IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Mud] Convening MUD calls, + next steps

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 21 May 2019 16:10 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 6CDD3120145 for <mud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2019 09:10:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 F2Vuyz50rv-B for <mud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2019 09:10:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00470120184 for <mud@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 May 2019 09:09:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 914B938277; Tue, 21 May 2019 12:08:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 775DEE8D; Tue, 21 May 2019 12:09:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74EE1D93; Tue, 21 May 2019 12:09:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: mud@ietf.org, "M. Ranganathan" <mranga@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHiu4JO=2m6HZ6Ep5hp_JhBE+uPCiEDCj7AfGygf-70aWasLtA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5B10945F-EFE2-4021-9650-F010A737BA1D@isoc.org> <F9F696B9-1DAC-4070-B85F-780C841FCC62@cisco.com> <19433.1555006746@localhost> <ABA471C2-D547-4BA0-875C-CF1B7CD61722@cisco.com> <D0A4C670-E9A3-4DA8-8D57-C9D96B7D211F@nist.gov> <AFB482B9-D747-420B-879D-D20E5D9C8BC1@cisco.com> <CAHiu4JPjwuzHPhdDDzNahcngkkOOkSnerFwGx=QH9vbUJ1H8=g@mail.gmail.com> <10007.1555379966@localhost> <CAHiu4JO-iY1h02pKaJzP=eU4WvTn_9HpghnPdynrxEupwh8CPw@mail.gmail.com> <F72774E9-E630-4EC7-B6CA-78F963AEE444@cisco.com> <CAHiu4JNs1D9S8kMMnH2n5VeyHensbjE4Dg_XttZjoGMuHwR+FQ@mail.gmail.com> <11306A54-162F-4EA3-803B-FC2D1BB7D4E6@cisco.com> <30445.1557872022@localhost> <CAHiu4JM9swU=HeG4kgQUiXFXUSQMZwh_yzOFqmp1dR_sCTunow@mail.gmail.com> <CAHiu4JO=2m6HZ6Ep5hp_JhBE+uPCiEDCj7AfGygf-70aWasLtA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
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: Tue, 21 May 2019 12:09:48 -0400
Message-ID: <15681.1558454988@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mud/HdyevvtO69mhN6uXToVHAgeE7m0>
Subject: Re: [Mud] Convening MUD calls, + next steps
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: Tue, 21 May 2019 16:10:03 -0000

M. Ranganathan <mranga@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Are there any standard logging formats to report "misbehavior"? Maybe just
    > use syslog (RFC 3164)?

It's a good question!
From the gateway to... ? what's the place we should report to?
Probably the ISP for aggregation.  It would be nice if the DHCPv6 included
an attribute as to what that was.
   - ROLIE/MILE
   - INCH/IODEF

I've tried to capture some options in the un-quarantine slides at:
  https://github.com/CIRALabs/shg-un-quarantine/blob/master/presentations/RIPE-IoT-Unquarantine-expanded.pdf
slide 34.

To share details of the event, though, the list includes:
    - SCAPv2 (rolie)
    - MISP
    - TAXI (rolie), STIIX

    > What should the tuning parameters be? I was thinking, frequency of sampling
    > and packet rate estimation.

what do you mean here?

    > I came across the following which looked interesting:

    > https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/security/asa/asa82/configuration/guide/config/monitor_nsel.html#wp1111174%0A

So this uses Netflow, or this uses Syslog? (or some combination)
I didn't understand it that well.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email