Security Policy Translation in Interface to Network Security Functions
draft-yang-i2nsf-security-policy-translation-02
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Jinhyuk Yang , Jaehoon Paul Jeong , Jinyong Tim Kim | ||
| Last updated | 2018-10-22 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| 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-yang-i2nsf-security-policy-translation-02
I2NSF Working Group J. Yang
Internet-Draft J. Jeong
Intended status: Standards Track J. Kim
Expires: April 25, 2019 Sungkyunkwan University
October 22, 2018
Security Policy Translation in Interface to Network Security Functions
draft-yang-i2nsf-security-policy-translation-02
Abstract
This document proposes a scheme of security policy translation (i.e.,
Security Policy Translator) in Interface to Network Security
Functions (I2NSF) Framework. When I2NSF User delivers a high-level
security policy for a security service, Security Policy Translator in
Security Controller translates it into a low-level security policy
for Network Security Functions (NSFs).
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 April 25, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Yang, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Security Policy Translation October 2018
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Necessity for Policy Translator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Design of Policy Translator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Overall Structure of Policy Translator . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. DFA-based Data Extractor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.1. Design of DFA-based Data Extractor . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.2. Example Scenario for Data Extractor . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Data Converter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.1. Role of Data Converter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.2. Data Conversion in Data Converter . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3.3. Policy Provisioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. CFG-based Policy Generator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4.1. Content Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4.2. Structure Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4.3. Generator Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Features of Policy Translator Design . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix A. Changes from draft-yang-i2nsf-security-policy-
translation-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction
This document defines a scheme of a security policy translation in
Interface to Network Security Functions (I2NSF) Framework [RFC8329].
First of all, this document explains the necessity of a security
policy translator (shortly called policy translator) in the I2NSF
framework.
The policy translator resides in Security Controller in the I2NSF
framework and translates a high-level security policy to a low-level
security policy for Network Security Functions (NSFs). A high-level
policy is specified by I2NSF User in the I2NSF framework and is
delivered to Security Controller via Consumer-Facing Interface
[consumer-facing-inf]. It is translated into a low-level policy by
Policy Translator in Security Controller and is delivered to NSFs to
execute the rules corresponding to the low-level policy via NSF-
Facing Interface [nsf-facing-inf].
Yang, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Security Policy Translation October 2018
2. Terminology
This document uses the terminology specified in [i2nsf-terminology]
[RFC8329].
3. Necessity for Policy Translator
Security Controller acts as a coordinator between I2NSF User and
NSFs. Also, Security Controller has capability information of NSFs
that are registered via Registration Interface [registration-inf] by
Developer's Management System [RFC8329]. As a coordinator, Security
Controller needs to generate a low-level policy in the form of
security rules intended by the high-level policy, which can be
understood by the corresponding NSFs.
A high-level security policy is specified by RESTCONF/YANG
[RFC8040][RFC6020], and a low-level security policy is specified by
NETCONF/YANG [RFC6241][RFC6020]. The translation from a high-level
security policy to the corresponding low-level security policy will
be able to rapidly elevate I2NSF in real-world deployment. A rule in
a high-level policy can include a broad target object, such as
employees in a company for a security service (e.g., firewall and web
filter). Such employees may be from human resource (HR) department,
software engineering department, and advertisement department. A
keyword of employee needs to be mapped to these employees from
various departments. This mapping needs to be handled by a policy
translator in a flexible way while understanding the intention of a
policy specification. Let us consider the following two policies:
o Block my son's computers from malicious websites.
o Drop packets from the IP address 10.0.0.1 and 10.0.0.3 to harm.com
and illegal.com
The above two sentences are examples of policies for blocking
malicious websites. Both policies are for the same operation.
