[OPSAWG] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-use-cases-04: (with DISCUSS)

["Kathleen Moriarty" <[e-mail]>]

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-use-cases-04: Discuss

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 http://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:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-use-cases/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for your work on this draft, I just have some security stuff I'd
like to discuss that should be easy to resolve as some text is provided.

In section 4.5, it is critical to also include a statement on security in
addition to privacy.  Medical devices with network attachments could be
used to kill someone.  
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/dick-cheneys-fear-heart-device-hacks-justified-experts/story?id=20633284

Suggest changing this text from:
   In both cases, however,
   it is crucial to protect the privacy of the people to which medical
   devices are attached.  Even though the data collected by a heart beat
   monitor might be protected, the pure fact that someone carries such a
   device may need protection.  As such, certain medical appliances may
   not want to participate in discovery and self-configuration protocols
   in order to remain invisible.
To:
   In both cases, however,
   it is crucial to protect the safety and privacy of the people to which
medical
   devices are attached.  Security precautions to protect access
(authentication, encryption, integrity protections, etc.) to such devices
may be critical to protecting the safety of the individual. Even though
the data collected by a heart beat
   monitor might be protected, the pure fact that someone carries such a
   device may need protection.  As such, certain medical appliances may
   not want to participate in discovery and self-configuration protocols
   in order to remain invisible.

General statement:
Many of the other use case scenarios also have safety as a concern,
requiring security protections (Confidentiality, Integrity,
Availability).  Sensors used to control environmental settings is another
example where air regulation might include detection of harmful things in
the air (carbon monoxide).  I'm sure there are other safety concerns that
motivate security protections in each of the use cases, it's not just
privacy (which is important).  What if a sensor was tampered with to
report or not report something detected?  That's not covered in the
discussion on availability related problems in 4.6, but does represent
another set of security considerations that could lead to safety issues. 
More text on access control considerations for NMS may help.