Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-eman-energy-monitoring-mib-10.txt
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Tue, 01 July 2014 11:14 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79A931A004B; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 04:14:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.151
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.151 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3t6sKfsQz5E7; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 04:14:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38C7B1A003A; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 04:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12714; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1404213275; x=1405422875; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=hSOB9kb6Js931Ujogno4BUThjp+nqZD7EhZNuF96O74=; b=Uu+GJU5Lk9vaCAoMAsn9brMQj0ZXLlWHn1RcMOITXwcACFpy75u1KdY9 g8JxmCLQUE3ggnac/iUQq/xgRjMSMwUza8kh2xb+pGj9+qpWncS4GRbX9 oG6ciUowpUaURXPpBYbWbb7ZbDci+6gSI9pNIOjvg8iKGRy1LsOFogy/e w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: An8FABSXslOtJssW/2dsb2JhbABag1+JI6JoAQEBAQEFAW4BkhIBhnBTAYEgdYQDAQEBAwEBAQFrCgEQCw4KCRYPCQMCAQIBFTAGAQwBBQIBAYg2CA3IBBeFb4N0hG5OB4RDAQSaZYFIhUGMeoNEOy8
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.01,581,1400025600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="97438332"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Jul 2014 11:14:32 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.87] (ams-bclaise-8916.cisco.com [10.60.67.87]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s61BEVHZ030234; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 11:14:31 GMT
Message-ID: <53B29817.3090905@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 13:14:31 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>, Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
References: <21421.29586.427961.926637@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi> <C7D3BE6A-8690-4A05-875A-0E0B85DEE839@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <C7D3BE6A-8690-4A05-875A-0E0B85DEE839@comcast.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020000070409000204020306"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/EMHNwTlqazS4z1hwx6V_lg7lhCs
Cc: secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-eman-energy-monitoring-mib.all@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-eman-energy-monitoring-mib-10.txt
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 11:14:38 -0000
Hi David, Tero, Thanks for your review. We will post a new draft version with this boilerplate at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security We will also correct "theeoPowerAdminState" Finally, wrt your comment: The formatting of the draft was bit wierd in places (extra ^L in the middle of page etc), but I assume those will be fixed by the RFC editor. This is one of those legacy draft published with word :-) Regards, Benoit > Hi, > > comments inline. > > dbh > > On Jun 27, 2014, at 9:37 AM, Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi> wrote: > >> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's >> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the >> IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the >> security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat >> these comments just like any other last call comments >> >> This document describes the MIB for energy monitoring. It has mostly >> read only information about the current energy use etc, but it also >> have one important writable attribute eoPowerAdminState which can be >> used to change the power state of the device (shut it down?). The MIB >> also have second part which can be used to create notifications and >> intervals for enery usage. >> >> Both of these are pointed out in the security consideations section >> and the security considerations section mostly follows the MIB >> security guidelines text, but differs in one paragraph. The text in >> draft says: >> >> It is RECOMMENDED that implementers consider the security >> features as provided by the SNMPv3 framework (see [RFC3410], >> section 8), including full support for the SNMPv3 cryptographic >> mechanisms (for authentication and privacy). > These are the old guidelines. > >> Where the guidelines text says: >> >> Implementations SHOULD provide the security features described >> by the SNMPv3 framework (see [RFC3410]), and implementations >> claiming compliance to the SNMPv3 standard MUST include full >> support for authentication and privacy via the User-based >> Security Model (USM) [RFC3414] with the AES cipher algorithm >> [RFC3826]. Implementations MAY also provide support for the >> Transport Security Model (TSM) [RFC5591] in combination with a >> secure transport such as SSH [RFC5592] or TLS/DTLS [RFC6353]. >> >> Asking implementors to consider security features is something that >> cannot be verified, i.e. there is no way I can see whether the >> implementor x actually even considered the security features or not, >> thus making RECOMMENDATION to consider security feature is just >> stupid. > Yeah, but it’s the best that could be negotiated at that point in time. > >> The guidelines text instead makes SHOULD for providing >> security. >> >> Why is this text changed from the mib-security framework >> (http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security). > The document was probably based on an older mib document. > It MIGHT have been based on the templates on the tools page before I got them updated. > > The document should be updated to the new boilerplate. > >> Also I think the security considerations section should mention that >> almost all of the MIB items do have privacy issues, as for example >> reading the power usage of the home TV/PC/game console/washing machine >> will give indication whether person is at home, and what he might be >> doing. Thus the first paragraph saying "Some objects may be considered >> sensitive", I would say most of the objects are sensitive in most >> environments. > without changing the boilerplate, of course … > >> Actually it seems to bit dangerous to have mostly read-only >> information in MIB where the only read-write item is the very security >> sensitive object which can be used to turn the devices off. Especially >> when the MIB name is Power and Energy MONITORING MIB. Casual operator >> might just check the MIB name and then notice there is lots of >> read-only information like "eoPowerNamePlate" or "eoPowerAccuracy", >> etc and just assume this is only for monitoring the power usage, and >> not notice that it also allows turning device on and off via one >> read-write value hidden among the read-only values. >> >> I would be more happy if that one read-write value would be moved to >> separate MIB, but I do not know if there is better place for it. If it >> is not moved, then it would be better to change the title of the draft >> o say "Power and Energy Monitoring and Control MIB" or something >> similar which indicates more clearly that this MIB can be used to >> control devices. >> >> Nits: >> >> In section 11: >> >> - Unauthorized changes to the eoPowerOperState (via >> theeoPowerAdminState ) MAY disrupt the power settings of the >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> s/theeoPowerAdminState/the eoPowerAdminState/. >> >> The formatting of the draft was bit wierd in places (extra ^L in the >> middle of page etc), but I assume those will be fixed by the RFC >> editor. >> -- >> kivinen@iki.fi >> >> _______________________________________________ >> secdir mailing list >> secdir@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir >> wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview > . >
- [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-eman-energy-… Tero Kivinen
- Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-eman-ene… David Harrington
- Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-eman-ene… Benoit Claise
- Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-eman-ene… Benoit Claise
- Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-eman-ene… Benoit Claise