However, NSF cannot understand the first policy, because the policy
does not have any specified information for NSF. To set up the
policy at an NSF, the NSF MUST receive at least the source IP address
and website address for an operation. It means that the first
sentence is NOT compatible for an NSF policy. Conversely, when I2NSF
users request a security policy to the system, they never make a
security policy like the second example. For generating a security
policy like the second sentence, the user MUST know that the NSF
needs to receive the specified information, source IP address and
website address. It means that the user understands the NSF
professionally, but there are not many professional users in a small
size of company or at a residential area. In conclusion, the I2NSF
Yang, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Security Policy Translation October 2018
user prefers to issue a security policy in the first sentence, but an
NSF will require the same policy as the second sentence with specific
information. Therefore, an advanced translation scheme of security
policy is REQUIRED in I2NSF.
This document proposes an approach using Automata theory [Automata]
for the policy tranlation, such as Deterministic Finite Automaton
(DFA) and Context-Free Grammar (CFG). Note that Automata theory is
the foundation of programming language and compiler. Thus, with this
approach, I2NSF User can easily specify a high-level security policy
that will be enforced into the corresponding NSFs with a compatibly
low-level security policy with the help of Policy Translator. Also,
for easy management, a modularized translator structure is proposed.
4. Design of Policy Translator
Common security policies are created by Extensible Markup Language
(XML) [XML] files. A popular way to change the format of an XML file
is to use an Extensible Stylesheet Language Transformation (XSLT)
[XSLT] document. XSLT is an XML-based language to transform an input
XML file into another output XML file. However, the use of XSLT
makes it difficult to manage the policy translator and to handle the
registration of new capabilities of NSFs. With the necessity for a
policy translator, this document describes a policy translator based
on Automata theory [Automata].
4.1. Overall Structure of Policy Translator
Yang, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Security Policy Translation October 2018
High-Level Policy
Security |
Controller V Consumer-Facing Interface
+------------------------+-------------------------+
| Policy | |
| Translator | |
| +---------------------+----------------------+ |
| | | | |
| | +-------+--------+ | |
| | | DFA-based | | |
| | | Data Extractor | | |
| | +-------+--------+ | |
| | | Extracted Data from | |
| | V High-Level Policy | |
| | +-----+-----+ +--------+ | |
| | | Data | <-> | NSF DB | | |
| | | Converter | +--------+ | |
| | +-----+-----+ | |
| | | Required Data for | |
| | V Target NSFs | |
| | +--------+---------+ | |
| | | CFG-based | | |
| | | Policy Generator | | |
| | +--------+---------+ | |
| | | | |
| +---------------------+----------------------+ |
| | |
+------------------------+-------------------------+
| NSF-Facing Interface
V
Low-Level Policy
Figure 1: The Overall Design of Policy Translator
Figure 1 shows the overall design for Policy Translator in Security
Controller. There are three main components for Policy Translator:
Data Extractor, Data Converter, and Policy Generator.
Extractor is a DFA-based module for extracting data from a high-level
policy which I2NSF User delivered via Consumer-Facing Interface.
Data Converter converts the extracted data to the capabilities of
target NSFs for a low-level policy. It refers to NSF Database (DB)
in order to convert an abstract subject or object into the
corresponding concrete subject or object (e.g., IP address and
website URL). Policy Generator generates a low-level policy which
will execute the NSF capabilities from Converter.
Yang, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Security Policy Translation October 2018
4.2. DFA-based Data Extractor
4.2.1. Design of DFA-based Data Extractor
+----------+
| accepter |
+----------+
| ^
<tag 1>| |</tag 1>
v |
+------------------------------------------------------+
| middle 1 |
+------------------------------------------------------+
| ^ | ^ | ^
<tag 2>| |</tag 2> <tag 3>| |</tag 3> ... <tag n>| |</tag n>
v | v | v |
... ... ...
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
| extractor 1 | | extractor 2 | ... | extractor m |
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
data:1 data:2 data:m
Figure 2: DFA Architecture of Data Extractor
Figure 2 shows a design for Data Extractor in the policy translator.
If a high-level policy contains data along the hierarchical structure
of the standard Consumer-Facing Interface YANG data model
[consumer-facing-inf], data can be easily extracted using the state
transition machine, such as DFA. The extracted data can be processed
and used by an NSF to understand it. Extractor can be constructed by
designing a DFA with the same hierarchical structure as a YANG data
model.
