Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] Readable and MAXACCESS

[Glenn Mansfield Keeni <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
 > Access control policy specifies whether encryption is to
 > be used.
Got this!
 > A simpler fix would be to change the "i.e." to "e.g."
Brilliant. I like it!
Thanks a lot. That was very helpful.

Glenn

On 2018/09/15 9:27, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> Hi -
> 
> On 9/14/2018 4:45 PM, Glenn Mansfield Keeni wrote:
> ...
>> Even with appropriate access control policy, if
>> appropriate encryption is not used index objects may
> 
> Access control policy specifies whether encryption is to
> be used.  See RFC 3415, look for "securityLevel" to find
> explanations, and the vacmAccessSecurityLevel index into
> vacmAccessTable for the actual configuration.  One cannot
> (in VACM) specify an access control policy without
> also specifying the securityLevel(s) to which that policy
> applies.
> 
> ...
>> So, does the following sentence in the The Security Guidelines
>> for IETF MIB modules needs rewording?
>>
>>  >>     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.
>>
>> Would the following be appropriate ?
>>       Some of the readable objects in this MIB module (i.e., objects
>>       with a MAX-ACCESS other than not-accessible and objects that are
>>       visible as indices) may be considered
>>       sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments.
> ...
> 
> A simpler fix would be to change the "i.e." to "e.g."
> 
> Randy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MIB-DOCTORS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors
>