Re: [sacm] Hackathon Goals and Stretch Goals

[Adam Montville <[e-mail]>]

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]> 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]] *On Behalf Of *Adam Montville
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 09, 2017 3:30 PM
> *To:* [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]>
> 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
>
>