After constructing a DFA, Data Extractor can extract all of data in
the enterred high-level policy by using state transitions. Also, the
DFA can easily detect the grammar errors of the high-level policy.
The extracting algorithm of Data Extractor is as follows:
1. Start from the 'accepter' state.
2. Read the next tag from the high-level policy.
3. Transit to the corresponding state.
4. If the current state is in 'extractor', extract the corresponding
data, and then go back to step 2.
Yang, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Security Policy Translation October 2018
5. If the current state is in 'middle', go back to step 2.
6. If there is no possible transition and arrived at 'accepter'
state, the policy has no grammar error. Otherwise, there is a
grammar error, so stop the process with failure.
4.2.2. Example Scenario for Data Extractor
<I2NSF>
<name>block_web</name>
<cond>
<src>Son's_PC</src>
<dest>malicious</dest>
</cond>
<action>block<action>
</I2NSF>
Figure 3: The Example of High-level Policy
+----------+
| accepter |
+----------+
| ^
<I2NSF>| |</I2NSF>
v |
+------------------------------------------------------+
| middle 1 |
+------------------------------------------------------+
| ^ | ^ | ^
<name>| |</name> <cond>| |</cond> <action>| |</action>
v | v | v |
+-------------+ +----------------------+ +-------------+
| extractor 1 | | middle 2 | | extractor 4 |
+-------------+ +----------------------+ +-------------+
block_web | ^ | ^ block
<src>| |</src> <dest>| |</dest>
v | v |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| extractor 2 | | extractor 3 |
+-------------+ +-------------+
Son's_PC malicious
Figure 4: The Example of Data Extractor
To explain the Data Extractor process by referring to an example
scenario, assume that Security Controller received a high-level
policy for a web-filtering as shown in Figure 3. Then we can
Yang, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Security Policy Translation October 2018
construct DFA-based Data Extractor by using the design as shown in
Figure 2. Figure 4 shows the architecture of Data Extractor that is
based on the architection in Figure 2 along with the input high-level
policy in Figure 3. Data Extractor can automatically extract all of
data in the high-level policy according to the following process:
1. Start from the 'accepter' state.
2. Read the first opening tag called '<I2NSF>', and transit to the
'middle 1' state.
3. Read the second opening tag called '<name>', and transit to the
'extractor 1' state.
4. The current state is an 'extractor' state. Extract the data of
'name' field called 'block_web'.
5. Read the second closing tag called '</name>', and go back to the
'middle 1' state.
6. Read the third opening tag called '<cond>', and transit to the
'middle 2' state.
7. Read the fourth opening tag called '<src>', and transit to the
'extractor 2' state.
8. The current state is an 'extractor' state. Extract the data of
'src' field called 'Son's_PC'.
9. Read the fourth closing tag called '</src>', and go back to the
'middle 2' state.
10. Read the fifth opening tag called '<dest>', and transit to the
'extractor 3' state.
11. The current state is an 'extractor' state. Extract the data of
'dest' field called 'malicious'.
12. Read the fifth closing tag called '</dest>', and go back to the
'middle 2' state.
13. Read the third closing tag called '</cond>', and go back to the
'middle 1' state.
14. Read the sixth opening tag called '<action>', and transit to the
'extractor 4' state.
Yang, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Security Policy Translation October 2018
15. The current state is an 'extractor' state. Extract the data of
'action' field called 'block'.
16. Read the sixth closing tag called '</action>', and go back to
the 'middle 1' state.
17. Read the first closing tag called '</I2NSF>', and go back to the
'accepter' state.
18. There is no further possible transition, and the state is
finally on 'accepter' state. There is no grammar error in
Figure 3 so the scanning for data extraction is finished.
The above process is constructed by an extracting algorithm. After
finishing all the steps of the above process, Data Extractor can
extract all of data in Figure 3, 'block_web', 'Son's_PC',
'malicious', and 'block'.
