Re: [sacm] 答复: 答复: new drafts about network infrastructure device's security baseline:

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

Hello Frank,

Thanks for your response, inline.

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Xialiang (Frank)
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Nancy, Kathleen,
> Your point make sense. Let me explain our intention as below:
> 1. Our objective is to specify the security posture (we call it security baseline in the documents) of network devices, like router, switch or maybe FW. By collecting and evaluating them, to meet the SACM requirements on network device as endpoint. We only focus on the security baseline information;
> 2. Current -00 version of drafts do not have the contents about: how to encapsulate the security baseline information into SACM Information Model, how to send them to the collector by YANG push and pub/sub mechanisms, and how to adapt these information into SACM protocol, we will address these issues in following updated versions;
> 3. we do find that some YANG model has been defined in IETF WGs like netmod, i2rs, i2nsf, etc. But we also observe that: there are still some YANG model related with device security baseline are not defined yet (i.e., URPF, CPU defend, Keychain, Remote Login Security, etc); Even some YANG model (i.e., BGP, OSPF, SNMP, etc) has been defined in IETF, their security configuration and status part are not completed and have potential room for improvement. If we find the existing contents as you pointed, we'd like to reference them and will not reinvent the wheel.
>
> In summary, we want to follow the SACM Information Model and protocol, and extend the YANG push and pub/sub mechanisms to systematically specify the security baseline data model in SACM WG.

Please use the Yangcatalog.org site to identify the YANG modules that
already exist for the data that can be collected.  The next step would
be to figure out if certain information is not available, what YANG
modules should be extended to gather that information.  Or to create
new YANG modules for that purpose.  Since you are talking about
network devices, YANG is the way to go right now as that is where
industry is heading.

Thank you,
Kathleen
>
> B.R.
> Frank
>
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Kathleen Moriarty [mailto:[e-mail]]
> 发送时间: 2017年9月12日 5:26
> 收件人: Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)
> 抄送: Xialiang (Frank); Waltermire, David A. (Fed); Panos Kampanakis (pkampana); [e-mail]; Linqiushi (Jessica, SCC); Zhengguangying (Walker); dongyue (D)
> 主题: Re: [sacm] 答复: new drafts about network infrastructure device's security baseline:
>
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Hi Frank,
>>
>>
>>
>> It is not clear to me why we couldn’t reference the work and
>> attributes already being worked on in NETMOD and perhaps i2nsf?  While
>> I agree that SACM includes network elements as endpoints, I think we
>> can leverage work already being defined by other working groups.
>
> Yes, I agree with Nancy.  If the work exists already, it should be referenced.  YANG is the preferred method and there appears to be direct copy and paste from IPFIX and other technologies.
>
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
>>
>>
>>
>> Warm regards, Nancy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: sacm <[e-mail]> on behalf of "Xialiang (Frank)"
>> <[e-mail]>
>> Date: Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 7:39 PM
>> To: "Waltermire, David A. (Fed)" <[e-mail]>, Panos
>> Kampanakis <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: "Linqiushi (Jessica, SCC)" <[e-mail]>, "Zhengguangying
>> (Walker)" <[e-mail]>, "dongyue (D)"
>> <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: [sacm] 答复: new drafts about network infrastructure device's
>> security baseline:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Dave and Panos,
>>
>> I think Dave gives a very clear and detailed clarification about the
>> definition of endpoints in SACM and the latest SACM plan, thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>> I will follow the SACM information model and the latest decision to
>> update these drafts.
>>
>> Any comments are welcome!
>>
>>
>>
>> B.R.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
>>
>> 发件人: Waltermire, David A. (Fed) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> 发送时间: 2017年9月8日 3:01
>> 收件人: Panos Kampanakis (pkampana); Xialiang (Frank); [e-mail]
>> 抄送: Linqiushi (Jessica, SCC); Zhengguangying (Walker); dongyue (D)
>> 主题: RE: new drafts about network infrastructure device's security baseline:
>>
>>
>>
>> Panos,
>>
>>
>>
>> At the last IETF meeting we started discussing a charter update. I
>> believe we are currently waiting on the chairs to start this discussion on the list.
>> This will give the working group an opportunity to clarify this issue
>> in the charter.
>>
>>
>>
>> As far as endpoints, the definition that has been used for endpoints
>> in the SACM charter is the one from RFC 5209, which is “Any computing
>> device that can be connected to a network.
>>
>>       Such devices normally are associated with a particular link
>> layer
>>
>>       address before joining the network and potentially an IP address
>>
>>       once on the network.  This includes: laptops, desktops, servers,
>>
>>       cell phones, or any device that may have an IP address.”
>>
>>
>>
>> As most network devices are connected to networks, and often expose a
>> management interface that is IP addressable, I’d say they qualify as
>> endpoints. This view is also reflected in the SACM terminology, which
>> states “To further clarify the [RFC5209] definition, an endpoint is
>> any
>>
>>       physical or virtual device that may have a network address.
>> Note
>>
>>       that, network infrastructure devices (e.g. switches, routers,
>>
>>       firewalls), which fit the definition, are also considered to be
>>
>>       endpoints within this document.”
>>
>>
>>
>> This text squares with my original view of endpoints way back when we
>> were working on the original SACM charter.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> From: sacm [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Panos
>> Kampanakis
>> (pkampana)
>> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 2:11 PM
>> To: Xialiang (Frank) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> Cc: Linqiushi (Jessica, SCC) <[e-mail]>; Zhengguangying
>> (Walker) <[e-mail]>; dongyue (D)
>> <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: [sacm] new drafts about network infrastructure device's
>> security baseline:
>>
>>
>>
>> When checking the SACM charter, I do not see any references to network
>> infrastructure or network elements. I believe SACM’s initial focus was
>> on endpoints. Do these three drafts even fall in SACM’s charter as it
>> is right now?
>>
>> Panos
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: sacm [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Xialiang
>> (Frank)
>> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 4:05 AM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Cc: Linqiushi (Jessica, SCC) <[e-mail]>; Zhengguangying
>> (Walker) <[e-mail]>; dongyue (D)
>> <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: [sacm] new drafts about network infrastructure device's
>> security
>> baseline:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We just submit 3 drafts to specify the yang data model of network
>> infrastructure devices (i.e., router, switch, firewall, etc) security
>> posture, or call it security baseline. Each draft covers one of the
>> three planes of network infrastructure devices: data plane, control
>> plane, management plane.
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xia-sacm-nid-dp-security-baseline-00
>>
>>
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dong-sacm-nid-cp-security-baseline-0
>> 0
>>
>>
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lin-sacm-nid-mp-security-baseline-00
>>
>>
>>
>> The goal is to facilitate the collection and assessment of the overall
>> security posture of the network infrastructure devices, in order to
>> realize the whole lifecycle security automation for the infrastructure network.
>>
>> Your comments are warmly welcome!
>>
>>
>>
>> B.R.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sacm mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Kathleen



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen