IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Mud] how to increase trust in MUD URL

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 23 January 2020 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: mud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57500120121 for <mud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 08:47:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 OFVJMNNgjE8e for <mud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 08:47:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90F66120918 for <mud@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 08:47:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A17C38980; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 11:46:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9A9E9B0; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 11:47:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
cc: mud@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <901B77A8-C631-496B-B322-EAE26ED26DC0@cisco.com>
References: <157918044299.26236.8163535356477976451.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAFpG3gehp98VB2RpL6LenRJsV=RRQ=1jCTX7mcrmd27pzkYqfg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFpG3gek8qrHjN5LNQUrRrS9+zFuVQQ4y+XorRrr5xySs2fP1g@mail.gmail.com> <20570.1579314460@localhost> <30267.1579654985@localhost> <9b50e4ca-d516-3f3b-5992-1695f8147d18@sit.fraunhofer.de> <30626.1579713687@localhost> <CAHiu4JOXOAt2U5soxrHB2D8EMxwkQ-tKv62F2vxAVPdvqAgfzg@mail.gmail.com> <428.1579728908@localhost> <23472.1579746800@localhost> <901B77A8-C631-496B-B322-EAE26ED26DC0@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 11:47:16 -0500
Message-ID: <19988.1579798036@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mud/0u1nTGiTT6LFuXJU9aAKEsbT-Iw>
Subject: Re: [Mud] how to increase trust in MUD URL
X-BeenThere: mud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of Manufacturer Ussage Descriptions <mud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mud>, <mailto:mud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mud/>
List-Post: <mailto:mud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mud>, <mailto:mud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 16:47:20 -0000

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
    >> On 23 Jan 2020, at 03:33, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> Maybe the file could have something assertive, like: "bad bad, do not run,
    >> quarantine now" as flag?
    >>


    > If the MUD file itself contains an error that overexposes a vulnerable
    > device, it seems to me that the proper course of action is simply to
    > post a correction that will get picked up sometime after the
    > cache-validity period expires.

Assume that it's not the file itself that is broken, but the firmware that
references it.  That is, version N of the firmware is bad, and it references
mud file example.com/revN.json.

How does the manufacturer indicate to the MUD controller that, if you have
revN, that you want it offline.

    > As to your other question: what if the MUD file can’t be reached?  The
    > general answer is simple: keep doing what you were doing.  Don’t change
    > policies because you can’t get to the mud file server.  That’s just
    > asking for a boot to the head.  If the device never had a MUD file, you
    > would have some default handling.  If it already had a mud file, then
    > you have some policy to go with.

Agreed, we should not change behaviour if the file is gone.

The question is, is there a path which leads to the MUD controller
abandonning the file?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email