Re: [saag] Common labeled security (comment on CALIPSO, labeled NFSv4)

"Santosh Chokhani" <SChokhani@cygnacom.com> Fri, 03 April 2009 17:33 UTC

Return-Path: <SChokhani@cygnacom.com>
X-Original-To: saag@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: saag@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3021E3A6CFD for <saag@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:33:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.438
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.031, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HGP9MgExEomf for <saag@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scygmxsecs1.cygnacom.com (scygmxsecs1.cygnacom.com [65.242.48.253]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 13E8A3A67EC for <saag@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:33:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 9310 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2009 17:33:18 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO scygexch1.cygnacom.com) (10.60.50.8) by scygmxsecs1.cygnacom.com with SMTP; 3 Apr 2009 17:33:18 -0000
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 13:34:23 -0400
Message-ID: <FAD1CF17F2A45B43ADE04E140BA83D48A9FF9E@scygexch1.cygnacom.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090403154253.GZ1500@Sun.COM>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [saag] Common labeled security (comment on CALIPSO, labeled NFSv4)
Thread-Index: Acm0d01GRvibCgHAQZGBDXiN3KXFSwACwt3g
References: <20090402154402.GM1500@Sun.COM> <FAD1CF17F2A45B43ADE04E140BA83D48A9FF82@scygexch1.cygnacom.com> <20090403154253.GZ1500@Sun.COM>
From: "Santosh Chokhani" <SChokhani@cygnacom.com>
To: "Nicolas Williams" <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
Cc: labeled-nfs@linux-nfs.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, saag@ietf.org, nfs-discuss@opensolaris.org, nfsv4@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [saag] Common labeled security (comment on CALIPSO, labeled NFSv4)
X-BeenThere: saag@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Advisory Group <saag.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag>
List-Post: <mailto:saag@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:33:23 -0000

The work I am mentioning was done for NSA and can be released if NSA is
ok with it.

I suspect NSA will be ok with it. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicolas Williams [mailto:Nicolas.Williams@sun.com] 
> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 11:43 AM
> To: Santosh Chokhani
> Cc: saag@ietf.org; labeled-nfs@linux-nfs.org; 
> nfs-discuss@opensolaris.org; nfsv4@ietf.org; selinux@tycho.nsa.gov
> Subject: Re: [saag] Common labeled security (comment on 
> CALIPSO, labeled NFSv4)
> 
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 11:22:38AM -0400, Santosh Chokhani wrote:
> > As part of MISSI and DMS, in mid to late 90's we did work 
> on something 
> > called Security Policy Information File (SPIF).
> 
> Oh, very nice!  Thanks for the pointer.  That would be 
> ISO15816.  I've found the spec, though it's non-free (hadn't 
> they learned the lesson with ASN.1??  will they ever learn it??).
> 
> > At high level SPIF entailed the following:
> > 
> > 1.  It was ASN.1 based.
> 
> Not surprisingly :)  Converting that to XML is probably the 
> correct first step in order to ensure adoption, sadly.  
> (Actually, apparently that has already been done once, though 
> outside the ISO/ITU-T.)
> 
> > 2.  It permitted you to convert the machine representation to human 
> > readable representation.
> > 3.  It permitted you to convert the human readable input to machine 
> > representation.
> > 4.  It mapped labels (hierarchical sensitivity levels and 
> > non-hierarchical categories) from one labeling policy to another 
> > (i.e., establish equivalency mapping) 5.  It allowed you to 
> constrain 
> > labels since for some policies, existence of a category may 
> mean some 
> > categories, levels, may be included and/or excluded.
> > 
> > Different labeling policies were indicated by different policy OID.
> > 
> > Some of the concept from that work may be applicable here. 
> 
> I think so!  Except for the part about this spec being 
> non-free.  I think that means: start over in the IETF.
> 
> Nico
> -- 
>