communication and net presence (slack, website, social media, etc...)

Existing financial sponsorship

Intel Corporation

Infrastructure needs or requests

·         Secure Device Onboard is moving its continuous integration (CI) infrastructure to Jenkins running on Amazon Web Services. If LF Edge has an alternative solution, we would be interested in learning more about its capabilities and associated costs.

·         The Secure Device Onboard plans to maintain both its source and documentation repositories on GitHub, and to publish binaries using GitHub.

·         The Secure Device Onboard project plans to move its documentation to GitHub Pages.   IF LF Edge has an alternative solution, we would be interested in learning more about its capabilities and associated costs.

·         The Secure Device Onboard project would benefit from access to a Jira instance (or equivalent) managed by LF Edge.

·         The Secure Device Onboard project would benefit from access to a Slack channel (or equivalent) managed by LF Edge.

Currently Supported Architecture

x86, x86-64, ARM

Planned Architecture Support

N/A

Project logo in svg format

(see https://github.com/lf-edge/lfedge-landscape#logos for guidelines)

As a recently opening open source project, we plan to work with LFEdge in setting up communication and net presence (slack, website, social media, etc...)

Trademark status

N/A

Does the project have a Core Infrastructure Initiative security best practices badge? (See: https://bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org)

No - however, the team is familiar with the Core Infrastructure security badge process and will consider pursuing that badge in the future.

Any additional information the TAC and Board should take into consideration when reviewing your proposal?

No



Stage 1: At Large Projects (formerly 'Sandbox')


Criteria

Data

2 TAC sponsors to champion the project & provide mentorship as needed

TBD

A presentation at an upcoming meeting of the TAC, in accordance with the project proposal requirements

March 25, 2020

Adherence to the Foundation IP Policy

Yes

Upon acceptance, At Large projects must list their status prominently on website/readme

Yes




Project Proposal - Taxonomy Data:

Functions (Provide, Consume, Facilitate, or N/A; Add context as needed)

Functions

(Provide, Consume, Facilitate, or N/A; Add context as needed)

APIs

Provides

Cloud Connectivity

Consumes

Container Runtime & Orchestration

Consumes

Data Governance

Provide and Facilitate

Data Models

N/A

Device Connectivity

Consumes – HTTP, HTTPs, with architectural support for other connectivity protocols not yet implemented

Filters/Pre-processing

N/A

Logging

Provides

Management UI

Provides (some use cases)

Messaging & Events

Provides

Notifications & Alerts

Provides

Security

Provides

Storage

N/A


Deployment & Industry Verticals (Support, Possible, N/A; Add context as needed)

Deployment Type

(Support, Possible, N/A; Add context as needed)

Customer Devices (Edge Nodes)

Support

Customer Premises (DC and Edge Gateways)

Support

Telco Network Edge (MEC and Far-MEC)

Possible

Telco CO & Regional

Possible

Cloud Edge & CDNs

Support

Public Cloud

Support

Private Cloud

Support


Deployment & Industry Verticals (✔ or X; Add context as needed)

Directly applicable Industry/Verticals use cases

( or X; Add context as needed)

Automotive / Connected Car

Chemicals

X

Facilities / Building automation

Consumer

X

Manufacturing

Metal & Mining

Oil & Gas

Pharma

X

Health Care

X

Power & Utilities

Pulp & Paper

X

Telco Operators

Telco/Communications Service Provider (Network Equipment Provider)

Transportation (asset tracking)

Supply Chain

Preventative Maintenance

Water Utilities

X

Security / Surveillance

Retail / Commerce (physical point of sale with customers)

X

Other - Please add if not listed above (please notify TAC-subgroup@lists.lfedge.org when you add one)



Deployments (static v dynamic, connectivity, physical placement) - (✔ or X; Add context as needed)

Use Cases

( or X; Add context as needed)

Gateways (to Cloud, to other placements)

NFV Infrastructure

X

Stationary during their entire usable life / Fixed placement edge constellations / Assume you always have connectivity and you don't need to store & forward.

Stationary during active periods, but nomadic between activations (e.g., fixed access) / Not always assumed to have connectivity. Don't expect to store & forward.

X

Mobile within a constrained and well-defined space (e.g., in a factory) / Expect to have intermittent connectivity and store & forward.

Fully mobile (To include: Wearables and Connected Vehicles) / Bursts of connectivity and always store & forward.


Compute Stack Layers and Cloud Stack Layers (architecture classification) - (Provide, Require, or N/A; Add context as needed)

Compute Stack Layers

(Provide, Require, or N/A; Add context as needed)

APIs

Provide

Applications

Provide

Firmware

Require

Hardware

Require

Orchestration

N/A

OS

Require

VM/Containers

Require, vm is optional


Cloud Stack Layers

Does Proposed Project Currently Include (Yes, No or Planned/Roadmap)

Applications

Yes

Configuration (drive)

Yes

Content (management system)

Yes

IaaS

No

PaaS

No

Physical Infrastructure

No

SaaS

No

  • No labels