Re: [scap_interest] Operational Aspects

"Waltermire, David A." <> Thu, 16 February 2012 19:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7298021F8566 for <>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:02:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.154
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.154 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.309, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j8bXPuXHz0Iy for <>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:02:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AFF321F8552 for <>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:02:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:01:47 -0500
Received: from ([fe80::d479:3188:aec0:cb66]) by ([]) with mapi; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:02:05 -0500
From: "Waltermire, David A." <>
To: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:02:04 -0500
Thread-Topic: [scap_interest] Operational Aspects
Thread-Index: Aczs204LFubBjEhLRMKT19y1f00XdgAAOBMg
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D7A0423E5E193F40BE6E94126930C4930906BF334FMBCLUSTERxcha_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [scap_interest] Operational Aspects
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion List for IETFers interested in the Security Content Automation Protocol \(SCAP\)." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:02:12 -0000

We are continuing to work on this and I am very interested in developing standards in this area.  I am currently working on developing an open source prototype that can be used to evaluate standardized approaches to this problem.  I haven't published the latest code on this yet, but the original work we started can be found at:

The companion presentation to Kent's from March can be found here:


From: [] On Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: [scap_interest] Operational Aspects

I see the topic of Content Repository interfaces as very important item that really should be worked here.  We have been talking about this topic for over two years now as you both are aware.  I am including the presentation that was given at SCAP Winter Developer Days last March that may help frame the issues.

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

From: Luis Nunez <<>>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:54:21 -0600
To: Adam Montville <<>>
Cc: Kent Landfield <<>>, "<>" <<>>
Subject: Re: [scap_interest] Operational Aspects

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.

-IT Security Database


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

Fair enough.  Just throwing things against the wall as they come to mind.
From: kent_landfield <<><><>>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:32:38 -0600
To: Adam Montville <<><><>>, <<><><>>
Subject: Re: [scap_interest] Operational Aspects
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...
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
From: Adam Montville <<><><>>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:12:51 -0600
To: "<><><>" <<><><>>
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?
Adam W. Montville | Security and Compliance Architect
Direct: 503 276-7661
Mobile: 360 471-7815
scap_interest mailing list<><>
scap_interest mailing list<>

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG -<>
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4813 - Release Date: 02/16/12