Re: [mile] Ambiguity when NodeRole@attacktype is used

"Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)" <pkampana@cisco.com> Mon, 29 July 2013 02:53 UTC

Return-Path: <pkampana@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mile@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mile@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1E5E21F92C2 for <mile@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 19:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gDyAjuXAwoGk for <mile@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 19:52:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C5D321F9C41 for <mile@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 19:52:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2526; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1375066378; x=1376275978; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=0qa6LBsHrDNafQUPMhRz4SzMT1hk+kdG+2YF1M1E8D0=; b=R8UkVmZQM0LtOlbNVgXiLkD8ULm3WTZHg4I1kUXFk/1/fHCbn7LZbet9 YDpad0wLGltAt9AR11yiXPoH/a6kla9JWO55bTDhVlFKUQmlCkAe7+N2e ZVMv6PcoXvm6kg4vwaZYZa265sv/rrVdIQBxitI7f+SeeZ00ORzEmjaNe s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhgFAGPY9VGtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABbgwY1UL1TgRUWdIIkAQEBBAEBATc0FwQCAQgRBAEBCxQJBycLFAkIAQEEARIIE4d1DLcuBI9MBjIGgxBvA6krgxSCKg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,766,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="240630948"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jul 2013 02:52:58 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com [173.36.12.78]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6T2qvXn018878 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 29 Jul 2013 02:52:58 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.35]) by xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com ([173.36.12.78]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 21:52:57 -0500
From: "Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)" <pkampana@cisco.com>
To: "Roman D. Danyliw" <rdd@cert.org>, "mile@ietf.org" <mile@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Ambiguity when NodeRole@attacktype is used
Thread-Index: Ac6Ll10RNniDIZrkT/SDj+FcMbo0jAAbxqbw
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 02:52:56 +0000
Message-ID: <1C9F17D1873AFA47A969C4DD98F98A753F8CC0@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
References: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC13C55958@marathon>
In-Reply-To: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC13C55958@marathon>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.82.234.160]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [mile] Ambiguity when NodeRole@attacktype is used
X-BeenThere: mile@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Managed Incident Lightweight Exchange, IODEF extensions and RID exchanges" <mile.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mile>, <mailto:mile-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mile>
List-Post: <mailto:mile@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mile-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mile>, <mailto:mile-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 02:53:19 -0000

Option iii seems reasonable.
If we have consensus on this I will update the guidance draft.

Panos


-----Original Message-----
From: mile-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mile-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roman D. Danyliw
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 10:09 AM
To: mile@ietf.org
Subject: [mile] Ambiguity when NodeRole@attacktype is used

NodeRole has two attributes: @category (from RFC5070) to describe the legitimate purpose of the system; and @attacktype (added in the -00 draft using a modified list from FraudType in RFC5901) to describe attacker usage of a system.  The following three situations might arise in the current definition:

(a) legitimate purpose of the host is known (@category set), attacker's use of the system is unknown or not applicable (@attacktype not set)
(b) legitimate purpose of the host is known (@category set), attacker's use of the system is known (@attacktype set)
(c) legitimate purpose of the host is unknown (@category not set), only the attacker's use of the system known (@attacktype set)

A few questions when considering these situations.

(1) Given the current definition of cardinality, @category is required but @attacktype is optional.  What should be the value of @category in situation (c)?

(2) Multiple NodeRole elements can be used to express different roles.  For example:

1: <Node> 
2:  ... 
3:   <NodeRole category="www" /> 
4:   <NodeRole category="database" /> 
5:  ... 
6: </Node>

In the case of situation (b), where one wanted to convey that the system was also used as a 'c2-server' in addition to the two legtimate roles it has as a "www" and "database" server, in which NodeRole (Line 3 or 4) should the @attacktype be set?

Possible solutions include:

(i) Merge @attacktype into @category, perhaps which a prefix of "attack-".  With this approach, neither (1) or (2) can arise.

(ii) Add an "unknown" or another escape value to @category which would allow a for an @attacktype to be set even when legitimate use of the system isn't known (or doesn't exist).  Tell implementers that when multiple NodeRole elements are encountered but one some have @attacktype set, its positioning isn't significant.

(iii) Same guidance to implementers as (ii) but make @category optional (so now the escape value is not required).

Roman
_______________________________________________
mile mailing list
mile@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mile