IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Mud] putting quarantined IoT devices behind a captive portal

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 09 July 2019 14:42 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 9A5F9120476; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 07:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
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 FMRYd3dqy1Hl; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 07:42:00 -0700 (PDT)
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 5314A120438; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 07:42:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D4323808A; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 10:39:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67CFA5BE; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 10:41:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>, "mud@ietf.org" <mud@ietf.org>, capport@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAFpG3gc4ijy+xH7O_9EzpzwcROu3XcTA4xpSAH9P+oyhWQzMyg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA49CD8C1@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CAFpG3gc4ijy+xH7O_9EzpzwcROu3XcTA4xpSAH9P+oyhWQzMyg@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, 09 Jul 2019 10:41:58 -0400
Message-ID: <4486.1562683318@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mud/N6c4vhwxn2MDn9NPBFSX_eoBqTU>
Subject: [Mud] putting quarantined IoT devices behind a captive portal
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, 09 Jul 2019 14:42:04 -0000

Between editing drafts yesterday, I got to thinking about CAPPORT.
I have been working on what to do when an IoT device violates it's MUD
profile.  There are a bunch of issues around this.

Yesterday, it occured to me that when such a device is quarantined
(I really think it should be "quaranteed", but that's not a word)
that the capport controls and APIs should be available to the device to
learn what went on.

This is not new, I think that this as been the approach of most enterprise
NEA systems upon encountering "infection".  This has, I assume, involved
forced HTTP proxies to inform human.  But, if we have APIs, we can inform
device as well.

Is this on anyone's radar?

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email