Since the translator is modularized into a DFA structure, a visual
understanding is feasible. Also, The performance of Data Extractor
is excellent compared to one-to-one searching of data for a
particular field. In addition, the management is efficient because
the DFA completely follows the hierarchy of Consumer-Facing
Interface. If I2NSF User wants to modify the data model of a high-
level policy, it only needs to change the connection of the relevant
DFA node.
4.3. Data Converter
4.3.1. Role of Data Converter
Every NSF has its own unique capabilities. The capabilities of an
NSF are registered into Security Controller by a Developer's
Management System, which manages the NSF, via Registration Interface.
Therefore, Security Controller already has all information about the
capabilities of NSFs. This means that Security Controller can find
target NSFs with only the data (e.g., subject and object for a
security policy) of the high-level policy by comparing the extracted
data with all capabilities of each NSF. This search process for
appropriate NSFs is called by policy provisioning, and it eliminates
the need for I2NSF User to specify the target NSFs explicitly in a
high-level security policy.
Data Converter selects target NSFs and converts the extracted data
into the capabilities of selected NSFs. If Security Controller uses
this data convertor, it can provide the policy provisioning function
to the I2NSF User automatically. Thus, the translator design
provides big benefits to the I2NSF Framework.
Yang, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Security Policy Translation October 2018
4.3.2. Data Conversion in Data Converter
High-level Low-level
Policy Data Policy Data
+---------------+ +------------------------------+
| Rule Name | | Rule Name |
| +-----------+ | The Same value | +-------------------------+ |
| | block_web |-|------------------->|->| block_web | |
| +-----------+ | | +-------------------------+ |
| | | |
| Source | Conversion into | Source IPv4 |
| +-----------+ | User's IP address | +-------------------------+ |
| | Son's_PC |-|------------------->|->| [10.0.0.1, 10.0.0.3] | |
| +-----------+ | | +-------------------------+ |
| | | |
| Destination | Conversion into | URL Category |
| +-----------+ | malicious websites | +-------------------------+ |
| | malicious |-|------------------->|->| [harm.com, illegal.com] | |
| +-----------+ | | +-------------------------+ |
| | | |
| Action | Conversion into | Log Action Drop Action |
| +-----------+ | NSF Capability | +----------+ +----------+ |
| | block |-|------------------->|->| True | | True | |
| +-----------+ | | +----------+ +----------+ |
+---------------+ +------------------------------+
Figure 5: Example of Data Conversion
Figure 5 shows an example for describing a data conversion in Data
Converter. High-level policy data MUST be converted into low-level
policy data which are compatible with NSFs. If a ystem administrator
attaches a database to Data Converter, it can convert contents by
referring to the database with SQL queries. Data conversion in
Figure 5 is based on the following list:
o 'Rule Name' field does NOT need the conversion.
o 'Source' field SHOULD be converted into a list of target IPv4
addresses.
o 'Destination' field SHOULD be converted into a URL category list
of malicious websites.
o 'Action' field SHOULD be converted into the corresponding
action(s) in NSF capabilities.
