Re: [scap_interest] SCAP and RDF/RDFS/OWL

lnunez <lnunez@cisco.com> Mon, 13 December 2010 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <lnunez@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: scap_interest@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: scap_interest@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F2C228C0EB for <scap_interest@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 09:52:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.532
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GNFeSfrzxE1O for <scap_interest@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 09:52:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2A8128C0DF for <scap_interest@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 09:52:50 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AooIAIfsBU2tJXG9/2dsb2JhbACVXY4nAninY5sfhUoEhGSGFYMa
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,336,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="192500889"
Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Dec 2010 17:54:28 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com [72.163.62.201]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oBDHsRVt028710; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 17:54:27 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-107.cisco.com ([72.163.62.149]) by xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:54:27 -0600
Received: from 64.102.53.105 ([64.102.53.105]) by XMB-RCD-107.cisco.com ([72.163.62.149]) via Exchange Front-End Server email.cisco.com ([72.163.63.12]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 17:54:27 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.26.0.100708
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 12:54:24 -0500
From: lnunez <lnunez@cisco.com>
To: <scap_interest@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <C92BC800.14C2F%lnunez@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: SCAP and RDF/RDFS/OWL
Thread-Index: Acua7sbl7OZpTQK5DEyOWfoLGY+CKw==
In-Reply-To: <C3253A86E7C2944BAE83EC757AB6FD430412EAFA@dsci-exch01.dsci.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Dec 2010 17:54:27.0755 (UTC) FILETIME=[C9223FB0:01CB9AEE]
Cc: emerging-specs@nist.gov
Subject: Re: [scap_interest] SCAP and RDF/RDFS/OWL
X-BeenThere: scap_interest@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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/listinfo/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: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 17:52:52 -0000

Including scap_interest@ietf.org.
-ln


On 12/13/10 12:46 PM, "Vladimir Giszpenc" <vgiszpenc@dsci.com>; wrote:

> Hello SCAP fans,
> 
> This is probably more for the IETF mailing list, but I don't remember what
> that list is called and outlook is not suggesting
> anything.  Recently, I had the opportunity to learn a little bit about another
> standard for talking about security specifically for
> talking about access control.  The eXtensible Access Control Markup Language
> (XACML) has a lot of similar constructs to those found
> in SCAP (policies, rules, targets, etc).  I feel that we should have a XACML
> checking system at the least.
> 
> If we try to converge vocabularies, we could kind of meet in the middle by
> heading towards
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RIF_Working_Group for our Rules.  We could
> further leverage ISO/IEC 24707
> (http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=39175) instead of taking
> the logic from OVAL and moving it to XCCDF.  This
> would leverage already established vocabularies.
> 
> Note that neither XACML 2.0 nor 3.0 do the above.  I just think it is a
> possible place to meet in the middle in the future.
> 
> 
> Just a thought...
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Vlad
>