Re: [Smart] Draft Charter For SMART Proposed RG

Bret Jordan <> Fri, 28 September 2018 22:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B50212F1AC for <>; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 15:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uLnKdPVE_fZ0 for <>; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 15:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC648127148 for <>; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 15:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id e201-v6so3330284ywa.3 for <>; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 15:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=BIXcjGnpB+Ywd8y0EcgGX8c13PxxUybxEhWuNQHXKDo=; b=ls/AlHmDK4SphNdAMjlCR9CBfzyoavjMnOJWJvKqRhTA1d9aHgg8XKaJzqUS3tYxcq PFPmC3L0ch5bOsKrRld8kiXnsvJSJ1MBb4YAU1RLlMuoRDMgnSsW1+8lJput+nrnLjY4 OkbZCKRiu2xWdLeTDf+t/7TYhxFptspQ+OsGeJMz1ZXQyizFYi4pCKBsL7QlkD7cMQf4 WSuMUsUT7rSbfRf/5750O7Naxg/zUFPtbvTGgk42zBuOUOZn0EaPKaW0C+3n3JQXiq78 W8SFdAppzzaO1SEPfkxvJdYKhm7zIfMfdFctFYUYpEUz8KBYaxgs2/TdTlI+hQumHhFx fLHQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=BIXcjGnpB+Ywd8y0EcgGX8c13PxxUybxEhWuNQHXKDo=; b=XbjAL0Co5sQcFIB3KfkFWo/sWHZhsF0K+Zn6cPxiYenSP/79FoR/jzVrSdf3I7p+lA xYkW68kUjLWaUjfDT1A9b8Z3E/kK/9WOqec3MIIBBz2UPeuCY8SChfj+yAHV7NOvYQwG aLTqBrrlsPoGf4K642om/HdaJ7Ke14Splixm3+yfFJNOamHvpM1uwplvWWq9iKb+94nh wYPeXL5LDN40zwpNsHeqexq0sbZYa7heY/TQNyLKUhcc8zwl5a/tbf++9ibcll2tnYij jSrUmRMuWP4QvuHx4E+OXhNGm3FprYNYdDXc9iomSGntlVXcVS3AOZXjCeq9/S+TDNIm a8rg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfoj3uqys3DuTQ7fvzGLz11hYPu/p8EzbTaP3z62ZyuJjRkYq9rWr epBV+CmeMkP0mO1wJkbrWkU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV60gJGQnZYAkECnXrK0ZAtHTXCjJ+n9orAeBvAPPoeCkXRGAdHK67BKQAYqYa+iHoUbiYRMhng==
X-Received: by 2002:a81:8283:: with SMTP id s125-v6mr421576ywf.319.1538175588141; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 15:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2605:a601:3260:266:5d7b:d07e:94bf:2baa? ([2605:a601:3260:266:5d7b:d07e:94bf:2baa]) by with ESMTPSA id k2-v6sm2775986ywa.93.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 28 Sep 2018 15:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bret Jordan <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_469614C3-8C58-4927-9A13-D23D21BC8362"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 16:59:24 -0600
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: "David McGrew (mcgrew)" <>, "" <>, Kathleen Moriarty <>, "" <>
To: Stephen Farrell <>
References: <MMXP123MB0847E55749751AA12D26DBFAD7150@MMXP123MB0847.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Smart] Draft Charter For SMART Proposed RG
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Stopping Malware And Researching Threats <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 22:59:54 -0000


I respectfully disagree that cyber security is a widely-abused marketing term.  I do agree with you that the “Cloud”, “Hybrid-Cloud” etc are just fancy marketing terms..  If we need to sharpen our pencils to provide some definitions, then lets not argue about it, lets just do it. From my stance, Data Security, Information Security and Cyber Security are very different. 

PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447  F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050
"Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg."

> On Sep 28, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Stephen Farrell <> wrote:
> Hiya,
> On 28/09/18 23:21, Bret Jordan wrote:
>> I think the use of cyber security and cyber defense are well
>> understood in the market 
> I'm not sure "the market" is the target readership in this case,
> if what we're after is as-stated.
>> and I am personally okay with their use.
