Re: [sacm] Hackathon Goals and Stretch Goals

[Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]>]

In regard to active contribution, I think I will find at least one 
engineer that will try to create a repository that stores records  of 
every SACM component's output (results, records, etc.) and that can be 
queried at least by time, data source, data origin and IE type.

Viele Grüße,

Henk

On 05/22/2017 05:26 PM, Adam Montville wrote:
> I think we'll get to the bottom of this particular question as we dive
> deeper into the weeds. At this point it seems that we have identified
> notional components and, in most cases, their functional counterparts
> with associated contributors.
>
> At what point do we want to start getting together on a regular basis to
> make as much progress as possible before the hackathon? For example, we
> need to determine our environment, where we're going to put components,
> develop code, and do that sort of thing. Basically come up with a rough
> plan forward, probably update the hackathon wiki and do things like that.
>
> Who will be actively contributing?
>
> Adam
>
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 9:16 AM Haynes, Dan <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     It’s probably also worth pointing out that if we are using existing
>     protocols such as NEA, it may not make sense to directly change the
>     fields in its over-the-wire format to match the SACM IM (e.g.
>     communications between endpoint and server), rather, provide a
>     mapping. Then, when the server receives the data, it can use the
>     mapping to store the data in the repository such that it aligns with
>     the data described in the IM. This approach will likely be required
>     when we want to leverage existing protocols where we may not have
>     the ability to change them (e.g. Apple MDM and Configuration
>     Profiles, Windows PowerShell Desired State Configuration, etc.).
>     With all that said, the explicit approach may be more desirable when
>     we are developing our own protocols or have significant influence
>     and support to change existing protocols. I guess I am just trying
>     to say we probably want to support both approaches :).____
>
>     __ __
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Danny ____
>
>     __ __
>
>     *From:*sacm [mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>] *On Behalf Of *Ira McDonald
>     *Sent:* Friday, May 19, 2017 2:39 PM
>     *To:* Adam Montville <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Ira McDonald
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>
>
>     *Cc:* Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>     *Subject:* Re: [sacm] Hackathon Goals and Stretch Goals____
>
>     __ __
>
>     Hi Adam,____
>
>     Chiming in below on one point raised in this Hackathon goals
>     conversation.____
>
>     Cheers,____
>
>     - Ira____
>
>     __ __
>
>     On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Adam Montville
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     wrote:____
>
>         Hi Henk. I'll try inline.____
>
>         On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 11:04 AM Henk Birkholz
>         <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:____
>
>         <...snip...>____
>
>
>             Also, I noticed conflicting notions about how important it
>             is to prepare
>             a message format to convey information between components.
>             While it
>             might not be as critical as "having actual component code to
>             work with",
>             interoperability is key. And if we would agree on a
>             preliminary data
>             structure (probably derived from the current IM), before we
>             start the
>             hackathon, we could save some time during the f2f on-site.
>             It's probably
>             a low hanging fruit also, as I am not talking about every IE
>             to be
>             conveyed, but about the general message structure ("the
>             container") and
>             the corresponding encoding for data in motion.____
>
>         __ __
>
>         [AWM] There are differing perspectives on this front. Yes,
>         having a common structure could be useful, but it may not be
>         necessary for the purposes of this effort. This effort is
>         somewhat different from others that I've heard of, in that we
>         are not implementing a solution as much as we are discovering
>         one. I do expect that we will discover the structures we need as
>         we develop the solution. What do others think about this? Do we
>         need to have this information up front, or is it something we
>         can discover as we go?____
>
>     __ __
>
>     <ira> For message wire format for the Hackathon, please consider
>     taking the SACM
>     Information Model verbatim and using that XSD for XML wire format.
>     Efficiency is____
>
>     totally irrelevant.  So is elegance.  You're trying to do a proof of
>     concept.  Defining____
>
>     the Hackathon wire format interactively in the room is a time waster
>     idea, IMO.____
>
>          ____
>
>
>             Thoughts?
>
>
>             Viele Grüße,
>
>             Henk
>
>
>
>
>             On 05/16/2017 05:12 PM, Haynes, Dan wrote:
>             > Seems like a reasonable story to focus around, for the
>             hackathon, to me.
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             > Thanks,
>             >
>             > Danny
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             > *From:*sacm [mailto:[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>] *On Behalf Of *Jerome Athias
>             > *Sent:* Monday, May 15, 2017 11:12 PM
>             > *To:* Adam Montville <[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Waltermire, David A.
>             > (Fed) <[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             > *Subject:* Re: [sacm] Hackathon Goals and Stretch Goals
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             > I think it's a good idea too.
>             >
>             > I don't know who is supposed to participate to this hackathon?
>             >
>             > Potentially you could market it by capitalizing on real
>             known events,
>             > (without trolling) let's say "new critical vulnerability",
>             "for
>             > preventing ransomware" "FictitousCorp needs to Respond
>             quickly and have
>             > a system to Identify and Protect its endpoints..."
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             > On Tue, 16 May 2017 at 00:30, Adam Montville
>             <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             > <mailto:[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>             >
>             >     I think that's a good idea. How do folks feel about
>             this story? Is
>             >     it lacking anything? Is it too specific? What would
>             you change about
>             >     it if you could?
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >     On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:57 PM Waltermire, David A.
>             (Fed)
>             >     <[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             <mailto:[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>             >
>             >         I was thinking that it would be useful to have a
>             user story to
>             >         implement against for the Hackathon. How about
>             something like
>             >         the following that maps to our goals:
