Internet-Draft | Consumer-Facing Interface YANG Data Mode | June 2022 |
Jeong, et al. | Expires 3 December 2022 | [Page] |
- Workgroup:
- I2NSF Working Group
- Internet-Draft:
- draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-21
- Published:
- Intended Status:
- Standards Track
- Expires:
I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface YANG Data Model
Abstract
This document describes an information model and the corresponding YANG data model for the Consumer-Facing Interface of the Security Controller in an Interface to Network Security Functions (I2NSF) system in a Network Functions Virtualization (NFV) environment. The information model defines various types of managed objects and the relationship among them needed to build the flow policies from users' perspective. This information model is based on the "Event-Condition-Action" (ECA) policy model defined by a capability information model for I2NSF, and the YANG data model is defined for enabling different users of a given I2NSF system to define, manage, and monitor flow policies within an administrative domain.¶
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 3 December 2022.¶
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
1. Introduction
In a framework of Interface to Network Security Functions (I2NSF) [RFC8329], each vendor can register their NSFs using a Developer's Management System (DMS). Assuming that vendors also provide the front-end web applications to an I2NSF User, the Consumer-Facing Interface is required because the web applications developed by each vendor need to have a standard interface specifying the data types used when the I2NSF User and Security Controller communicate with each other using this interface. Therefore, this document specifies the required information, their data types, and encoding schemes so that high-level security policies (or configuration information for security policies) can be transferred to the Security Controller through the Consumer-Facing Interface. These policies can easily be translated by the Security Controller into low-level security policies. The Security Controller delivers the translated policies to Network Security Functions (NSFs) according to their respective security capabilities for the required security enforcement.¶
The Consumer-Facing Interface would be built using a set of objects, with each object capturing a unique set of information from Security Administrator (i.e., I2NSF User [RFC8329]) needed to express a Security Policy. An object may have relationship with various other objects to express a complete set of requirements. An information model captures the managed objects and relationship among these objects. The information model proposed in this document is structured in accordance with the "Event-Condition-Action" (ECA) policy model.¶
An NSF Capability model is proposed in [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model] as the basic model for both the NSF-Facing interface and Consumer-Facing Interface security policy model of this document.¶
[RFC3444] explains differences between an information and data model. This document uses the guidelines in [RFC3444] to define both the information and data model for Consumer-Facing Interface. Figure 1 shows a high-level abstraction of Consumer-Facing Interface. A data model, which represents an implementation of the information model in a specific data representation language, is also defined in this document.¶
Data models are defined at a lower level of abstraction and provide many details. They provide details about the implementation of a protocol's specification, e.g., rules that explain how to map managed objects onto lower-level protocol constructs. Since conceptual models can be implemented in different ways, multiple data models can be derived from a single information model.¶
The efficient and flexible provisioning of network functions by a Network Functions Virtualization (NFV) system leads to a rapid advance in the network industry. As practical applications, Network Security Functions (NSFs), such as firewall, Intrusion Detection System (IDS)/Intrusion Prevention System (IPS), and attack mitigation, can also be provided as Virtual Network Functions (VNF) in the NFV system. By the efficient virtualization technology, these VNFs might be automatically provisioned and dynamically migrated based on real-time security requirements. This document presents a YANG data model to implement security functions based on NFV.¶
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
This document uses the terminology described in [RFC8329].¶
This document follows the guidelines of [RFC8407], uses the common YANG types defined in [RFC6991], and adopts the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) [RFC8342]. The meaning of the symbols in tree diagrams is defined in [RFC8340].¶
3. Information Model for Policy
A Policy object represents a mechanism to express a Security Policy by Security Administrator (i.e., I2NSF User) using Consumer-Facing Interface toward Security Controller; the policy would be enforced on an NSF. Figure 2 shows the YANG tree of the Policy object. The Policy object SHALL have the following information:¶
- Name:
- This field identifies the name of this object.¶
- Language:
- The language field indicates the language tag that is used for the natural language text that is included in all of the 'description' attributes. The language field is encoded following the rules in Section 2.1 of [RFC5646]. The default language tag is "en-US".¶
- Resolution-strategy:
- This field represents how to resolve conflicts that occur between actions of the same or different policy rules that are matched and contained in this particular NSF. The resolution strategy is described in [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model] in detail.¶
