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

"Santosh Chokhani" <SChokhani@cygnacom.com> Fri, 03 April 2009 17:43 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 C80CF28C138 for <saag@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.441
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.028, 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 gZ1KKtPTaSka for <saag@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scygmxsecs1.cygnacom.com (scygmxsecs1.cygnacom.com [65.242.48.253]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 796F43A6891 for <saag@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:42:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 9383 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2009 17:42:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO scygexch1.cygnacom.com) (10.60.50.8) by scygmxsecs1.cygnacom.com with SMTP; 3 Apr 2009 17:42:43 -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 13:43:49 -0400
Message-ID: <FAD1CF17F2A45B43ADE04E140BA83D48A9FFA3@scygexch1.cygnacom.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090403165143.GC1500@Sun.COM>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [saag] Common labeled security (comment on CALIPSO, labeled NFSv4)
Thread-Index: Acm0gOo0x3crKQOVTXarz8iAnc5w3gAArC+g
References: <20090402154402.GM1500@Sun.COM> <FAD1CF17F2A45B43ADE04E140BA83D48A9FF82@scygexch1.cygnacom.com> <20090403164522.DEA9A9A4739@odin.smetech.net> <20090403165143.GC1500@Sun.COM>
From: "Santosh Chokhani" <SChokhani@cygnacom.com>
To: "Nicolas Williams" <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>, "Russ Housley" <housley@vigilsec.com>
Cc: labeled-nfs@linux-nfs.org, nfs-discuss@opensolaris.org, saag@ietf.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, 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 17:43:14 -0000

I am hoping that SPIF labeling in this community will either not be a
problem or if it is part of the labeling and MAC policy, SPIF is not the
only mechanism that is exacerbating it. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicolas Williams [mailto:Nicolas.Williams@sun.com] 
> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 12:52 PM
> To: Russ Housley
> Cc: Santosh Chokhani; saag@ietf.org; 
> labeled-nfs@linux-nfs.org; selinux@tycho.nsa.gov; 
> nfsv4@ietf.org; nfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> Subject: Re: [saag] Common labeled security (comment on 
> CALIPSO, labeled NFSv4)
> 
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 12:44:30PM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
> > I really do not have time to write about all of my 
> concerns.  However, 
> > once you get beyond the basic classifications, the SPIF 
> model breaks.  
> > They are markings that are only to be known to people that have the 
> > clearance for those markings, this leads to a SPIF distribution 
> > nightmare, as a subset of the real SPIF must be given out based on 
> > access (or not) to various compartments and such.  It just does not 
> > scale.
> 
> I'm aware of the fact that labels can themselves be labeled.  
> But I don't think that implies that we can't make a SPIF-like 
> solution scale.
> 
> Peers that have access to different subsets of the policy 
> should still be able to interop if care is taken to specify 
> what happens when a node sees a label that falls outside its 
> policy subset, and provided, of course, that the peers can 
> agree that they have subsets of the *same* master policy.  
> Peers can check whether they do have subsets of the
> *same* master policy by exchanging [for each DOI to both] a 
> master policy URI that includes a version number.
> 
> Nico
> -- 
>