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

Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com> Fri, 03 April 2009 16:21 UTC

Return-Path: <Nicolas.Williams@sun.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 6B4533A67FB; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 09:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.248, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 4R3qt7zHL5tJ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 09:21:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sca-ea-mail-2.sun.com (sca-ea-mail-2.Sun.COM [192.18.43.25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FACF3A67BD; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 09:21:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dm-central-01.central.sun.com ([129.147.62.4]) by sca-ea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n33GMDYF019976; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 16:22:13 GMT
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (binky.Central.Sun.COM [129.153.128.104]) by dm-central-01.central.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n33GMCMS062310; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:22:12 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n33FgtDi002886; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:42:55 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (from nw141292@localhost) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id n33Fgs5b002885; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:42:54 -0500 (CDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: binky.Central.Sun.COM: nw141292 set sender to Nicolas.Williams@sun.com using -f
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:42:54 -0500
From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
To: Santosh Chokhani <SChokhani@cygnacom.com>
Message-ID: <20090403154253.GZ1500@Sun.COM>
References: <20090402154402.GM1500@Sun.COM> <FAD1CF17F2A45B43ADE04E140BA83D48A9FF82@scygexch1.cygnacom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <FAD1CF17F2A45B43ADE04E140BA83D48A9FF82@scygexch1.cygnacom.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.7i
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 16:21:13 -0000

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
--