[I2nsf] Security event reporting management - the firstMILE

Robert Moskowitz <rgm-ietf@htt-consult.com> Tue, 22 March 2016 16:09 UTC

Return-Path: <rgm-ietf@htt-consult.com>
X-Original-To: i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DA4612DAC0 for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 RHMAhWLRUnbH for <i2nsf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:09:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [50.253.254.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F08B12DAA0 for <i2nsf@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83FA162188 for <i2nsf@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 12:09:05 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at htt-consult.com
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id afe53vD5mY5M for <i2nsf@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 12:09:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lx120e.htt-consult.com (unknown [192.168.160.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 24EB862161 for <i2nsf@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 12:08:57 -0400 (EDT)
To: "i2nsf@ietf.org" <i2nsf@ietf.org>
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm-ietf@htt-consult.com>
Message-ID: <56F16E19.9080709@htt-consult.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 12:08:57 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/5mNal7RtLkU7OcACpF7KGDVtYqk>
Subject: [I2nsf] Security event reporting management - the firstMILE
X-BeenThere: i2nsf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:09:26 -0000

One of the functions described within the I2NSF environment is 
monitoring security events.  I have not found any IETF work covering 
general security alerts from security defense devices aside from the 
specific DDoS reporting in DOTS.  So I have developed firstMILE:

https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-moskowitz-firstmile-00.txt

Which proposes a sub/pub model including initial registration for 
security alerts reporting.

At this point the draft is more a skeleton for hanging how the three 
components work:

Registration of security device to monitor(s).
Subscription of monitors for specific reporting.
Publication of security reports to subscribed monitors.

I have covered some of the requirements for these components.  I bring 
this to the I2NSF workgroup for:

Is this something the I2NSF wg should talk on?
And am I correct that currently security alert reporting is not covered 
within the IETF.

For the pub portion, I hold that the requirements align with the DOTS 
requirements, other than the bi-directional communications needs.  Do 
others agree?  If so, I have a DOTS draft:

https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-moskowitz-dots-ssls-02.txt

DOTS Secure Session Layer Services

This introduces a real session layer, something really not present in 
the IETF stack, that provides a set of services.  SSLS and its services 
are laid out in:

https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hares-i2nsf-ssls-00.txt

Sue and I developed the design for SSLS, as it is broadly applicable in 
a number of areas under i2nsf.

Two other drafts that fit into this architecture are:

https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-moskowitz-sse-03.txt
and
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-moskowitz-gpcomp-00.txt

SO.....

I open the floor to discussion.

I would be interested in how others see this part of the security 
defense environment.

I am interested in how others see SLS and particularly SSLS and its use 
for firstMILE pub.  I have requested a slot in the meeting to cover my work.