- Rules:
- This field contains a list of rules. These rules are defined for 1) communication between two Endpoint Groups, 2) for preventing communication with externally or internally identified threats, and 3) for implementing business requirement such as controlling access to internal or external resources for meeting regulatory compliance or business objectives. An organization may restrict certain communication between a set of user and applications for example. The threats may be from threat feeds obtained from external sources or dynamically identified by using specialty devices in the network. Rule conflict analysis should be triggered by the monitoring service to perform an exhaustive detection of anomalies among the configuration rules installed into the security functions.¶
A policy is a list of rules. In order to express a Rule, a Rule must have complete information such as where and when a policy needs to be applied. This is done by defining a set of managed objects and relationship among them. A Policy Rule may be related segmentation, threat mitigation or telemetry data collection from an NSF in the network, which will be specified as the sub-model of the policy model in the subsequent sections. Figure 3 shows the YANG data tree of the Rule object. The rule object SHALL have the following information:¶
- Name:
- This field identifies the name of this object.¶
- Priority:
- This field identifies the priority of the rule.¶
- Event:
- This field includes the information to determine whether the Rule Condition can be evaluated or not. See details in Section 3.1.¶
- Condition:
- This field contains all the checking conditions to apply to the objective traffic. See details Section 3.2.¶
- Action:
- This field identifies the action taken when a rule is matched. There is always an implicit action to drop traffic if no rule is matched for a traffic type. See details in Section 3.3.¶
3.1. Event Sub-model
The Event Object contains information related to scheduling a Rule. The Rule could be activated based on a security event (i.e., system event and system alarm). Figure 4 shows the YANG tree of the Event object. Event object SHALL have following information:¶
- System-event (also called alert):
- is defined as a warning about any changes of configuration, any access violation, the information of sessions and traffic flows.¶
- System-alarm:
- is defined as a warning related to service degradation in system hardware.¶
3.2. Condition Sub-model
This object represents Conditions that Security Administrator wants to apply the checking on the traffic in order to determine whether the set of actions in the Rule can be executed or not. The Condition Sub-model consists of three different types of containers each representing different cases, such as general firewall and DDoS-mitigation cases, and a case when the condition is based on the payload strings of packets. Each containers have source and destination-target to represent the source and destination for each case. Figure 5 shows the YANG tree of the Condition object. The Condition Sub-model SHALL have following information:¶
- Case (firewall):
- This field represents the general firewall case, where a security admin can set up firewall conditions using the information present in this field. The firewall attributes are represented by source, destination, transport layer protocol, port numbers, and ICMP parameters. Note that the YANG module only provide high-level ICMP messages that is shared between ICMPv4 and ICMPv6 (e.g., Destination Unreachable: Port Unreachable which is ICMPv4 type 3 code 3 or ICMPv6 type 1 code 4). Also note that QUIC protocol [RFC9000] is excluded in the data model as it is not considered in the initial I2NSF documents [RFC8329]. The QUIC traffic should not be treated as UDP traffic and will be considered in the future I2NSF documents.¶
- Case (ddos):
- This field represents the condition for DDoS mitigation, where a security admin can set up DDoS mitigation conditions using the information present in this field. The rate of packet, byte, or flow threshold can be configured to mitigate the DDoS.¶
- Case (anti-virus):
- This field represents the condition for Antivirus, where a security admin can set up Antivirus conditions using the information present in this field. The file names or types can be configured to be allowed without the Antivirus interuption.¶
- Case (payload):
- This field contains the payload string information. This information is useful when security rule condition is based on the string contents of incoming or outgoing packets. The name referring to the payload-groups defined and registered in the endpoint-groups.¶
- Case (url-category):
- This field represents the URL to be filtered. This information can be used to block or allow a certain URL or website. The url-name is a group of URL or websites to be matched.¶
- Case (voice):
- This field contains the call source-id, call destination-id, and user-agent. This information can be used to filter a caller id or receiver id to prevent any VoIP or VoCN exploits or attack.¶
- Case (context):
- This field provide extra information for the condition for filtering the network traffic. The given context conditions are application filter, device type, user condition, and geographic location.¶
- Case (Threat-feed):
- This field contains the information obtained from threat-feeds (e.g., Palo-Alto, or RSA-netwitness). This information is useful when security rule condition is based on the existing threat reports gathered by other sources.¶
3.3. Action Sub-model
This object represents actions that Security Admin wants to perform based on certain traffic class. Figure 6 shows the YANG tree of the Action object. The Action object SHALL have following information:¶
