Subject: [Nea] Request for guidance on PA-subtypes for Multi-function hardcopy devices

From: Randy Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 21:52:03 -0700

Hello NEA List,

The Printer Working Group is finalizing a set of attributes to be used  
exclusively with imaging devices, and these attributes will be rooted  
under the PWG's private enterprise SMI number.

The PWG has utilized the extensibility mechanism provided by the PA- 
TNC document to create SMI-specific attributes.

The specific question I had was regarding attribute request "routing".

Attribute requests within the NEA/TNC protocols are routed to logical  
components within a device based on PA-subtype.

Like the attribute extensibility feature, PA-subtypes seem to allow  
the same type of SMI-specific extensibility.

Currently, the PWG has NOT created any new PA-subtypes specific to  
imaging/hardcopy devices.

The absence of any new PWG-specific PA-subtypes implies the PWG would  
have to route PWG-specific attributes using existing "standard" NEA PA- 
subtypes. For example, one of:

Testing
Operating System
Anti-Virus
Anti-Spyware
Anti-Malware
Firewall
IDPS
VPN
NEA Client

Many imaging (especially high-end multifunction devices) have started  
using Linux as their OS platform. In these cases, it's possible that  
the proposed NEA standard PA-subtypes would be appropriate. Even when  
the OS platform is a traditional embedded operating system such as  
VxWorks, it's possible that these devices could use a subset of the  
same NEA proposed standard PA-subtypes.

Given all the "level-setting" information I have described above, I  
was curious about a very common product architectural scenario that is  
prevalent in the marketplace for high-end multi-function imaging  
devices that provide multiple "hardware" services to the network,  
typically:

1. Printing
2. Scanning
3. Faxing (both traditional analog fax, as well as fax over VoIP)
4. Copying (a logical service consisting of scanning+printing in  
digital copier/printers)

It is quite normal in this industry to have separate "computers" to  
provide each of these functions. By "computers", I mean a separate CPU  
and separate memory space (really a separate board).  These separate  
computers have their own firmware/software version and patch  
information that might need to be assessed for security posture.

The Multifunction  product only has one network interface over which  
it communicates.  And in some cases (like HP's products), even this  
network device is one of the "separate computing devices" within the  
overall product, and has a separate firmware and operating system  
"version".

In the absence of PWG-specific PA-subtypes, I'm curious how a  
validator could request software version & patch information from each  
of these separate computing spaces?  For example, if I have 3 separate  
"computers" in my multifunction product, and I want to retrieve the OS  
version of each separate OS running on each "computer", how would I  
target my requests?

I can think of ways to "overload attribute values" or "cheat" using  
the current model, but it seems to me like a PA-subtype of "Fax  
Subsystem" (as an example) might be a better way to really represent  
what I'm trying to do.

When I proposed creating new PA-subtypes like this to the PWG, they  
noticed that none of the existing NEA proposed PA-subtypes represent  
"hardware" subsystems, and that my proposal might violate some NEA  
design guideline.  As an example, they posed the question "Why didn't  
the NEA (or TNC group) provide a PA-subtype for "BIOS", since this  
subsystem is versioned and remediated independently of the "Operating  
System", and is a standard component within desktop PCs? I didn't have  
an answer for this question since I'm not a TCG member and wasn't  
present when these subtypes were possibly discussed.

Comments or Suggestions as to how we might proceed are greatly  
appreciated!  My own personal opinion at the moment is that we  
probably need PA-subtypes defined under the PWG SMI.

Thanks
Randy