Re: [mile] Clarifying iodef:SoftwareType (Issue #47)

["Takeshi Takahashi" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

As a person who had engaged in IODEF-SCI, I would be happy if we can use 
IODEF-SCI.
(It does not mean I am objecting any other options for this issue.)

I was planning to propose some minor changes after the IODEF-bis is 
finalized.
So, if some changes to IODEF-SCI may help here, I am happy to do so.
The current IODEF-SCI (RFC 7203) was made for IODEF v1, and it anyway needs 
some small changes to cope with IODEF-bis.

The current IODEF-SCI defines one basic structure, and it is used by its 
inherited classes: AttackPattern, Platform, Vulnerability, Scoring, 
Weakness, EventReport, Verification, or Remediation classe.
The structure of all these classes are more-or-less the same as the basic 
structure, but the location to use them are restricted.
If it helps, we could for instance remove these inherited classes and just 
define the basic structure so that it can be used by any of the 
AdditionalData class inside IODEF document.
In this way, we do not have to re-invent new data model for this discussion.

Kind regards,
Take


-----Original Message----- 
From: Jerome Athias
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 3:10 AM
To: Roman D. Danyliw
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [mile] Clarifying iodef:SoftwareType (Issue #47)

Hi

(4) seems the best approach IMHO for now (would allow use of OVAL/CPE,
SWID, or any others. And the "any others" is needed.)

Warning regarding OVAL vs IODEF-SCI (4.5.2.) for the -Platform-
definition and use: different
Little warning regarding "Application" vs "Software"

Note: a IANA registry tentative would be difficult, IMHO, and not
flexible enough (potentially too restrictive) IF the extension
mechanism is not allowing others (e.g. own organisation
classification/categories). Furthermore, I'm not sure a IANA registry
with just 2 entries would need effort put in it. Cristal clear
recommandations/guidances for use of CPE or SWID could be enough.

(2) is not free
Any stats on real/current usage rate of SWID?

PS: SWID->CPE mapping is possible

My 2c for now
Best regards


2015-03-24 20:55 GMT+01:00 Roman D. Danyliw <[e-mail]>:
> Good afternoon!
>
> One of the remaining issues with rfc5070bis is to clarify the 
> iodef:SoftwareType.  See Issue #47 [1].  We discussed this impasse in 
> Honolulu [2].
>
> --[ snip discussion from IETF 91 ]--
> Q1: (Roman Danyliw) Last mailing list discussion on clarifying 
> iodef:Software produced no result.  What does the group want to do?
> A: (David Waltermire) Extensibility is key dimension.  Consider just using 
> swid and reference the ISO standard.  Alternatively, redefine the class to 
> be AdditionalData.
> A: (Adam Monteville) Reiterated the importance of extensibility
> A: Isn't swid support already in the spec?
> A: (Roman Danyliw) There is an attribute named "swid" but this comes from 
> RFC5070 which just happened to use this name without reference to the ISO 
> standard.
> A: (Takeshi Takahashi) IODEF-SCI can embed SWID and CPE as well, but the 
> context is different; it is added under AdditionalData. If we need the 
> data here, we could make a model here like the SCI draft does.
> --[ end snip ]--
>
> The four options mentioned to date (not just at IETF 91) are:
>
> (1) Use OVAL [3]
>
> (2) Use swid referencing ISO/IEC 19770-2:2009 (with XML schema at [4])
>
> (3) Don't define it and use AdditionalData
>
> (4) Support mutiple techniques to reference software in the same way 
> (like IODEF-SCI and ENUM)
>
> Approach (1) and (2) are require little further explanation.  Hence, let 
> me describe (3) in more detail.
>
> The thinking would be to create an IANA registry to maintain a list of 
> external references, in this case application reference techniques (e.g., 
> swid and CPE), just like IODEF-SCI and ENUM current do.  The class using 
> this technique might look as follows:
>              +---------------------+
>              | Application         |
>              +---------------------+
>              | ENUM SpecID         |<>--(0..*)-[ SpecData ]
>              | STRING ext-SpecID   |
>              |                     |
>              +---------------------+
>
> ** SpecID would map to an IANA registry of application reference 
> techniques
> ** ext-SpecID would allow for private enumerated value extensions as 
> currently done in the draft
> ** SpecData would be defined as follows allowing both XML or atomic data 
> types such as a string.
>      <xs:complexType name="AppIdType" mixed="true">
>       <xs:sequence>
>         <xs:any namespace="##any" processContents="lax"
>                 minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
>       </xs:sequence>
>
> In the same way that the general purpose ENUM approach was useful to SACM 
> and MILE, SACM has also expressed interest in a common approach on this 
> class too.
>
> What does the community feel is the correct approach?
>
> Roman
>
> [1] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mile/trac/ticket/47
> [2] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-mile
> [3] https://nvd.nist.gov/cpe.cfm
> [4] http://standards.iso.org/iso/19770/-2/2009/schema.xsd
> _______________________________________________
> mile mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mile

_______________________________________________
mile mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mile