Some Software Update Requirements
draft-farrell-iotsu-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Stephen Farrell | ||
| Last updated | 2016-11-21 (Latest revision 2016-05-20) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
The importance of software update as a mitigation for vulnerabilities discovered after deployment is widely recognised for both desktop and data centre applications and infrastructure. However, in the case of smaller devices, whether running on challenged networks or platforms or not, the situation is much worse, perhaps a decade or more behind that in better developed contexts. This memo proposes requirements for software update in situations where none is currently deployed, argues that that is the right target. In doing this, and perhaps somewhat in contrast to a vendor-driven approach, the interests of the individual device owner are emphasised.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)