> I'm against the use of ill-defined and widely-abused marketing
> terms for things like this where rigour is better. The IETF and
> IRTF were, I think, wise to not go along with (ab)uses of the
> "cloud" term despite people then claiming that'd be a good plan.
> And I think the same applies here.
> Anyway, I'd suggest avoiding contentious terms, (the set of
> cyberblah terms are I think contentious in this context) and
> trying to be precise even if that consumes more words. (Those
> are cheap enough I think:-)
> Cheers,
> S.
>> Given the target audience of a lot of these work products, the use of
>> cyber* will be more wildly accepted than some of the other terms that
>> will just be found to be confusing.
>> Thanks, Bret PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447  F2C0 74F8
>> ACAE 7415 0050 "Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however,
>> the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg."
>>> On Sep 28, 2018, at 10:26 AM, David McGrew (mcgrew)
>>> <> wrote:
>>> Hi Kathleen,
>>> Please see inline:
>>> From: Kathleen Moriarty <
>>> <>> Date: Friday, September
>>> 28, 2018 at 12:04 PM To: mcgrew <
>>> <>> Cc:
>>> "
>>> <>"
>>> <
>>> <>>, "
>>> <>" < <>> 
>>> Subject: Re: [Smart] Draft Charter For SMART Proposed RG
>>>> Hi David,
>>>> Thank you very much for the detailed feedback.  I have limited
>>>> time at the moment, but was the one who helped remove the word
>>>> cyber from earlier versions of the charter in an effort to use
>>>> terms that are well understood.  Do you have a suggestion that
>>>> improves from attack defense, but doesn't include cyber?
>>> Not off the top of my head, but I agree with the need to use well
>>> defined terms, because we hope to engage multiple communities.
>>> Perhaps we would be better off defining exactly what we mean.  I
>>> had actually looked through RFC4949 for a reference, with no luck.
>>> Thanks
>>> David
>>>> Sorry for the top post on very helpful feedback (more on that
>>>> later from at least one of us).
>>>> Glad to see you engaged in the conversation!
>>>> Best regards, Kathleen
>>>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 11:49 AM David McGrew (mcgrew)
>>>> < <>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Kirsty and others,
>>>>> Thanks for doing this; I very much like the idea of forming an
>>>>> RG that addresses these issues.  An RG where protocol geeks can
>>>>> talk to the threat defense community would be goodness.
>>>>> Some detailed comments below.   Please don’t misinterpret
>>>>> these comments as being negative on the idea of the RG; the
>>>>> intent is to refine the charter.
>>>>> I like Stephen’s suggestions of making it an explicit goal to
>>>>> preserve privacy, and citing BCPs.
>>>>> More inline:
>>>>>> On Sep 26, 2018, at 9:36 AM, Kirsty P
>>>>>> <
>>>>>> <>> wrote:
>>>>>>> This is the draft charter for the Proposed Research Group:
>>>>>>> Stopping Malware and Researching Threats (SMART). Your
>>>>>>> thoughts and suggestions are very welcome - please post to
>>>>>>> the list with your comments! - and keep an eye out for a
>>>>>>> list of proposed research problems soon...
>>>>>>> # Stopping Malware and Researching Threats (SMART) Proposed
>>>>>>> RG - Draft Charter
>>>>>>> ## BACKGROUND
>>>>> The first paragraph below probably should precede the
>>>>> Background heading.   I suggest adding a background that
>>>>> outlines cybersecurity issues like the cost of data breaches
>>>>> and the high time-to-detection.
>>>>>>> The Stopping Malware and Researching Threats Research Group
>>>>>>> (or SMART RG) will investigate how cyber attack defence
>>>>>>> requirements can be met in a world of encrypted data.
>>>>> I suggest moving the “world of encrypted data” out of the
>>>>> intro sentence, and relegating it to somewhere further down.
>>>>> It’s important, but not the only consideration, and we
>>>>> don’t want to give people the false impression that the RG is
>>>>> about backdoors in crypto or other ulterior motives.  The
>>>>> following sentence would be a good opener.
>>>>>>> It will research the effects, both positive and negative,
>>>>>>> of existing, proposed and newly published protocols and
>>>>>>> Internet standards on attack defence.
