[I2nsf] What kind of mechanisms have NETCONF specified to prevent illegitimate"Clients" or "Agent"?

Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com> Mon, 08 February 2016 22:23 UTC

Return-Path: <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3F171A88DC; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 14:23:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pkATmEguD62e; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 14:23:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 891941B3423; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 14:23:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CIF99592; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 22:23:10 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DFWEML706-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.225) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 22:23:10 +0000
Received: from DFWEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.50]) by dfweml706-chm ([10.193.5.225]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 14:23:01 -0800
From: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
To: 'Netconf' <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: What kind of mechanisms have NETCONF specified to prevent illegitimate"Clients" or "Agent"?
Thread-Index: AdFiv0TiE9T6VE7/TRiLhiatv3duJw==
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 22:23:00 +0000
Message-ID: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F657DE8236@dfweml701-chm>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.192.11.190]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F657DE8236dfweml701chm_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A0B0204.56B9154F.00B3, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 03abb5c2a45dd58e9d41697e3b465cb0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/1PsAa1PrjcORThWkGyd8GIkgitA>
Cc: "i2nsf@ietf.org" <i2nsf@ietf.org>, "mehmet.ersue@nokia.com" <mehmet.ersue@nokia.com>
Subject: [I2nsf] What kind of mechanisms have NETCONF specified to prevent illegitimate"Clients" or "Agent"?
X-BeenThere: i2nsf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "*I2NSF: Interface to Network Security Functions mailing list*" <i2nsf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i2nsf>, <mailto:i2nsf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i2nsf/>
List-Post: <mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i2nsf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf>, <mailto:i2nsf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 22:23:21 -0000

NETCONF   participants,

Your Chair Mehmet suggested sending the following questions to the list.

I2NSF has a draft on remote attestation (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pastor-i2nsf-vnsf-attestation/ ) which documented the following security threats between Client and Controller. I  think those issues also face I2RS and NETCONF. Has NETCONF specified some mechanisms to address those issues?

o An unknown/unauthorized user can try to impersonate another user
that can legitimately access virtualized NSF services (or Network Services). This
attack may lead to accessing the policies and applications of the
attacked user or to generate network traffic outside a the
security functions with a falsified identity.

o An authorized user may misuse assigned privileges to alter the
network traffic processing of other users in the virtualization
platform. This can become especially serious when such a user has
administration privileges granted by the virtualization provider,
the ISP or the local network operator.

o A user may try to install malformed elements (policy or
application), trying to directly take the control of a NSF or
virtualization platform (for example by exploiting a vulnerability
on one of the functions or may try to intercept or modify the
traffic of other users in the same platform.

o A malicious virtualization provider can modify the software
running on it (the operating system or a concrete vNSF) to alter
the behaviour of the latter. This event has a high impact on all
users accessing vNSFs as the virtualization provider has the
highest level of privilege on the software in execution.

o A user with physical access to the virtualization platform can
modify the behavior of hardware components, or the components
themselves. Furthermore, it can access a serial console (most
devices offer this interface for maintenance reasons) to access
the NSF software with the same level of privilege of the
virtualization provider



Thanks, Linda