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >         A vendor identifies a vulnerability in their
>             software product.
>             >         They produce a new version of their software and
>             publish a
>             >         vulnerability bulletin that indicates customers
>             should upgrade
>             >         to the new version to address the vulnerability.
>             The product
>             >         versions have both a SWID tag and a CoSWID tag. As
>             a customer of
>             >         this vendor that uses the affected products, we
>             need to build a
>             >         vulnerability assessment system that is capable of
>             detecting
>             >         what version of the software is installed and
>             determine if that
>             >         version is vulnerable using the vendor provided
>             information. The
>             >         Collector will be capable of gathering software
>             inventory
>             >         information from one or more target endpoints by:
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >         1)      Requesting software inventory information
>             for the
>             >         affected software based on an ad-hoc request.
>             >
>             >         2)      Reporting the software inventory as
>             software changes occur
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >         Collected software inventory information will be
>             stored in the
>             >         Assessment Results Repository and will be compared to
>             >         vulnerability detection data retrieved from the
>             Vulnerability
>             >         Detection Data Repository. The vulnerability
>             detection data will
>             >         be derived from the vendor provided information in
>             some useful
>             >         way to be determined by the Vulnerability Assessor.
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >         How does this look?
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >         Regards,
>             >
>             >         Dave
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >         *From:*sacm [mailto:[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             >         <mailto:[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>] *On Behalf Of *Adam Montville
>             >         *Sent:* Tuesday, May 09, 2017 3:30 PM
>             >         *To:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>             >         *Subject:* Re: [sacm] Hackathon Goals and Stretch
>             Goals
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >         All:
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >         This week Dave and I have had an opportunity to
>             discuss these a
>             >         bit further. We've come up with the following set
>             of goals and
>             >         outcomes:
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >         GOAL: Running code demonstrating the communication
>             needs between
>             >         identified components as they pertain to the
>             on-request
>             >         collection case through the scenario, where that
>             case is
>             >         described
>             >         at
>             https://trac.ietf.org/trac/sacm/wiki/SacmVulnerabilityAssessmentScenario.
>             >         OUTCOME: We will have specific understanding of
>             components'
>             >         boundaries and the necessary information flows
>             (including
>             >         information being communicated) between them.
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >         GOAL: Leverage existing collected data in a data
>             repository.
>             >         OUTCOME: Demonstrate that previously collected
>             data can be
>             >         reused to support vulnerability assessment
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >         GOAL: Running code to extend that base case to
>             include a
>             >         mechanism capable of monitoring a given set of
>             endpoint
>             >         attributes for change. OUTCOME: We will have specific
>             >         understanding of additional architectural
>             considerations for
>             >         handling monitoring vs. on-request collection, as
>             well as any
>             >         additional information flows required.
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >         Does anyone care to bash these goal-ouctome pairs
>             in the context
>             >         of our hackathon plans?  If so, please do so over
>             the next day
>             >         or two, otherwise these will become the stated
>             goals for our
>             >         hackathon.
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >         Kind regards,
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >         Adam
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >         On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 4:40 PM Adam Montville
>             >         <[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             <mailto:[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>             >         wrote:
>             >
>             >             All:
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >             Last week Dave sent a list of milestones to
>             the list. The
>             >             first of which was for the WG to define some
>             goals for the
>             >             IETF 99 hackathon. I can see at least one
>             primary goal with
>             >             at least one stretch goal. The primary goal is
>             to have
>             >             running code demonstrating the basic/ideal
>             case through our
>             >             vulnerability scenario, where a new
>             vulnerability is
>             >             discovered and we need to reach out all the
>             way to the
>             >             endpoint to determine whether it is in fact
>             vulnerable. A
>             >             stretch goal might be to have running code
>             demonstrating a
>             >             "monitor for this vulnerability from now on"
>             capability (I'm
>             >             sure I'm not stating that as well as I could).
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >             Does anyone have additional goals? Or, are
>             there better ways
>             >             to state these particular goals (there
>             probably are)?
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >             Kind regards,
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >             Adam
>             >
>             >     _______________________________________________
>             >     sacm mailing list
>             >     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>             >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             > _______________________________________________
>             > sacm mailing list
>             > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm
>             >
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             sacm mailing list
>             [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm____
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         sacm mailing list
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm____
>
>     __ __
>