- Primary-action:
- This field identifies the action when a rule is matched by an NSF. The action could be one of "pass", "drop", "reject", "rate-limit", "mirror", "invoke-signaling", "tunnel-encapsulation", "forwarding", and "transformation".¶
- Secondary-action:
- This field identifies the action when a rule is matched by an NSF. The action could be one of "rule-log" and "session-log".¶
4. Information Model for Policy Endpoint Groups
The Policy Endpoint Group is a very important part of building User-Construct based policies. A Security Administrator would create and use these objects to represent a logical entity in their business environment, where a Security Policy is to be applied. There are multiple managed objects that constitute a Policy's Endpoint Group, as shown in Figure 7. Figure 8 shows the YANG tree of the Endpoint-Groups object. This section lists these objects and relationship among them.¶
It is assumed that the information of Endpoint Groups (e.g., User-group, Device-group, and Location-group) such as the IP address(es) of each member in a group are stored in the I2NSF database available to the Security Controller, and that the IP address information of each group in the I2NSF database is synchronized with other systems in the networks under the same administration.¶
4.1. User Group
This object represents a User-Group. Figure 9 shows the YANG tree of the User-Group object. The User-Group object SHALL have the following information:¶
- Name:
- This field identifies the name of this object.¶
- mac-address:
- This represents the MAC address of a user in the user group.¶
- Range-ipv4-address:
- This represents the IPv4 address range of a user in the user group.¶
- Range-ipv6-address:
- This represents the IPv6 address range of a user in the user group.¶
4.2. Device Group
This object represents a Device-Group. Figure 10 shows the YANG tree of the Device-group object. The Device-Group object SHALL have the following information:¶
- Name:
- This field identifies the name of this object.¶
- IPv4:
- This represents the IPv4 address of a device in the device group.¶
- IPv6:
- This represents the IPv6 address of a device in the device group.¶
- Range-ipv4-address:
- This represents the IPv4 address range of a device in the device group.¶
- Range-ipv6-address:
- This represents the IPv6 address range of a device in the device group.¶
- Application-protocol:
- This represents the application layer protocols of devices. If this is not set, it cannot support the appropriate protocol¶
4.3. Location Group
This object represents a location group based on either tag or other information. Figure 11 shows the YANG tree of the Location-Group object. The Location-Group object SHALL have the following information:¶
- Name:
- This field identifies the name of this object.¶
- Geo-ip-ipv4:
- This field represents the IPv4 Geo-ip address of a location [RFC8805].¶
- Geo-ip-ipv6:
- This field represents the IPv6 Geo-ip address of a location [RFC8805].¶
- Continent:
- This field represents the continent where the location group member is located.¶
4.4. URL Group
This object represents a URL group based on a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) or web address. Figure 12 shows the YANG tree of the URL-Group object. The URLn-Group object SHALL have the following information:¶
- Name:
- This field identifies the name of this object.¶
- url:
- This field represents the new URL added by a user to the URL database.¶
5. Information Model for Threat Prevention
The threat prevention plays an important part in the overall security posture by reducing the attack surfaces. This information could come from various threat feeds (i.e., sources for obtaining the threat information). There are multiple managed objects that constitute this category. This section lists these objects and relationship among them. Figure 14 shows the YANG tree of a Threat-Prevention object.¶
5.1. Threat Feed
This object represents a threat feed which provides the signatures of malicious activities. Figure 15 shows the YANG tree of a Threat-feed-list. The Threat-Feed object SHALL have the following information:¶
- Name:
- This field identifies the name of this object.¶
- Description:
- This is the description of the threat feed. The description should have the clear indication of the security attack such as attack type (e.g., APT) and file types used (e.g., executable malware).¶
- Signatures:
- This field contains the threat signatures of malicious programs or activities provided by the threat-feed. The examples of signature types are "YARA", "SURICATA", and "SNORT" [YARA][SURICATA][SNORT].¶
It is assumed that the I2NSF User obtains the threat signatures (i.e., threat content patterns) from a threat-feed server (i.e., feed provider), which is a server providing threat signatures. With the obtained threat signatures, the I2NSF User can deliver them to the Security Controller. The retrieval of the threat signatures by the I2NSF User is out of scope in this document.¶
5.2. Payload Content
This object represents a custom list created for the purpose of defining an exception to threat feeds. Figure 16 shows the YANG tree of a Payload-content list. The Payload-Content object SHALL have the following information:¶
- Name:
- This field identifies the name of this object. For example, the name "backdoor" indicates the payload content is related to a backdoor attack.¶
- Description:
- This represents the description of how the payload content is related to a security attack.¶
- Content:
- This contains the payload contents, which are involed in a security attack, such as strings.¶
6. Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) for I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface
Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) provides a user group with an access control with the following features [RFC8341]:¶
- Independent control of action, data, and notification access is provided.¶
- A simple and familiar set of datastore permissions is used.¶
- Support for YANG security tagging allows default security modes to automatically exclude sensitive data.¶
- Separate default access modes for read, write, and execute permissions are provided.¶
- Access control rules are applied to configurable groups of users.¶
The data model of the I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface utilizes the NACM's mechanisms to manage the access control on the I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface. The NACM with the above features can be used to set up the access control rules of a user group in the I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface.¶
Figure 17 shows part of the NACM module to enable the access control of a user group for the I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface. To use the NACM, a user needs to configure either a NETCONF server [RFC6241] or a RESTCONF server [RFC8040] to enable the NACM module. Then, the user can simply use an account of root or admin user for the access control for the module of the I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface (i.e., ietf-i2nsf-cons-facing-interface). An XML example to configure the access control a user group for the I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface can be seen in Section 9.¶
7. YANG Data Model of Consumer-Facing Interface
The main objective of this document is to provide the YANG data model of I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface. This interface can be used to deliver control and management messages between an I2NSF User and Security Controller for the I2NSF User's high-level security policies.¶
The semantics of the data model must be aligned with the information model of the Consumer-Facing Interface. The transformation of the information model is performed so that this YANG data model can facilitate the efficient delivery of the control or management messages.¶
This data model is designed to support the I2NSF framework that can be extended according to the security needs. In other words, the model design is independent of the content and meaning of specific policies as well as the implementation approach.¶
With the YANG data model of I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface, this document suggests use cases for security policy rules such as time-based firewall, VoIP/VoCN security service, and DDoS-attack mitigation in Section 8.¶
7.1. YANG Module of Consumer-Facing Interface
This section describes a YANG module of Consumer-Facing Interface. This document provides identities in the data model to be used for configuration of an NSF. Each identity is used for a different type of configuration. The details are explained in the description of each identity. This YANG module imports from [RFC6991]. It makes references to [RFC0768] [RFC0792] [RFC0793] [RFC0854] [RFC0959] [RFC1939] [RFC2595] [RFC3022] [RFC3261] [RFC3986] [RFC4250] [RFC4340] [RFC4443] [RFC5321] [RFC5646] [RFC8335] [RFC8805] [RFC9051] [Encyclopedia-Britannica] [IANA-ICMP-Parameters] [IANA-ICMPv6-Parameters] [I-D.ietf-httpbis-http2bis] [I-D.ietf-httpbis-messaging] [I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics] [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model] [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model] [I-D.ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis] [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis] [SNORT] [STIX] [SURICATA] [YARA].¶
8. XML Configuration Examples of High-Level Security Policy Rules
This section shows XML configuration examples of high-level security policy rules that are delivered from the I2NSF User to the Security Controller over the Consumer-Facing Interface. The considered use cases are: Database registration, time-based firewall for web filtering, VoIP/VoCN security service, and DDoS-attack mitigation.¶
8.1. Database Registration: Information of Positions and Devices (Endpoint Group)
If new endpoints are introduced to the network, it is necessary to first register their data to the database. For example, if new members are newly introduced in either of three different groups (i.e., user-group, device-group, and url-group), each of them should be registered with information such as ip-addresses or protocols used by devices.¶
Figure 19 shows an example XML representation of the registered information for the user-group and device-group with IPv4 addresses [RFC5737].¶
Also, Figure 20 shows an example XML representation of the registered information for the user-group and device-group with IPv6 addresses [RFC3849].¶
8.2. Scenario 1: Block SNS Access during Business Hours
The first example scenario is to "block SNS access during office hours" using a time-based firewall policy. In this scenario, all users registered as "employees" in the user-group list are unable to access Social Networking Services (SNS) during the office hours (weekdays). The XML instance is described below:¶
Time-based-condition Firewall¶
- The policy name is "security_policy_for_blocking_sns".¶
- The rule name is "block_access_to_sns_during_office_hours".¶
- The Source is "employees".¶
- The destination target is "sns-websites". "sns-websites" is the key which represents the list containing the information, such as URL, about sns-websites.¶
- The action required is to "drop" any attempt to connect to websites related to Social networking.¶
8.3. Scenario 2: Block Malicious VoIP/VoCN Packets Coming to a Company
