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
> >