Re: [Int-area] Re draft-daveor-cgn-logging-02/RFC6302
<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Mon, 09 April 2018 06:26 UTC
Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26529126B7E for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Apr 2018 23:26:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 8l1oUJ8aGM-Q for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Apr 2018 23:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orange.com (mta135.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 839FD124319 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Apr 2018 23:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr06.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.70]) by opfednr23.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id CE166C07CB; Mon, 9 Apr 2018 08:26:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.31]) by opfednr06.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id A8F911A007F; Mon, 9 Apr 2018 08:26:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM22.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::8c90:f4e9:be28:2a1%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Mon, 9 Apr 2018 08:26:49 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Dave O'Reilly <rfc@daveor.com>
CC: "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Int-area] Re draft-daveor-cgn-logging-02/RFC6302
Thread-Index: AQHTzn0NRkm58+KLykWR7JEC/bfO6aP3773w
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2018 06:26:49 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302DEFA05A@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <CE7E9C19-E906-48A8-B2DF-C86C48C1D95D@daveor.com> <8E6F0C13-486F-47A9-B1F6-255D915AEE69@daveor.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302DEF8B55@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <4A0A5ACC-9754-419E-8AA2-43C74A0C08D4@daveor.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302DEF9184@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <76F47DAB-E160-4FE9-82FE-E1F6C6264BD6@daveor.com>
In-Reply-To: <76F47DAB-E160-4FE9-82FE-E1F6C6264BD6@daveor.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/smGwrlhRq2oU3_VR7SzN7R9EAwI>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Re draft-daveor-cgn-logging-02/RFC6302
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2018 06:26:54 -0000
Hi Dave, What about: "The entity which owns the server should indicate the required offset to synchronize with a global time source." Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Dave O'Reilly [mailto:rfc@daveor.com] > Envoyé : samedi 7 avril 2018 16:31 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN > Cc : int-area@ietf.org > Objet : Re: [Int-area] Re draft-daveor-cgn-logging-02/RFC6302 > > Hi Mohamed, > > I dont agree with this bit: > > > Adjusting the log records to synchronize with a global time source is the > responsibility of the entity which owns the server. > > I think that both in principle and in practice this > synchronisation/correction would be carried out by law enforcement as part of > their investigation. There might, I suppose, be an expectation that a server > operator would indicate if there was a difference between the times in their > logs and a standard time reference but in any case the law enforcement > officer is going to have to go through the logs and calibrate the times in > the context of whatever matter they are investigating. > > The log data plus analysis/calibration would form part of the justification > for issuing a subpoena for CGN records (depending on jurisdiction), and the > law enforcement officer would have to be able to stand over the grounds for > accessing the logs if the request is challenged. If the information being > requested is heavily dependent on the accuracy of the times stated in the > request, as might be the case if CGN was in use, one could reasonably expect > to be asked to justify that the times indicated are accurate (with reference > to some sort of time standard) - at which point the law enforcement officer, > forensic analyst, or whoever gathered the evidence would need to be able to > explain how they concluded that the times in the subpoena were the correct > ones. This would presumably include any offset calibration that was carried > out, or at least the results of an investigation to confirm that such a > calibration was not required. > > Also, if a server operator adjusted the times in logs before providing them > as evidence, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the > authenticity/integrity of the evidence could be challenged because the log > data has been altered since it was recorded. > > Regards, > daveor > > > On 6 Apr 2018, at 08:03, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> > <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Dave, > > > > Glad to see that we are in agreement. > > > > I don't think that those sections are needed for the reasons explained in > my previous message. > > > > One way to avoid misinterpreting your draft as conflicting with existing > RFCs is to tweak section 7.4, e.g.: > > > > OLD: > > > > There are many reasons why it is may not be possible to record logs > > with reference to a centralised time source (e.g. NTP). This could > > include scenarios should as security sensitive networks, or internal > > production networks. Times MAY OPTIONALLY be recorded with reference > > to a centralised time source (e.g. NTP) but this is not necessary. > > As long as times are recorded