Yang, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Security Policy Translation October 2018
4.3.3. Policy Provisioning
Log-keeper Low-level Web-filter
NSF Policy Data NSF
+-------------------+ +--------------------+ +-------------------+
| Rule Name | | Rule Name | | Rule Name |
| +--------------+ | | +--------------+ | | +--------------+ |
| | block_web |<-|<-|<-| block_web |->|->|->| block_web | |
| +--------------+ | | +--------------+ | | +--------------+ |
| | | | | |
| Source IPv4 | | Source IPv4 | | Source IPv4 |
| +--------------+ | | +--------------+ | | +--------------+ |
| | [10.0.0.1, |<-|<-|<-| [10.0.0.1, |->|->|->| [10.0.0.1, | |
| | 10.0.0.3] | | | | 10.0.0.3] | | | | 10.0.0.3] | |
| +--------------+ | | +--------------+ | | +--------------+ |
| | | | | |
| | | URL Category | | URL Category |
| | | +--------------+ | | +--------------+ |
| | | | [harm.com, |->|->|->| [harm.com, | |
| | | | illegal.com] | | | | illegal.com] | |
| | | +--------------+ | | +--------------+ |
| | | | | |
| Log Action | | Log Action | | |
| +--------------+ | | +--------------+ | | |
| | True |<-|<-|<-| True | | | |
| +--------------+ | | +--------------+ | | |
+-------------------+ | | | |
| Drop Action | | Drop Action |
| +--------------+ | | +--------------+ |
| | True |->|->|->| True | |
| +--------------+ | | +--------------+ |
+--------------------+ +-------------------+
Figure 6: Example of Policy Provisioning
Generator searches for proper NSFs which can cover all of
capabilities in the high-level policy. Generator searches for target
NSFs by comparing only NSF capabilities which is registered by Vendor
Management System. This process is called by "policy provisioning"
because Generator finds proper NSFs by using only the policy. If
target NSFs are found by using other data which is not included in a
user's policy, it means that the user already knows the specific
knowledge of an NSF in the I2NSF Framework. Figure 6 shows an
example of policy provisioning. In this example, log-keeper NSF and
web-filter NSF are selected for covering capabilities in the security
policy. All of capabilities can be covered by two selected NSFs.
Yang, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Security Policy Translation October 2018
4.4. CFG-based Policy Generator
Generator makes low-level security policies for each target NSF with
the extracted data. We constructed Generator by using a Context-Free
Grammar called CFG. CFG is a set of production rules which can
describe all possible strings in a given formal language(e.g.,
programming language). The low-level policy also has its own
language based on a YANG data model of NSF-Facing Interface. Thus,
we can construct the productions based on the YANG data model. The
productions that makes up the low-level security policy are
categorized into two types, 'Content Production' and 'Structure
Production'.
4.4.1. Content Production
Content Production is for injecting data into low-level policies to
be generated. A security manager(i.e., a person (or software) to
make productions for security policies) can construct Content
Productions in the form of an expression as the following
productions:
o [cont_prod] -> [cont_prod][cont_prod] (Where duplication is
allowed.)
o [cont_prod] -> <cont_tag>[cont_data]</cont_tag>
o [cont_data] -> data_1 | data_2 | ... | data_n
Square brackets mean non-terminal state. If there are no non-
terminal states, it means that the string is completely generated.
When the duplication of content tag is allowed, the security manager
adds the first production for a rule. If there is no need to allow
duplication, the first production can be skipped because it is an
optional production.
The second production is the main production for Content Production
because it generates the tag which contains data for low-level
policy. Last, the third production is for injecting data into a tag
which is generated by the second production. If data is changed for
an NSF, the security manager needs to change "only the third
production" for data mapping in each NSF.
For example, if the security manager wants to express a low-level
policy for source IP address, Content Production can be constructed
in the following productions:
o [cont_ipv4] -> [cont_ipv4][cont_ipv4] (Allow duplication.)
Yang, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Security Policy Translation October 2018
o [cont_ipv4] -> <ipv4>[cont_ipv4_data]</ipv4>
o [cont_ipv4_data] -> 10.0.0.1 | 10.0.0.3
4.4.2. Structure Production
Structure Production is for grouping other tags into a hierarchy.
The security manager can construct Structure Production in the form
of an expression as the following production:
o [struct_prod] -> <struct_tag>[prod_1]...[prod_n]</struct_tag>
Structure Production can be expressed as a single production. The
above production means to group other tags by the name of a tag which
is called by 'struct_tag'. [prod_x] is a state for generating a tag
which wants to be grouped by Structure Production. [prod_x] can be
both Content Production and Structure Production. For example, if
the security manager wants to express the low-level policy for the
I2NSF tag, which is grouping 'name' and 'rules', Structure Production
can be constructed as the following production where [cont_name] is
the state for Content Production and [struct_rule] is the state for
Structure Production.
o [struct_i2nsf] -> <I2NSF>[cont_name][struct_rules]</I2NSF>
4.4.3. Generator Construction
The security manager can build a generator by combining the two
productions which are described in Section 4.4.1 and Section 4.4.2.
