[netmod] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-23: (with COMMENT)
Kathleen Moriarty <Kathleen.Moriarty.firstname.lastname@example.org> Fri, 02 March 2018 20:09 UTC
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AFB6126C25; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 12:09:10 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Kathleen Moriarty <Kathleen.Moriarty.email@example.com>
To: "The IESG" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com, Lou Berger <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Kent Watsen <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2018 12:09:10 -0800
Subject: [netmod] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-23: (with COMMENT)
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2018 20:09:10 -0000
Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-23: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with the SecDir review and thanks for responding to the review. I have one additional suggestion to make sure the points made from this review are clear to the reader. Thanks in advance! SecDir Review text & response: Security Comments * I think almost all writable data nodes here are sensitive, because a network attacker's first move is to block any logging on the host, and many of the data nodes here can be used for this purpose. [clw1] I will reword the security section to include all writeable nodes as sensitive. [KMM] Thank you, I think it would be helpful to also note the reason is this case with an extra sentence or two. Something to the effect of: Logging in particular is used to assess the state of systems and can be used to indicate a network compromise. If logging were to be disabled through malicious means, attacks may not be readily detectable. * Re: readable data nodes, I'm not sure which are sensitive, and the document should give an example or two rather than just say "some". Otherwise the security advice is not actionable. One example: "remote" sections leak information about other hosts in the network. [clw1] This text was lifted from another model. I will review the readable nodes and update. [KMM] Thanks * Write operations... can have a negative effect on network operations. - I would add "and on network security", because logs are often used to detect security breaches. [clw1] I will add this phrase. [KMM] I see this was added, thanks. Please consider the above 2 sentences. * Also add an advice, similar to the one on "pattern match", that the private key used for signing log messages MUST NOT be used for any other purpose, and that the implementation of this data node must ensure this property (I'm not sure how). The rationale: if the TLS private key is used, for example, this could result in a signing oracle for TLS and eventually a MITM attack. [clw1] I will add this advice. [KMM] Thanks for adding this advice.
- [netmod] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draf… Kathleen Moriarty