Re: [scap_interest] Operational Aspects

Luis Nunez <lnunez@c3isecurity.com> Thu, 16 February 2012 17:54 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 4127821F887A for <scap_interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:54:34 -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 52H95zKH0B4Z for <scap_interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:54:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C239821F8817 for <scap_interest@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:54:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so1610373ghb.31 for <scap_interest@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:54:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.101.149.16 with SMTP id b16mr1466154ano.41.1329414863014; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:54:23 -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 a38sm10810794ana.17.2012.02.16.09.54.21 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:54:22 -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: <CB601365.9241%amontville@tripwire.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:54:21 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <27F65864-3773-40C9-BB6F-8909CB0E94AD@c3isecurity.com>
References: <CB601365.9241%amontville@tripwire.com>
To: Adam Montville <amontville@tripwire.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnnoI8Sqi3MSNQXtQKCUb/dzvnM5bE1QkovKldesyatOYS4/JHM2KNo25ze2CcRzmv5z4yQ
Cc: "scap_interest@ietf.org" <scap_interest@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [scap_interest] Operational Aspects
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: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:54:34 -0000

Since you mentioned "NVD" also known as the National Vulnerability Database.  I think at some point the IETF will be helpful in creating a protocol to communicate with these content repositories.  Last I counted was 7 content repositories.
In no particular order and I am sure there are more out there.

-SecPod
-Novell
-NVD
-IT Security Database
-Debian 
-Altx-soft

-ln

  
On Feb 14, 2012, at 5:18 PM, Adam Montville wrote:

> Fair enough.  Just throwing things against the wall as they come to mind.
> 
> Adam
> 
> From: kent_landfield <kent_landfield@mcafee.com<mailto:kent_landfield@mcafee.com>>
> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:32:38 -0600
> To: Adam Montville <amontville@tripwire.com<mailto:amontville@tripwire.com>>, <scap_interest@ietf.org<mailto:scap_interest@ietf.org>>
> Subject: Re: [scap_interest] Operational Aspects
> 
> Adam,
> 
> We have more than enough on our plate with the specification / I-D work.  Let's see if we can deal with this in a more appropriate forum. I do not see this as that forum.  My 2cents…
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Kent Landfield
> Director Content Strategy, Architecture and Standards
> 
> McAfee | An Intel Company
> 5000 Headquarters Dr.
> Plano, Texas 75024
> 
> Direct: +1.972.963.7096
> Mobile: +1.817.637.8026
> Web: www.mcafee.com<http://www.mcafee.com/>
> 
> From: Adam Montville <amontville@tripwire.com<mailto:amontville@tripwire.com>>
> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:12:51 -0600
> To: "scap_interest@ietf.org<mailto:scap_interest@ietf.org>" <scap_interest@ietf.org<mailto:scap_interest@ietf.org>>
> Subject: [scap_interest] Operational Aspects
> 
> While we're all bantering about on security automation, there's another side to the story.  Are there any operational concerns we might address within a WG should one be formed?  For example, we have, in the United States, NVD hosting a repository of information.  CCE identifiers are moderated and assigned by an operational process.  As new enumerations are published and new types of content are conceived, it's easy to imagine the need for some operational standardization.
> 
> Should we consider standardizing some of these processes, and if so would the WG we seek to establish be the appropriate place for that work?
> 
> 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<mailto:scap_interest@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scap_interest
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> scap_interest mailing list
> scap_interest@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scap_interest