Figure 7 shows the CFG-based Generator construction of the web-filter
NSF. It is constructed based on the NSF-Facing Interface Data Model
in [nsf-facing-inf]. According to Figure 7, the security manager can
express productions for each clause as in following CFG:
1. [cont_name] -> <rule-name>[cont_name_data]</rule-name>
2. [cont_name_data] -> block_web
3. [cont_ipv4] -> [cont_ipv4][cont_ipv4] (Allow duplication)
4. [cont_ipv4] -> <ipv4>[cont_ipv4_data]</ipv4>
5. [cont_ipv4_data] -> 10.0.0.1 | 10.0.0.3
6. [cont_url] -> [cont_url][cont_url] (Allow duplication)
7. [cont_url] -> <url>[cont_url_data]</url>
Yang, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Security Policy Translation October 2018
8. [cont_url_data] -> harm.com | illegal.com
9. [cont_action] -> <action>[cont_action_data]</action>
10. [cont_action_data] -> drop
11. [struct_packet] -> <packet>[cont_ipv4]</packet>
12. [struct_payload] -> <payload>[cont_url]</payload>
13. [struct_cond] ->
<condition>[struct_packet][struct_payload]</condition>
14. [struct_rules] -> <rules>[struct_cond][cont_action]</rules>
15. [struct_i2nsf] -> <I2NSF>[cont_name][struct_rules]</I2NSF>
Then, Generator generates a low-level policy by using the above CFG.
The low-level policy is generated by the following process:
1. Start: [struct_i2nsf]
2. Production 15: <I2NSF>[cont_name][struct_rules]</I2NSF>
3. Production 1: <I2NSF><rule-name>[cont_name_data]</rule-
name>[struct_rules]</I2NSF>
4. Production 2: <I2NSF><rule-name>block_web</rule-
name>[struct_rules]</I2NSF>
5. Production 14: <I2NSF><rule-name>block_web</rule-
name><rules>[struct_cond][cont_action]</rules></I2NSF>
6. Production 13: <I2NSF><rule-name>block_web</rule-name><rules><co
ndition>[struct_packet][struct_payload]</condition>[cont_action]
</rules></I2NSF>
7. Production 11: <I2NSF><rule-name>block_web</rule-name><rules><co
ndition><packet>[cont_ipv4]</packet>[struct_payload]</condition>
[cont_action]</rules></I2NSF>
8. Production 3: <I2NSF><rule-name>block_web</rule-name><rules><con
dition><packet>[cont_ipv4][cont_ipv4]</packet>[struct_payload]</
condition>[cont_action]</rules></I2NSF>
9. Production 4: <I2NSF><rule-name>block_web</rule-name><rules><con
dition><packet><ipv4>[cont_ipv4_data]</ipv4><ipv4>[cont_ipv4_dat
Yang, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Security Policy Translation October 2018
a]</ipv4></packet>[struct_payload]</condition>[cont_action]</rul
es></I2NSF>
10. Production 5: <I2NSF><rule-name>block_web</rule-name><rules><con
dition><packet><ipv4>10.0.0.1</ipv4><ipv4>10.0.0.3</ipv4></packe
t>[struct_payload]</condition>[cont_action]</rules></I2NSF>
11. Production 12: <I2NSF><rule-name>block_web</rule-name><rules><co
ndition><packet><ipv4>10.0.0.1</ipv4><ipv4>10.0.0.3</ipv4></pack
et><payload>[cont_url]</payload></condition>[cont_action]</rules
></I2NSF>
12. Production 6: <I2NSF><rule-name>block_web</rule-name><rules><con
dition><packet><ipv4>10.0.0.1</ipv4><ipv4>10.0.0.3</ipv4></packe
t><payload>[cont_url][cont_url]</payload></condition>[cont_actio
n]</rules></I2NSF>
13. Production 7: <I2NSF><rule-name>block_web</rule-name><rules><con
dition><packet><ipv4>10.0.0.1</ipv4><ipv4>10.0.0.3</ipv4></packe
t><payload><url>[cont_url_data]</url><url>[cont_url_data]</url><
/payload></condition>[cont_action]</rules></I2NSF>
14. Production 8: <I2NSF><rule-name>block_web</rule-name><rules><con
dition><packet><ipv4>10.0.0.1</ipv4><ipv4>10.0.0.3</ipv4></packe
t><payload><url>harm.com</url><url>illegal.com</url></payload></
condition>[cont_action]</rules></I2NSF>
15. Production 9: <I2NSF><rule-name>block_web</rule-name><rules><con
dition><packet><ipv4>10.0.0.1</ipv4><ipv4>10.0.0.3</ipv4></packe
t><payload><url>harm.com</url><url>illegal.com</url></payload></