>>>>> I suggest replacing “attack defense” with
>>>>> “cybersecurity” throughout, and defining cybersecurity as
>>>>> including the security of the information and the computers and
>>>>> communication systems.   My thinking here is that we should
>>>>> emphasize that SMART is considering the security aspects beyond
>>>>> just the communication security of the protocols.  It might be
>>>>> worth adding something about how endpoint system security is at
>>>>> least as important as protocol/communication security, as it
>>>>> doesn’t matter how wise one is about cryptography if the
>>>>> attacker can exfiltrate their keys.
>>>>> On “negative effects”, what we are most concerned with are
>>>>> negative externalities in an economic sense, that is,
>>>>> unintended costs or harm that people who design, implement,
>>>>> deploy, and operate protocols on the internet can cause to
>>>>> others.    It would be good to call this out in the charter.
>>>>> It is already best current practice to avoid negative
>>>>> externalities in the context of DoS attacks (RFC4732, say), and
>>>>> it would be healthy for the internet to have the RG consider
>>>>> externalities around other types of threats.  For instance, the
>>>>> interaction between IP blacklisting and Tor, as presented by
>>>>> Singh et. al. at ANRW 18
>>>>> (
>>>>> <>)
>>>>> deserves more discussion.
>>>>>>> It will gather evidence from information security
>>>>>>> practitioners on methods used to defend against attacks and
>>>>>>> make this available to protocol designers. As a result,
>>>>>>> designers, implementers and users of new protocols will be
>>>>>>> better informed about the possible impact on attack
>>>>>>> prevention and mitigation.
>>>>> I suggest using “protocol designers, implementers, and
>>>>> users” throughout, instead of focusing on protocol designers.
>>>>> Also, it might be good to think even more broadly here, because
>>>>> what network and server operators do (or don’t do) can have
>>>>> important effects (e.g. spoofing due to the lack of ingress
>>>>> filtering, and vulnerable servers used to launch attacks).
>>>>>>> The IRTF is in a unique position to provide this research
>>>>>>> and evidence to the IETF.
>>>>> It’s a good idea to focus on research and evidence,
>>>>> especially around malicious activity observed on the internet
>>>>> or network behaviors seen in malware sandboxes, honeypots, etc.
>>>>>>> This research group aims to describe the effect of protocol
>>>>>>> changes where relevant and stimulate methodical research
>>>>>>> into attack defence methods for new protocols. Protocols
>>>>>>> are already rigorously assessed for their security
>>>>>>> properties, but ensuring attack defence methods are also
>>>>>>> rigorously assessed alongside protocol design changes would
>>>>>>> provide a fuller understanding of the value for such
>>>>>>> change, enabling a better engineered Internet.
>>>>> Instead of “attack defence methods” in the above, I suggest
>>>>> something like “impact on cybersecurity”.
>>>>>>> ## AIMS This research group has these major aims: To bring
>>>>>>> evidence on attacks and the methods that are or could be
>>>>>>> used to defend against them to the attention of the IETF.
>>>>> More generally, I think we would like to see research on
>>>>> malicious network behavior.
>>>>>>> To highlight the attack mitigation impact, both positive
>>>>>>> and negative, of new protocols and updates to existing
>>>>>>> protocols.
>>>>> Instead of “new protocols” I suggest “protocol design,
>>>>> deployment, and operation”.
>>>>>>> To stimulate and generate research into attack defence
>>>>>>> methods for new protocols, and to increase awareness in the
>>>>>>> technical community of new and existing methodology for
>>>>>>> detecting and mitigating attacks. To provide systematic
>>>>>>> guidance to designers of new protocols as to what attack
>>>>>>> defence considerations to review, and to inform
>>>>>>> implementers by default about the effects of new protocols
>>>>>>> on attack defence. To produce problem statements that
>>>>>>> describe key issues in cyber security for the group to
>>>>>>> research (initial research project ideas are listed
>>>>>>> below).
>>>>> I suggest putting the problem statements bullet right after the
>>>>> first bullet, as the RG should be presenting research findings
>>>>> first, then creating problem statements, then proposing
>>>>> solutions.
