Re: [Iot-onboarding] [Mud] Some new stuff for

Michael Richardson <> Wed, 25 March 2020 23:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E126F3A0736; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:39:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ff5CZqdOSBsA; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F342E3A0768; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:39:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83EBC3897F; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 19:38:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07E2CE68; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 19:39:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <17397.1585086427@localhost> <> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 19:39:29 -0400
Message-ID: <27885.1585179569@localhost>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Iot-onboarding] [Mud] Some new stuff for
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IoT onboarding mechanisms <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 23:39:41 -0000

Eliot Lear <> wrote:
    >> Makes sense now. Still wondering what the network would do with the
    >> SBOM but that is a different thread.

    > Oh no it’s not! ;-)

    > If your NMS can pick up the SBOM, then the next step is to compare
    > packages and versions on the device with known CVEs.  At that point,
    > you have to decide on remediation strategies.  In some cases, those
    > remediation strategies may just suck.  Imagine a ventilator being
    > vulnerable today.  But one clearly GOOD strategy would be to limit that
    > ventilator’s exposure to attacks.  How might one go about doing that?
    > I wonder…

On that specific situation.
I really want to know what network needs a ventilator has other than
firmware updates, and some "mycontroller" connection.
If we assume that it already has a good MUD file, then I'm not sure I know
what immediate thing the network should do if there is a CVE.

Clearly, scheduling it for swap out is important, but you'd never shut it
down at that moment.  There is also a question about audit trail for when the
issue was noticed, when it upgrade was scheduled, when it actually was
upgraded, etc.

Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-