The second example scenario is to "block malicious VoIP/VoCN packets coming to a company" using a VoIP policy. In this scenario, the calls comming from from VOIP and/or VoCN sources with VoCN IDs that are classified as malicious are dropped. The IP addresses of the employees and malicious VOIP IDs should be blocked are stored in the database or datastore of the enterprise. Here and the rest of the cases assume that the security administrators or someone responsible for the existing and newly generated policies, are not aware of which and/or how many NSFs are needed to meet the security requirements. Figure 22 represents the XML document generated from YANG discussed in previous sections. Once a high-level seucurity policy is created by a security admin, it is delivered by the Consumer-Facing Interface, through RESTCONF server, to the security controller. The XML instance is described below:¶
Custom-condition Firewall¶
- The policy name is "security_policy_for_blocking_malicious_voip_packets".¶
- The rule name is "Block_malicious_voip_and_vocn_packets".¶
- The Source is "malicious-id". This can be a single ID or a list of IDs, depending on how the ID are stored in the database. The "malicious-id" is the key so that the security admin can read every stored malicious VOIP IDs that are named as "malicious-id".¶
- The destination target is "employees". "employees" is the key which represents the list containing information about employees, such as IP addresses.¶
- The action required is "drop" when any incoming packets are from "malicious-id".¶
8.4. Scenario 3: Mitigate Flood Attacks on a Company Web Server
The third example scenario is to "Mitigate flood attacks on a company web server" using a DDoS-attack mitigation policy. Here, the time information is not set because the service provided by the network should be maintained at all times. If the packets sent by any sources are more than the set threshold, then the admin can set the percentage of the packets to be dropped to safely maintain the service. In this scenario, the source is set as "any" to block any sources which send abnormal amount of packets. The destination is set as "web_server01". Once the rule is set and delivered and enforced to the nsfs by the securiy controller, the NSFs will monitor the incoming packet amounts and the destination to act according to the rule set. The XML instance is described below:¶
DDoS-condition Firewall¶
- The policy name is "security_policy_for_ddos_attacks".¶
- The rule name is "1000_packets_per_second".¶
- The rate limit exists to limit the incoming amount of packets per second. In this case the rate limit is "1000" packets per second. This amount depends on the packet receiving capacity of the server devices.¶
- The Source is all sources which send abnormal amount of packets.¶
- The action required is to "drop" packet reception is more than 1000 packets per second.¶
9. XML Configuration Example of a User Group's Access Control for I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface
This is an example for creating privileges for a group of users (i.e., a user group) to access and use the I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface to create security policies via the interface. For the access control of the Consumer-Facing Interface, the NACM module can be used. Figure 24 shows an XML example the access control of a user group (named Example-Group) for I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface A group called Example-Group can be created and configured with NACM for the Consumer-Facing Interface. For Example-Group, a rule list can created with the name of Example-Group-Rules. Example-Group-Rules has two rules of Example-Group-Rule1 and Example-Group-Rule2 as follows. For Example-Group-Rule1, the privilege of "Read" is allowed to Example-Group for the Consumer-Facing Interface. On the other hand, for Example-Group-Rule2, the privileges of "Create", "Update", and "Delete" are denied against Example-Group for the Consumer-Facing Interface.¶
The access control for the I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface is as follows.¶
- The NACM is enabled.¶
- As a group name, Example-Group is specified.¶
- As members of the group, Alice, Bob, and Eve are specified.¶
- As a rule list name, Example-Group-Rules is specified for managing privileges of Example-Group's members.¶
- As the first rule name, Example-Group-Rule1 is specified. This rule is used to give read privilege to Example-Group's members for the module of the I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface.¶
- As the second rule name, Example-Group-Rule2 is specified. This rule is used to deny create, update, and delete privileges against Example-Group's members for the module of the I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface.¶
10. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA to register the following URI in the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]:¶
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-cons-facing-interface Registrant Contact: The IESG. XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.¶
This document requests IANA to register the following YANG module in the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC7950][RFC8525]:¶
name: ietf-i2nsf-cons-facing-interface namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-cons-facing-interface prefix: i2nsfcfi reference: RFC XXXX // RFC Ed.: replace XXXX with an actual RFC number and remove // this note.¶
11. Security Considerations
The YANG module specified in this document defines a data schema designed to be accessed through network management protocols such as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. The lowest NETCONF layer is the secure transport layer, and the required secure transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer is HTTPS, and the required secure transport is TLS [RFC8446].¶