>>>>> I think “systematic guidance to designers of new protocols”
>>>>> is an ambitious goal.  It would be nice to have the goal
>>>>> written in a way that it would be easier to make progress
>>>>> against.   It can be difficult for an RG to make timely
>>>>> progress, so from the point of view of the process and the IRTF
>>>>> chairs and the RG chairs, it would be nice to have some more
>>>>> modest or intermediary goals against which headway could be
>>>>> made.
>>>>> I would like to see a goal like “To stimulate and generate
>>>>> research on network protocols and practices that minimize
>>>>> impact on third parties” or something like that.
>>>>>>> ## OUTPUTS The research group plans to create documents
>>>>>>> that may include, but are not limited to, the following: 
>>>>>>> Internet drafts, some of which may be published through
>>>>>>> the IRTF RFC stream. These will include outline problem
>>>>>>> statements, use cases, case studies and convey research
>>>>>>> results. They will be written for use by other groups to
>>>>>>> inform protocol design.
>>>>> A nit: we also want drafts whose intended audience are just the
>>>>> RG members.   Also, I think it best to say “design,
>>>>> deployment, and use”.
>>>>>>> Policy papers, for in-depth analysis and discussion of the
>>>>>>> relationship between attack defence and the Internet
>>>>>>> architecture and protocols. Research papers, containing
>>>>>>> quantitative evidence of actual attacks and the success of
>>>>>>> defence methods against them, as well as theoretical and
>>>>>>> formal analyses of the implications of proposed protocols
>>>>>>> on attack defence. Defence methods will be analyzed to
>>>>>>> determine if there are ways to optimize in order to better
>>>>>>> scale attack detection and mitigation. Survey of current
>>>>>>> and historic IETF material to discover existing
>>>>>>> deliberations on attack defence. Best practice papers,
>>>>>>> describing methodologies that will enable researchers to
>>>>>>> conduct experiments and report results that are useful to
>>>>>>> designers of protocols. These methodologies will give
>>>>>>> descriptions of the effects of protocols on attack defence
>>>>>>> backed by evidence from real-world attacks,
>>>>>>> laboratory-based testing and theoretical analysis of
>>>>>>> protocols, through the analysis lens of attacks, detection
>>>>>>> methods and systematic assessment methodologies.
>>>>> It is not clear how the papers would relate to the drafts and
>>>>> the RFCs.   It is probably best to say that the RG will invite
>>>>> presentations and discussions of research, policy, and survey
>>>>> papers published elsewhere.   That would help to bring
>>>>> researchers and their results into the RG, while still allowing
>>>>> them to publish in peer-reviewed venues.
>>>>> I suggest having a goal like “Promoting communication between
>>>>> the IETF community and the cyber threat defense community,
>>>>> through discussions online and in regular meetings”.
>>>>>>> Within the first year, the research group aims to: Survey
>>>>>>> existing attack detection methods and determine
>>>>>>> the relative effectiveness of these methods against
>>>>>>> different attack defence threats (e.g. phishing, DDoS,
>>>>>>> spambots, C&C, endpoint malware) Publish case studies of
>>>>>>> historical attacks and make recommendations where attacks
>>>>>>> could have been stopped more quickly, or even prevented 
>>>>>>> Publish an Informational RFC, titled: "Important Attack
>>>>>>> Defence Considerations for Protocol Design and
>>>>>>> Deployment".
>>>>>>> ## MEMBERSHIP Membership is open to any interested parties
>>>>>>> who intend to remain current with the published documents
>>>>>>> and mailing list issues. Wide participation from industry,
>>>>>>> academia, government and non-profits is encouraged.
>>>>> This is really good, thanks again for taking the initiative
>>>>> with this.
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> David
>>>>>>> This information is exempt under the Freedom of Information
>>>>>>> Act 2000 (FOIA) and may be exempt under other UK
>>>>>>> information legislation. Refer any FOIA queries to
>>>>>>> <>--
>>>>>>> Smart mailing list <> 
>>>>>>> <>
>>>>> -- Smart mailing list <> 
>>>>> <>
>>>> --
>>>> Best regards, Kathleen
>>> -- Smart mailing list 
> <0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>