consistently, it should be possible to > > measure the offset from a reference time source if required for the > > purposes of quering records at another source. This is common > > practice in digital forensics. > > > > NEW: > > > > There are many reasons why it may not be possible for servers to record > logs > > with reference to a global time source. This could > > include scenarios such as security sensitive networks, or internal > > production networks. As long as times are recorded consistently, it > should be possible to > > measure the offset from a traceable global time source (if required) for > the > > purposes of querying records at another source. Adjusting the log records > to > > synchronize with a global time source is the responsibility of the entity > > which owns the server. > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > >> -----Message d'origine----- > >> De : Dave O'Reilly [mailto:rfc@daveor.com] > >> Envoyé : jeudi 5 avril 2018 16:29 > >> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN > >> Cc : int-area@ietf.org > >> Objet : Re: [Int-area] Re draft-daveor-cgn-logging-02/RFC6302 > >> > >> Hi Mohamed, > >> > >> Thanks for your mail. > >> > >> I agree with you. > >> > >> The only reason I put these sections in here was because the IESG conflict > >> review indicated a conflict between this document and the other two RFCs > >> mentioned (Ref: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-daveor- > cgn- > >> logging/). In an effort to reconcile the feedback received with the > content > >> of draft-daveor-cgn-logging, I added these sections. > >> > >> Perfectly happy to remove them if that is the way the consensus emerges. > >> > >> daveor > >> > >> > >>> On 5 Apr 2018, at 15:24, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> > >> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Dave, > >>> > >>> I have a comment about the proposed update to RFC 6269 (the same comment > >> applies for RFC6302, though). > >>> > >>> Actually, the proposed NEW text will require an extra effort to align > >> timestamps among the server which maintains the logs, the authorities that > >> relay an abuse claim, and the provider who manages the CGN. That extra > effort > >> has to be done by the entity managing the log server. > >>> > >>> From that standpoint, the proposed NEW text is no more than another > example > >> of "Accurate time-keeping"...which IMHO does not justify an update to the > >> 6269. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Med > >>> > >>>> -----Message d'origine----- > >>>> De : Int-area [mailto:int-area-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Dave > >> O'Reilly > >>>> Envoyé : mercredi 4 avril 2018 22:26 > >>>> À : int-area@ietf.org > >>>> Objet : Re: [Int-area] Re draft-daveor-cgn-logging-02/RFC6302 > >>>> > >>>> Dear all, > >>>> > >>>> Further to my email below, I have revised draft-daveor-cgn-logging and > >>>> revision -03 is now available. I have restructured the content into the > >> form > >>>> of recommendations. > >>>> > >>>> Here’s the link: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-daveor-cgn-logging-03 > >>>> > >>>> I have also included, at sections 7.6 and 7.7, proposed amendments to > >> RFC6302 > >>>> and RFC6269 respectively. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> daveor > >>>> > >>>>> On 20 Mar 2018, at 13:45, Dave O'Reilly <rfc@daveor.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Dear all, > >>>>> > >>>>> further to presenting at IETF-101 yesterday I wanted to send a follow > up > >>>> email to see if there is interest in working on a new best current > >> practice > >>>> for logging at internet-facing servers. > >>>>> > >>>>> I hope I adequately presented the reasons why I think there needs to be > >>>> some revision of the recommendations of RFC6302 and that there is some > >>>> additional points to be considered in draft-daveor-cgn-logging-02. > >>>>> > >>>>> The current version of the document (draft-daveor-cgn-logging-02) > >> contains > >>>> recommendations, but it is not really in the form of a BCP. If there is > >>>> interest, I would like to suggest, in the first instance at least, that > I > >>>> prepare a new version of the document, structured in the form of a BCP > >> with a > >>>> set of recommendations for discussion. > >>>>> > >>>>> Any feedback would be appreciated. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks and best regards, > >>>>> daveor > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Int-area mailing list > >>>>> Int-area@ietf.org > >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Int-area mailing list > >>>> Int-area@ietf.org > >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > >
- [Int-area] Re draft-daveor-cgn-logging-02/RFC6302 Dave O'Reilly
- Re: [Int-area] Re draft-daveor-cgn-logging-02/RFC… Dave O'Reilly
- Re: [Int-area] Re draft-daveor-cgn-logging-02/RFC… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Int-area] Re draft-daveor-cgn-logging-02/RFC… Dave O'Reilly
- Re: [Int-area] Re draft-daveor-cgn-logging-02/RFC… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Int-area] Re draft-daveor-cgn-logging-02/RFC… Dave O'Reilly
- Re: [Int-area] Re draft-daveor-cgn-logging-02/RFC… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Int-area] Re draft-daveor-cgn-logging-02/RFC… Dave O'Reilly
- Re: [Int-area] Re draft-daveor-cgn-logging-02/RFC… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Int-area] Re draft-daveor-cgn-logging-02/RFC… Dave O'Reilly