The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341] provides a means of restricting access to specific NETCONF or RESTCONF users to a preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or RESTCONF protocol operations and contents. Thus, NACM SHOULD be used to restrict the NSF registration from unauthorized users.¶
There are a number of data nodes defined in this YANG module that are writable, creatable, and deletable (i.e., config true, which is the default). These data nodes may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. Write operations to these data nodes could have a negative effect on network and security operations. These data nodes are collected into a single list node with the following sensitivity/vulnerability:¶
- list i2nsf-cfi-policy: Writing to almost any element of this YANG module would directly impact on the configuration of NSFs, e.g., completely turning off security monitoring and mitigation capabilities; altering the scope of this monitoring and mitigation; creating an overwhelming logging volume to overwhelm downstream analytics or storage capacity; creating logging patterns which are confusing; or rendering useless trained statistics or artificial intelligence models.¶
Some of the readable data nodes in this YANG module may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus important to control read access (e.g., via get, get-config, or notification) to these data nodes. These are the subtrees and data nodes with their sensitivity/vulnerability:¶
- list i2nsf-cfi-policy: The leak of this node to an attacker could reveal the specific configuration of security controls to an attacker. An attacker can craft an attack path that avoids observation or mitigations; one may reveal topology information to inform additional targets or enable lateral movement; one enables the construction of an attack path that avoids observation or mitigations; one provides an indication that the operator has discovered the attack. This node also holds a list of endpoint data that is considered private to the users.¶
12. References
12.1. Normative References
- [RFC0768]
- Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.
- [RFC0792]
- Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5, RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.
- [RFC0793]
- Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.
- [RFC0854]
- Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Telnet Protocol Specification", STD 8, RFC 854, DOI 10.17487/RFC0854, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc854>.
- [RFC0959]
- Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol", STD 9, RFC 959, DOI 10.17487/RFC0959, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc959>.
- [RFC1939]
- Myers, J. and M. Rose, "Post Office Protocol - Version 3", STD 53, RFC 1939, DOI 10.17487/RFC1939, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1939>.
- [RFC2119]
- Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
- [RFC2595]
- Newman, C., "Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP", RFC 2595, DOI 10.17487/RFC2595, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2595>.
- [RFC3261]
- Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.
- [RFC3688]
- Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
- [RFC3986]
- Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
- [RFC4250]
- Lehtinen, S. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol Assigned Numbers", RFC 4250, DOI 10.17487/RFC4250, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4250>.
- [RFC4340]
- Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, DOI 10.17487/RFC4340, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4340>.
- [RFC4443]
- Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89, RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
- [RFC5321]
- Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321, DOI 10.17487/RFC5321, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5321>.
- [RFC5646]
- Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for Identifying Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, DOI 10.17487/RFC5646, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5646>.
- [RFC6241]
- Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
- [RFC6242]
- Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>.
- [RFC6991]
- Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types", RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.
- [RFC7950]
- Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language", RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
- [RFC8040]
- Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
- [RFC8174]
- Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
- [RFC8329]
- Lopez, D., Lopez, E., Dunbar, L., Strassner, J., and R. Kumar, "Framework for Interface to Network Security Functions", RFC 8329, DOI 10.17487/RFC8329, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8329>.
- [RFC8335]
- Bonica, R., Thomas, R., Linkova, J., Lenart, C., and M. Boucadair, "PROBE: A Utility for Probing Interfaces", RFC 8335, DOI 10.17487/RFC8335, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8335>.
- [RFC8340]
- Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams", BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340>.
- [RFC8341]
- Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341, DOI 10.17487/RFC8341, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8341>.
- [RFC8342]
- Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K., and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8342>.
- [RFC8407]
- Bierman, A., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of Documents Containing YANG Data Models", BCP 216, RFC 8407, DOI 10.17487/RFC8407, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8407>.
