Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] Fix of Security Guidelines for IETF MIB Modules

Glenn Mansfield Keeni <glenn@cysols.com> Mon, 01 October 2018 02:16 UTC

Return-Path: <glenn@cysols.com>
X-Original-To: mib-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mib-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C98A1294D7 for <mib-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Sep 2018 19:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 fqKlwUgcIbDK for <mib-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Sep 2018 19:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from niseko.cysol.co.jp (niseko.cysol.co.jp [210.233.3.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9292712872C for <mib-doctors@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Sep 2018 19:16:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.200] (Lenovo-X1Carbon.win2004.cysol.co.jp [192.168.0.200]) (authenticated bits=0) by aso.priv.cysol.co.jp (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id w912FMiT040778 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 1 Oct 2018 11:15:22 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from glenn@cysols.com)
To: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@alumni.stanford.edu>, mib-doctors@ietf.org, warren@kumari.net, ibagdona@gmail.com
References: <7f59ba0b-1358-1015-cd85-4c470ad73d9a@cysols.com> <f8bce0d0-cd96-7bd1-c785-e459860d863d@alumni.stanford.edu> <d54348ed-87da-8120-0b37-82143cdad3d3@cysols.com> <68a4912f-f0b4-1ecd-5341-3ee3e9adc8ce@alumni.stanford.edu>
From: Glenn Mansfield Keeni <glenn@cysols.com>
Message-ID: <a9615a5c-9a83-ac3c-cb68-c7ca4a5379a9@cysols.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2018 11:15:17 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <68a4912f-f0b4-1ecd-5341-3ee3e9adc8ce@alumni.stanford.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mib-doctors/IKq2GzGVT1VqWhquH29EpsGXA4Q>
Subject: Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] Fix of Security Guidelines for IETF MIB Modules
X-BeenThere: mib-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: MIB Doctors list <mib-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mib-doctors>, <mailto:mib-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mib-doctors/>
List-Post: <mailto:mib-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mib-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors>, <mailto:mib-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2018 02:16:11 -0000

Hi,
 > disclosure.  For example, consider a hostname.  Are we willing to
 > do major surgery on this paragraph, probably splitting it into two,
 > and thus affecting the structure of these security considerations?
I would suggest that we take this in 2 steps.
First, fix the (now) obvious nit.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
OLD:  Some of the readable objects in this MIB module (i.e., objects
        with a MAX-ACCESS other than not-accessible) may be considered
        sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments.

NEW:  Some of the objects in this MIB module may be considered sensitive
        or vulnerable in some network environments.  This includes INDEX
        objects with a MAX-ACCESS of not-accessible, and any indices from
        other modules exposed via AUGMENTS.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Next, discuss and arrive at the decision (and maybe text too) on whether
we are willing to do major surgery etc. I agree that in the current form
(even with the nit-fix) the security considerations remain incomplete.

Glenn

On 2018/10/01 0:40, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> Hi -
> 
> 
> On 9/30/2018 5:59 AM, Glenn Mansfield Keeni wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>  >         What
>>  >         is the point of limiting read access and then sending the
>>  >         information in the clear?
>> Total agreement. Sending info in the clear is by default NG and must
>> be strongly discouraged.
>> It will help to have some proposed replacement text for
>>  > OLD:  It is thus important to control even GET and/or NOTIFY access to
>>  >        these objects and possibly to even encrypt the values of these
>>  >        objects when sending them over the network via SNMP.
> ...
> 
> As I wrote previously, this would be editorially tricky since the
> paragraph currently conflates "sensitive" (which I take to mean
> "that which should be protected from disclosure") with "vulnerable"
> (which I take to mean "that which should be protected from
> modification").  It *is* possible to have something which one wants
> to protect from modification, but there's no need to protect it from
> disclosure.  For example, consider a hostname.  Are we willing to
> do major surgery on this paragraph, probably splitting it into two,
> and thus affecting the structure of these security considerations?
> 
> Randy