condition><action>[cont_action_data]</action></rules></I2NSF>
16. Production 10: <I2NSF><rule-name>block_web</rule-name><rules><co
ndition><packet><ipv4>10.0.0.1</ipv4><ipv4>10.0.0.3</ipv4></pack
et><payload><url>harm.com</url><url>illegal.com</url></payload><
/condition><action>drop</action></rules></I2NSF>
The last production has no non-terminal state, and the low-level
policy is completely generated. Figure 8 shows the generated low-
level policy where tab characters and newline characters are added.
Yang, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Security Policy Translation October 2018
+-----------------------------------------------------+
| +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ |
Content | | Rule | | Source | | URL | | Drop | |
Production | | Name | | IPv4 | | Category | | Action | |
| +-----+----+ +-----+----+ +----+-----+ +----+-----+ |
| | | | | |
+--------------------+-----------+--------------------+
| | | |
V V V V
+-------+------------+-----------+------------+-------+
| | | | | |
| | V V | |
| | +----------+ +----------+ | |
| | | Packet | | Payload | | |
| | | Clause | | Clause | | |
| | +-----+----+ +----+-----+ | |
| | | | | |
| | V V | |
| | +---------------+ | |
| | | Condition | | |
Structure | | | Clause | | |
Production | | +-------+-------+ | |
| | | | |
| | V V |
| | +----------------------+ |
| | | Rule Clause | |
| | +-----------+----------+ |
| | | |
| V V |
| +-----------------------------------------+ |
| | I2NSF Clause | |
| +--------------------+--------------------+ |
| | |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+
|
V
Low-Level Policy
Figure 7: Generator Construction for Web-Filter NSF
Yang, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Security Policy Translation October 2018
<I2NSF>
<rule-name>block_web</rule-name>
<rules>
<condition>
<packet>
<ipv4>10.0.0.1</ipv4>
<ipv4>10.0.0.3</ipv4>
</packet>
<payload>
<url>harm.com</url>
<url>illegal.com</url>
</payload>
</condition>
<action>drop</action>
</rules>
</I2NSF>
Figure 8: Example of Low-Level Policy
5. Features of Policy Translator Design
First, by showing a visualized translator structure, the security
manager can handle various policy changes. Translator can be shown
by visualizing DFA and Context-Free Grammar so that the manager can
easily understand the structure of Policy Translator.
Second, if I2NSF User only keeps the hierarchy of the data model,
I2NSF User can freely create high-level policies. In the case of
DFA, data extraction can be performed in the same way even if the
order of input is changed. The design of the policy translator is
more flexible than the existing method that works by keeping the tag
's position and order exactly.
Third, the structure of Policy Translator can be updated even while
Policy Translator is operating. Because Policy Translator is
modularized, the translator can adapt to changes in the NSF
capability while the I2NSF framework is running. The function of
changing the translator's structure can be provided through
Registration Interface.
6. Security Considerations
There is no security concern in a security policy translator proposed
in this document as long as the I2NSF interfaces (i.e., Consumer-
Facing Interface, NSF-Facing Interface, and Registration Interface)
are protected by secure communication channels.
Yang, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Security Policy Translation October 2018
7. Acknowledgments
This work was supported by Institute for Information & communications
Technology Promotion (IITP) grant funded by the Korea MSIT (Ministry
of Science and ICT) (R-20160222-002755, Cloud based Security
Intelligence Technology Development for the Customized Security
Service Provisioning).
