Re: Security for various IETF services

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 09 April 2014 08:43 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F30341A0689 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 01:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.172
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.172 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272] 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 bfGLl2EemTut for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 01:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2271B1A01B0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 01:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17B56BE83; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 09:43:09 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KnWIx1e793Ea; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 09:43:07 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.4] (unknown [86.45.52.44]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2FD57BE79; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 09:43:07 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <5345081A.8070802@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 09:43:06 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk, rwfranks@acm.org, daedulus@btconnect.com
Subject: Re: Security for various IETF services
References: <533D8A90.60309@cs.tcd.ie> <533EEF35.7070901@isdg.net> <27993A73-491B-4590-9F37-0C0D369B4C6F@cisco.com> <CAHBU6iuX8Y8VCgkY1Qk+DEPEgN2=DWbNEWVffyVmmP_3qmmmig@mail.gmail.com> <53427277.30707@cisco.com> <B275762E-3A1A-44A3-80BE-67F4C8B115B2@trammell.ch> <53428593.3020707@cs.tcd.ie> <A33A3F1E-8F6D-4BD9-8D1B-B24FBCD74D8D@nominum.com> <5342B26B.5020704@gmail.com> <011301cf532a$b4cd02a0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>, <CAKW6Ri5=6eVEKvJ3SVrFxnX9Hd1vxUFW9n4p99g=NM+LHky9kA@mail.gmail.com> <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E779EECE@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E779EECE@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/7c_D5bdSh6OUCz2AcykJ4Oo3QBI
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 08:43:38 -0000

I love how folks who it seems would rather we do nothing
are asking for more security process in this case.

IMO, the tools folks haven't gone terribly wrong on this in
the past and are not likely to do so in future. We are also
not developing new protocols for broad Internet use here
but rather talking about an IESG statement that those who
develop tooling and who deploy services should find useful
when considering new IETF services such as some new web
tool or remote participation tool. The statement also
reminds them to not go OTT and break stuff just in order
to improve security.

So no, we do not need a common criteria evaluation for
this and we will not suddenly forget how to do sound
engineering and no we do not need to do all that
engineering right now for every possible future service
and nor do we need to include "don't forget to do
engineering" in this IESG statement.

Regards,
S.

On 04/09/2014 03:12 AM, l.wood@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
> Gee, you don't need a threat analysis when you're going to protect against EVERYTHING!
> 
> That's SECURITY!
> 
> Lloyd Wood
> http://about.me/lloydwood
> ________________________________________
> From: ietf [ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dick Franks [rwfranks@acm.org]
> Sent: 09 April 2014 01:02
> To: t.p.
> Cc: IETF-Discussion
> Subject: Re: Security for various IETF services
> 
> On 8 April 2014 09:32, t.p. <daedulus@btconnect.com<mailto:daedulus@btconnect.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> The path that I have seen several Security ADs steer Working Groups down
> is to start with a threat analysis before deciding what counter measures
> are appropriate.
> 
> 
> Several contributors have been saying exactly that for almost a week.
> 
> These suggestions have been answered by dismissive emails and a relentless bombardment of magic pixie dust.
> 
> 
> 
>