Secure Automation and Continuous Monitoring (SACM) Requirements
draft-camwinget-sacm-requirements-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Nancy Cam-Winget | ||
| Last updated | 2013-10-14 | ||
| Stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | plain text xml htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-camwinget-sacm-requirements-00
SACM N. Cam-Winget
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Informational October 14, 2013
Expires: April 17, 2014
Secure Automation and Continuous Monitoring (SACM) Requirements
draft-camwinget-sacm-requirements-00
Abstract
This document defines the scope and set of requirements for the
Secure Automation and Continuous Monitoring working group. The
requirements and scope are based on the agreed upon use cases and
architecture defined.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 17, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Cam-Winget Expires April 17, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title October 2013
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3.1. Reference Architecture Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3.2. Data Model requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.3. Architectural Design Tenets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
Today's challenges of evolving threats and improved analytics to
address such threats highlight a need to automate the securing of
both information and the systems that store, process and trasmit the
information. SACM's charter focuses on addressing some of these
challenges in a narrower scope by bounding the task to address use
cases that pertain to the posture assessment of endpoints.
This document focuses on describing the requirements for facilitating
the exchange of posture assessment information, in particular, for
the use cases as exemplified in [I-D.ietf-sacm-use-cases].
2. Terminology
Currently defined in [I-D.dbh-sacm-terminology].
3. Requirements
As the group continues to define an architecture and use cases, some
requirements can already be formed. This section describes the
requirements used by the SACM WG to assess and compare candidate
information models and protocols to suit the architecture. These
requirements express characteristics or features that a candidate
protocol or data model must be capable of offering so as to ensure
security and interoperability.
3.1. Reference Architecture Model
Until a richer architecture is agreed upon, the requiremens are
predicated on the following model:
Cam-Winget Expires April 17, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title October 2013
+--------+ +-----------+ +---------------------+
| Asset | <....A....> | Evaluator | <....B....> | Assessment Consumer |
+--------+ +-----------+ +---------------------+
+-------| ^
+--------+ | | C
| Asset | <-----+ v
+--------+ +-------------+
| Repository |
+-------------+
Simple Architectural Model
The Architectural Model shown above demonstrates:
o Asset: is the endpoint of interest that is posture validated.
o Evaluator: is the service that affects the posture assessment and
stores the posture result into a repository.
o Repository: is the storage component bound to the Evaluator that
contains the posture assessment information.
o Assessment Consumer: is the service that requires the posture
assessments information of one or more assets.
Using this architectural reference model, the interfaces, data models
and transports used to affect the posture assessment, e.g. A in the
figure above have already been defined by NEA. As the focus of SACM
is the information exchange to obtain the posture assessment
information, it can be achieved through the interfaces shown as B.
That is, it is not clear that there is a requirement for the
Assessment Consumer to tap directly into the Repository. Similarly,
it is not clear that SACM is chartered to define the interfaces and
data model for how an Evaluator stores and transports the assessment
results to the Repository. Thus, the focus of the requirements will
revolve around the data models, protocols and transports for B, the
communication of posture assessment from an Evaluator to an
Assessment Consumer.
3.2. Data Model requirements
TBD.
3.3. Architectural Design Tenets
Cam-Winget Expires April 17, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title October 2013
The protocol requirements must account for different network topology
scenarios to ensure that the information can be (securely) routed.
With the focus of enabling the communication of posture assessment
information, different scenarios must also be accounted for to
address the use cases. The architectural model design tenets incude:
Discovery
To address the availability of posture assessment from different
Evaluators that may support different interface (or data model)
versions, a discovery mechanism may be introduced by which
Posture assement Evaluators and Consumers can be registered with
their capabilities (e.g. version support) clearly defined.
Many to Many
The architectural model for designing the security and transport
must account for a many-to-many connections. It is expected that
an Assessment Consumer may probe, request and consume Posture
assessment information from various Evaluators. Similarly,
Evaluators will be providing their Posture assessment information
to many Assessment Consumers.
Asynchronous updates or notifications
Assessment Consumers such as Firewalls or Intrusion Prevention
Systems will require realtime notifications especially of posture
assessment updates.">
Bulk Updates
Just as there is a need to recieve timely updates of Posture
Assessment information, there are applications where Assessment
Consumers will require full state information of an Evaluator's
Posture Assessment repository. As such, the repository may be
very large based on both the number of assets and historical
information stored by that Evaluator's Posture Assessment
Repository; e.g. bulk synchronization or updates will be
required.">
4. Security Requirements
This section describes security requirements as needed to address the
mechanisms that facilitate secure exchange of posture assessment
information.
Cam-Winget Expires April 17, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title October 2013
o Authentication: all services or entities that either provide or
consume the information must be authenticated to ensure that only
authorized entities can request or provide the posture assessment
information.
o Anti-replay: if the Assessment Consumer recieves the same exact
message twice (e.g. because an attacker has re-intected the
message), it must be detectable and the Assessment Consumer must
reject the replayed message.
o Confidentiality: it should not be possible for any entity other
than the targetted Assessment Consumer to read the message.
5. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Barbara Fraser, Jim Bieda and Adam
Montville for reviewing and contributing to this draft.
6. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
7. Security Considerations
Still to do.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.dbh-sacm-terminology]
Waltermire, D., Montville, A., and D. Harrington,
"Terminology for Security Assessment", draft-dbh-sacm-
terminology-00 (work in progress), August 2013.
[I-D.ietf-sacm-use-cases]
Waltermire, D. and D. Harrington, "Using Security Posture
Assessment to Grant Access to Enterprise Network
Resources", draft-ietf-sacm-use-cases-01 (work in
progress), September 2013.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
8.2. Informative References
Cam-Winget Expires April 17, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title October 2013
[RFC5209] Sangster, P., Khosravi, H., Mani, M., Narayan, K., and J.
Tardo, "Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA): Overview and
Requirements", RFC 5209, June 2008.
Author's Address
Nancy Cam-Winget
Cisco Systems
3550 Cisco Way
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Email: ncamwing@cisco.com
Cam-Winget Expires April 17, 2014 [Page 6]