Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-08

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 17 December 2014 09:33 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 1174B1A1EEF; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 01:33:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 P8ln_0e5bU9C; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 01:33:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F33681A6F56; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 01:33:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3531; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1418808786; x=1420018386; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pz+QeWyVtpipi5zmFuzhXMXp69GqPGsOSwlYEbdGJC4=; b=JyOfPKc6do5J3vZViO3j7t5Ko2ac8przMpownzRfMz2VPWIoGAALmsAN rXWU4ay5hTb1JtqD0BmO5MRleH+uW4XrBD455ef7iW6OPIsiVWJADhraM UW+ixnPQISNC2nim2lNwiTYKwnxvXgDy+hc/ukMfY8iFmi3xvS/uTKWyz g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAHJMkVStJssW/2dsb2JhbABag1hYxgGFbgKBMAEBAQEBfYQNAQEEODoGARALGAkWDwkDAgECAUUGAQwBBwEBiCgN1B0BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQETBI8kTgeEKQEEkUWFMoV5i0Aig209MAEBAYJAAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,592,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="277419785"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Dec 2014 09:33:03 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.84] (ams-bclaise-8913.cisco.com [10.60.67.84]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sBH9X3OH006899; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 09:33:03 GMT
Message-ID: <54914DCF.6080803@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 10:33:03 +0100
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement.all@ietf.org
References: <547A5E8E.1070002@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <547A5E8E.1070002@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/RtMedJfAiknJq-lXo01rZlkOse0
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-08
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: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 09:33:09 -0000

On 30/11/2014 01:02, Melinda Shore 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.
>
> Summary: Security considerations section is insufficient.  Otherwise
> the document is in pretty good shape (with nits).
>
> This document is essentially a set of use cases guiding the energy
> management's (eman) working group's work, as well as providing a
> description of the relationship of the IETF's eman's framework to
> other relevant energy monitoring standards.
>
> Of particular interest, perhaps, is that eman is using SNMP to convey
> energy device information.
>
> The use cases are very clearly described, and we're grateful for
> the "essential properties" breakout summaries ("target devices,"
> "how powered," and "reporting") at the bottom of each use case.
>
> All that said, I was extremely surprised to get to the "Security
> considerations" section and find that it consisted of but two
> generic sentences about SNMP.
Note that there is some text in the framework itself.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7326#section-10

Regards, Benoit
> We are all aware of issues related
> to the sensitivity of the electric grid, and powered devices,
> to security vulnerabilities and that this is a time of heightened
> scrutiny of how the grid is secured.  This necessarily extends to
> monitoring, and there is certainly a *lot* of information that
> may be gleaned by an attacker from monitoring power consumption,
> as well as manipulation of the grid by an attacker inserting
> bogus monitoring messages.
>
> There does not appear to have been any work done within the
> group on developing a threat model for energy monitoring, which
> strikes me as problematic.  However, even in the absence of an
> interest in developing one, a quick summary of the sorts of
> attacks that must be considered in the development and deployment
> of energy monitoring mechanisms strikes me as far, far, far
> more useful than a one-sentence rundown of generic security mechanisms
> provided by SNMPv3.
>
> Minor comments:
>
> 1) This is more by way of guidance, but it should be noted that
>     while the information model may be portable to YANG, netconf,
>     and others, the security models and technologies used to secure
>     those protocols may be (and are) different, and security
>     properties need to be given serious consideration before
>     moving the information model to another conveyance.
>
> 2) the I-D nit checker found a number of problems in the references,
>     as well as a few other problems.
> https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-08.txt
>
> Trivial nits:
>
> 1) In section 1.2, the document name/reference should be separated
>     from the document description by a colon and space
>
> 2) In that same section there's a stray period at the very bottom of
>     page 4
>
> 3) Section 2, first paragraph:  "This section a presents energy
>     management scenarios [ ... ]".  That 'a' (third word) needs to be
>     removed.
>
> 4) For some reason the section header for section 2.8 does not appear
>     bolded, while those for other subsections do.
>
>
> Melinda
> .
>