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

Glenn Mansfield Keeni <glenn@cysols.com> Tue, 09 October 2018 10:55 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 0BE2D131277 for <mib-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 03:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 cgchPbyrKynZ for <mib-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 03:55:01 -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 8262813126E for <mib-doctors@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 03:55:01 -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 w99AsFJR033600 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 9 Oct 2018 19:54:15 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from glenn@cysols.com)
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Cc: randy_presuhn@alumni.stanford.edu, mib-doctors@ietf.org, Ignas Bagdonas <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> <a9615a5c-9a83-ac3c-cb68-c7ca4a5379a9@cysols.com> <CAHw9_iKWZJvCbF=tsE06mLoVVEWmsVg440dawodkUnBTFjfBNQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Glenn Mansfield Keeni <glenn@cysols.com>
Message-ID: <ab22ea96-61ee-0d80-465d-90cbebbb44c3@cysols.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 19:54:10 +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: <CAHw9_iKWZJvCbF=tsE06mLoVVEWmsVg440dawodkUnBTFjfBNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mib-doctors/IaoJ6V-oQNdRMzyahDtwbd10rnE>
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: Tue, 09 Oct 2018 10:55:04 -0000

Hi,

 > This seemed like a better fix than just changing the i.e to an
 > e.g, and so I went ahead and made that change.
Thanks. That is one nit less!

The discussion on further fixes will continue..

Glenn

On 2018/10/09 9:11, Warren Kumari wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 10:16 PM Glenn Mansfield Keeni <glenn@cysols.com>;
> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>> +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
>>
> 
> This seemed like a better fix than just changing the i.e to an e.g, and so
> I went ahead and made that change.
> Please, if anyone objects, let me know and I'll change it back (it isn't
> really my text, but I figured it was clearly enough broken that I'm
> qualified to have an opinion).
> 
> 
> 
>> 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.
>>
> 
> This discussion should still continue...
> 
> W
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>