[Smart] CLESS Update

"Arnaud.Taddei.IETF" <Arnaud.Taddei.IETF@protonmail.com> Tue, 09 July 2019 16:31 UTC

Return-Path: <Arnaud.Taddei.IETF@protonmail.com>
X-Original-To: smart@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: smart@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8555A12017A for <smart@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 09:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_WORDY=2.261, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
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 JG5xoOQIe0ar for <smart@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 09:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail4.protonmail.ch (mail4.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D67BF1206FA for <smart@irtf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 09:31:24 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 16:31:18 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=default; t=1562689882; bh=Gb9sp05vEnrgQErqKdW7j62sgf2f5QS5y3L/P5NF3L4=; h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:Feedback-ID:From; b=D/4iNWWCqS9NapFEOg6xLNimuADVX+mXbFmZr0MBRZKfvkO3amjc9NR5G4ZHQih5j OAapCakDZVQ/KhB/d7N/56umPThC7pzLveGwxt0LR9vcmQ9MZfzMSrZ5MyDgXlB3qD JYTyqMpBvz80S+nEERv8GryQ4qr4zioLPWi5gkus=
To: "smart@irtf.org" <smart@irtf.org>
From: "Arnaud.Taddei.IETF" <Arnaud.Taddei.IETF@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: "Arnaud.Taddei.IETF" <Arnaud.Taddei.IETF@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <FF93MJ0HPcvp1Gn-0GvUYGvqh3u6bH-zxTSoxSXW2CoYUBPrFmWwWqo9x0Bu2rRrIqCIR5mibt9vlmrAcxBSjKvFTZiRvD623uDKjneOqho=@protonmail.com>
Feedback-ID: kou6vaSHQeY5dgFN9dCIYKo4z6hnnNmKuV4IBJw2wx4vSVPtftyhWUTBigri6zMJ3K1hxYJjI-3RAIGaizMt5g==:Ext:ProtonMail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="b1_46c01da8da1a1e745ad5add6a412f114"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/smart/NaV8QPtWFJWT2R2JYbpKEROzI9Y>
Subject: [Smart] CLESS Update
X-BeenThere: smart@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Stopping Malware And Researching Threats <smart.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/smart>, <mailto:smart-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/smart/>
List-Post: <mailto:smart@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:smart-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/smart>, <mailto:smart-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 16:31:34 -0000

Dear all, a quick update on CLESS,

As agreed in our open call on the 4th of June (see my email below from 8th of June), we worked and execute on our agreed program.
- Thank you to Marc who issued https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcfadden-smart-endpoint-taxonomy-for-cless/ this should help us to define uniformally a good attack surface
- I made changes in CLESS as a version 01 to reflect Marc's work
- I need to work with Simon Edwards now on the other I-D for the threat part
- I managed to get a side meeting for CLESS on the Thursday 25th of July at 10:00 see below please let me know
- I plan to do more work on CLESS which we will release on Monday 22nd when we are allowed
- I am happy to have contributors and reviewers to work on our google doc version (Let me know if interested)
- In particular I had an excellent call with David McGrew and hopefully we can codify his excellent work from his presentation in Prague
- I need to get Kevin to work with JJ on datasets
- I am actually surprised by CLESS traction outside of IETF and had to take calls with organizations who would like to have separate workshops with their teams
- I recently had an ultra dense 2 weeks trip in China for my other role and could see why CLESS matters in other areas I didn't think of

I hope this helps

Best Regards

Side meeting details

Date Requested:

Thursday 25th of July after 10am

Room Requested:

C2 (21st floor)

Time Requested:

10am

Point of Contact:

Arnaud Taddei Arnaud.Taddei.IETF@protonmail.com

Topic:
CLESS development coordination

Abstract:

The CLESS opened call of 4th of June agreed a number of actions to be taken. As nearly all the action points are in progress it requires more coordination for CLESS development and this side meeting will help in:

- Making a status on where we are on all the action points

- Take feedback from the team and an opportunity to influence directions for IETF 106

- Agree what we can realistically achieve by IETF 106

My email summarizing the open call of the 4th of June

As announced I proposed to have an open call to discuss the future of CLESS I-D and I prepared slides to support and facilitate this call, see attached (I will look to where to place them in repositories)

The highlights are as below
- 16 people registered and joined and another 9 couldn't make the call but expressed their interest.
- All the proposals were agreed in particular to detach section 5 - Endpoint Model in order to deliver a uniform Attack Surface definition across all endpoints and section 6 - Threat Landscape in order to come over the limits of the MITRE ATT&CK model as 2 separate I-Ds to support CLESS
- We found already one author for the first one as Mark MacFadden and one author for the second one as Simon Edwards and then offline some people asked to join one or the other work
- We discussed several actions (new sections, communication, new production data work, how to incorporate David McGrew's great set of examples on Human Rights attacks, or start an economic section, etc.)
- We believe it will give probably a significant framework for more researchers to join with their specific knowledge on specific 'cells' in the matrix (specific threat landscape
- We heard the shocking news on SMART and discussed for some time that we will seek guidance for how to continue this work in IETF or possibly outside and a few alternatives were expressed
- We (and I) have a number of followup actions as I need to continue specific consultations that are scheduled

So bottom line
- We had a good first call in a good atmosphere with a good group of people
- We are committed to continue
- We have a detailed plan
- We will have at minimum a side meeting in Montreal
- We will discuss our long term future at Montreal and look at ALL alternatives

Again THANK YOU ALL for your support, work and commitment

Hope this helps

Best Regards

Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.