Definition of the ROLIE Vulnerability Extension
draft-ietf-mile-rolie-vuln-00
MILE Working Group S. Banghart
Internet-Draft NIST
Intended status: Informational March 28, 2019
Expires: September 29, 2019
Definition of the ROLIE Vulnerability Extension
draft-ietf-mile-rolie-vuln-00
Abstract
This document extends the Resource-Oriented Lightweight Information
Exchange (ROLIE) core to add the information type categories and
related requirements needed to support Vulnerability use cases.
Additional categories, properties, and requirements based on content
type enables a higher level of interoperability between ROLIE
implementations, and richer metadata for ROLIE consumers. In
particular, usage of the Common Vulnerability Enumeration (CVE) [cve]
format and the draft Vulnerability Description Ontology (VDO) [vdo]
are discussed.
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 https://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 September 29, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
(https://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
Banghart Expires September 29, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ROLIE Vuln March 2019
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. The "vulnerability" information type . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Data Format Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. CVE Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1.2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. VDO Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.2. Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Use of the atom:link element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Link relations for the 'vulnerability'
information-type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. information-type registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1.1. vulnerability information-type . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. rolie:property name registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
Vulnerability data is used in a wide variety of security use cases.
Researchers, CSIRTs, enterprises, software vendors, and consumers all
have a need to communicate about computer vulnerabilities. Today, a
number of formats are used to describe these vulnerabilities, some of
them are standardized, some of them are proprietary, and some of them
are as rudimentary as a vaguely descriptive email message.
This extension does not attempt to solve the vulnerability data
format issue, this work is being done across standards groups and
industry consortiums. Instead, this extension serves to address the
problem of sharing these data formats to downstream consumers in a
automated and efficient fashion.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST," "MUST NOT," "REQUIRED," "SHALL," "SHALL NOT,"
"SHOULD," "SHOULD NOT," "RECOMMENDED," "MAY," and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Banghart Expires September 29, 2019 [Page 2]
Show full document text