This work was supported in part by the MSIT under the ITRC
(Information Technology Research Center) support program (IITP-
2018-2017-0-01633) supervised by the IITP.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[Automata]
Peter, L., "Formal Languages and Automata, 6th Edition",
January 2016.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the
Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
October 2010.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., and A.
Bierman, "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)",
RFC 6241, June 2011.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, January 2017.
[RFC8329] Lopez, D., Lopez, E., Dunbar, L., Strassner, J., and R.
Kumar, "Framework for Interface to Network Security
Functions", RFC 8329, February 2018.
[XML] W3C, "On Views and XML (Extensible Markup Language)", June
1999.
8.2. Informative References
[consumer-facing-inf]
Jeong, J., Kim, E., Ahn, T., Kumar, R., and S. Hares,
"I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface YANG Data Model", draft-
ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-01 (work in
progress), July 2018.
Yang, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Security Policy Translation October 2018
[i2nsf-terminology]
Hares, S., Strassner, J., Lopez, D., Xia, L., and H.
Birkholz, "Interface to Network Security Functions (I2NSF)
Terminology", draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology-06 (work in
progress), July 2018.
[nsf-facing-inf]
Kim, J., Jeong, J., Park, J., Hares, S., and Q. Lin,
"I2NSF Network Security Function-Facing Interface YANG
Data Model", draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-data-
model-01 (work in progress), July 2018.
[registration-inf]
Hyun, S., Jeong, J., Roh, T., Wi, S., and J. Park, "I2NSF
Registration Interface YANG Data Model", draft-ietf-i2nsf-
registration-dm-00 (work in progress), October 2018.
[XSLT] W3C, "Extensible Stylesheet Language Transformations
(XSLT) Version 1.0", November 1999.
Yang, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Security Policy Translation October 2018
Appendix A. Changes from draft-yang-i2nsf-security-policy-
translation-01
The following changes are made from draft-yang-i2nsf-security-policy-
translation-01:
o In Section 3, an example is added to emphasis the necessity of a
security policy translator. Also, the citation for Automata
theory is added.
o In Section 3 and Section 4, some grammatical errors are corrected.
o In Figure 1, NSF DB component is added.
o In Section 4.2, an extraction scenario is added for clearer
explanation.
o In Section 4.3, an example of data conversion is added for clearer
explanation. Also, the detailed description and the schematic
diagram of policy provisioning is added.
o In Figure 5, the expression for each conversion is changed.
o In Section 4.4, an example of CFG is added for clearer
explanation. Also, the detailed description and the schematic
diagram of CFG-based Generator is added.
o Section 6 is added for describing "Security Considerations".
o The References section is divided into two subsections, such as,
Normative References and Informative References. Also, the
references for Automata theory and XML (Extensible Markup Langage)
are added to Normative References. In addition, the reference of
XSLT (Extensible Stylesheet Language Transformations) is added to
Informative References.
Authors' Addresses
Jinhyuk Yang
Department of Computer Engineering
Sungkyunkwan University
2066 Seobu-Ro, Jangan-Gu
Suwon, Gyeonggi-Do 16419
Republic of Korea
Phone: +82 10 8520 8039
EMail: jin.hyuk@skku.edu
Yang, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft I2NSF Security Policy Translation October 2018
Jaehoon Paul Jeong
Department of Software
Sungkyunkwan University
2066 Seobu-Ro, Jangan-Gu
Suwon, Gyeonggi-Do 16419
Republic of Korea
Phone: +82 31 299 4957
Fax: +82 31 290 7996
EMail: pauljeong@skku.edu
URI: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php
Jinyong Tim Kim
Department of Computer Engineering
Sungkyunkwan University
2066 Seobu-Ro, Jangan-Gu
Suwon, Gyeonggi-Do 16419
Republic of Korea
Phone: +82 10 8273 0930
EMail: timkim@skku.edu
Yang, et al. Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 21]