IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [scap_interest] Security automation and MILE

Luis Nunez <lnunez@c3isecurity.com> Fri, 17 February 2012 17:55 UTC

Return-Path: <lnunez@c3isecurity.com>
X-Original-To: scap_interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: scap_interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BE4D21F85BD; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:55:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ljvgEE7IF2wL; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:55:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC3FF21F85BB; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:55:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ggnq2 with SMTP id q2so2223527ggn.31 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:55:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.236.175.36 with SMTP id y24mr10721300yhl.64.1329501302166; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:55:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.1.103] (cpe-066-057-025-190.nc.res.rr.com. [66.57.25.190]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g12sm15901161ana.2.2012.02.17.09.55.00 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:55:00 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Luis Nunez <lnunez@c3isecurity.com>
In-Reply-To: <AE31510960917D478171C79369B660FA0E2F547B48@MX06A.corp.emc.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:54:59 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F80AF067-F96C-485E-AD78-C03F154DE457@c3isecurity.com>
References: <AE31510960917D478171C79369B660FA0E2F547B48@MX06A.corp.emc.com>
To: "kathleen.moriarty@emc.com>" <kathleen.moriarty@emc.com>, nea@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlOuccvzknyar0zlqU11mrHuv1s53S46XkRYZq2uzqYP32tlfI/cuvV7j9Vyc78nEelwnX2
Cc: scap_interest@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [scap_interest] Security automation and MILE
X-BeenThere: scap_interest@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion List for IETFers interested in the Security Content Automation Protocol \(SCAP\)." <scap_interest.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/scap_interest>, <mailto:scap_interest-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/scap_interest>
List-Post: <mailto:scap_interest@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:scap_interest-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scap_interest>, <mailto:scap_interest-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:55:03 -0000

Along the lines of what Kathleen is doing.  I was wondering what are the Security Automation (SCAP) connections with NEA?

From an endpoint assessment, SCAP is a natural fit.  Are there transport specifications that a SCAP client could leverage to converse beyond a NEA server? 

thanks.

-ln

On Feb 14, 2012, at 9:47 AM, <kathleen.moriarty@emc.com> <kathleen.moriarty@emc.com> wrote:

> Greetings,
> 
> In support of this effort, I plan to write and submit a draft very soon to show the relevance of this work to the IETF work in MILE.  The Structured Cybersecurity Information draft that extends IODEF is a very clear connection.  The GRC-Exchange work is another connection point.  Once I have it posted, I will share the link to this mailing list.
> 
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> scap_interest mailing list
> scap_interest@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scap_interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email