Re: [scap_interest] Just throwing this out there: Compliance Frameworks

Luis Nunez <lnunez@c3isecurity.com> Tue, 14 February 2012 21:16 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 A641D21F8663 for <scap_interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:16:32 -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 U4Bsonnlg67a for <scap_interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:16:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1BCA21F8617 for <scap_interest@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:16:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by yhkk25 with SMTP id k25so351005yhk.31 for <scap_interest@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:16:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.236.200.230 with SMTP id z66mr30044960yhn.20.1329254191409; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:16:31 -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 21sm1387365anv.10.2012.02.14.13.16.30 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:16:31 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: Luis Nunez <lnunez@c3isecurity.com>
In-Reply-To: <CB600D8F.9218%amontville@tripwire.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:16:30 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8F587404-FBC7-445A-B5D3-2DB5511424C2@c3isecurity.com>
References: <CB600D8F.9218%amontville@tripwire.com>
To: Adam Montville <amontville@tripwire.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmVkmL7AH83eXzbWK9OhAr3wLo1NHyH73qQbRWUwzKXgXHgCF9EKNTLLRGo0tJiTNVCI6d/
Cc: "scap_interest@ietf.org" <scap_interest@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [scap_interest] Just throwing this out there: Compliance Frameworks
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: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:16:32 -0000

Another reference point is the Cloud Control Matrix.  They did a excellent job of mapping many of the regulatories into a common set.
Coming out the Cloud Security Alliance it looks like it is gear towards Cloud environments.  Wondering if it could be leveraged in any environments. 

Link: https://cloudsecurityalliance.org/research/ccm/

-ln


On Feb 14, 2012, at 4:09 PM, Adam Montville wrote:

> All,
> 
> I had a brief discussion with several members of this list with respect to compliance frameworks, which met some resistance.  Still, I think presenting the idea to a larger audience to solicit feedback is a good idea.
> 
> From an automation perspective, it seems that some method of being able to map benchmark-level tests to some higher level policy representation may be warranted.  At the end of the day, we perform assessments to ensure that we are in a secure state – to be compliant with a particular set of policies.
> 
> Is there any interest in being able to represent a compliance framework with either a new specification or potentially revitalizing and extending an existing specification (CCI: http://iase.disa.mil/stigs/cci.html), or to simply rely upon any existing commercial efforts, such as UCF (https://www.unifiedcompliance.com)?
> 
> Or, is this type of representation simply not needed – there's enough there, the present demand doesn't justify the work, or something else?
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Adam W. Montville | Security and Compliance Architect
> 
> Direct: 503 276-7661
> Mobile: 360 471-7815
> 
> TRIPWIRE | Take CONTROL
> http://www.tripwire.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> scap_interest mailing list
> scap_interest@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scap_interest