- [RFC8446]
- Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
- [RFC8525]
- Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Watsen, K., and R. Wilton, "YANG Library", RFC 8525, DOI 10.17487/RFC8525, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8525>.
- [RFC8805]
- Kline, E., Duleba, K., Szamonek, Z., Moser, S., and W. Kumari, "A Format for Self-Published IP Geolocation Feeds", RFC 8805, DOI 10.17487/RFC8805, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8805>.
- [RFC9051]
- Melnikov, A., Ed. and B. Leiba, Ed., "Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) - Version 4rev2", RFC 9051, DOI 10.17487/RFC9051, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9051>.
- [I-D.ietf-httpbis-http2bis]
- Thomson, M. and C. Benfield, "HTTP/2", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-httpbis-http2bis-07, , <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2bis-07.txt>.
- [I-D.ietf-httpbis-messaging]
- Fielding, R. T., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke, "HTTP/1.1", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-httpbis-messaging-19, , <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-messaging-19.txt>.
- [I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics]
- Fielding, R. T., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke, "HTTP Semantics", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19, , <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19.txt>.
- [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model]
- Hares, S., Jeong, J. P., Kim, J. T., Moskowitz, R., and Q. Lin, "I2NSF Capability YANG Data Model", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-32, , <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-32.txt>.
- [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model]
- Jeong, J. P., Lingga, P., Hares, S., Xia, L. F., and H. Birkholz, "I2NSF NSF Monitoring Interface YANG Data Model", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-19, , <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-19.txt>.
- [I-D.ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis]
- Eddy, W. M., "Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-28, , <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-28.txt>.
- [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis]
- Stewart, R. R., Tüxen, M., and K. E. E. Nielsen, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis-19, , <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis-19.txt>.
12.2. Informative References
- [RFC3022]
- Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022, DOI 10.17487/RFC3022, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3022>.
- [RFC3444]
- Pras, A. and J. Schoenwaelder, "On the Difference between Information Models and Data Models", RFC 3444, DOI 10.17487/RFC3444, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3444>.
- [RFC3849]
- Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, DOI 10.17487/RFC3849, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3849>.
- [RFC5737]
- Arkko, J., Cotton, M., and L. Vegoda, "IPv4 Address Blocks Reserved for Documentation", RFC 5737, DOI 10.17487/RFC5737, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5737>.
- [RFC9000]
- Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000, DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9000>.
- [IANA-ICMP-Parameters]
- Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Assigned Internet Protocol Numbers", , <https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xhtml>.
- [IANA-ICMPv6-Parameters]
- Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), "Internet Control Message Procotol version 6 (ICMPv6) Parameters", , <https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/icmpv6-parameters.xhtml>.
- [Encyclopedia-Britannica]
- Britannica, "Continent", , <https://www.britannica.com/science/continent>.
- [YARA]
- Alvarez, V., Bengen, H., Metz, J., Buehlmann, S., and W. Shields, "YARA", YARA Documents https://yara.readthedocs.io/en/v3.5.0/, .
- [SURICATA]
- Julien, V. and ., "SURICATA", SURICATA Documents https://suricata-ids.org/docs/, .
- [SNORT]
- Roesch, M., Green, C., and B. Caswell, "SNORT", SNORT Documents https://www.snort.org/#documents, .
- [STIX]
- Jordan, B., Piazza, R., and T. Darley, "Structured Threat Information Expression (STIX)", STIX Version 2.1: Committee Specification 01 https://docs.oasis-open.org/cti/stix/v2.1/stix-v2.1.pdf, .
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
This document is a product by the I2NSF Working Group (WG) including WG Chairs (i.e., Linda Dunbar and Yoav Nir) and Diego Lopez. This document took advantage of the review and comments from the following people: Roman Danyliw, Mahdi F. Dachmehchi, Daeyoung Hyun, Jan Lindblad (YANG doctor), and Tom Petch. The authors sincerely appreciate their sincere efforts and kind help.¶
This work was supported by Institute of Information & Communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (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 IITP (2020-0-00395, Standard Development of Blockchain based Network Management Automation Technology).¶
Appendix B. Contributors
The following are co-authors of this document:¶
Patrick Lingga - Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, 2066 Seo-ro Jangan-gu, Suwon, Gyeonggi-do 16419, Republic of Korea, EMail: patricklink@skku.edu¶
Jinyong Tim Kim - Department of Electronic, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, 2066 Seo-ro Jangan-gu, Suwon, Gyeonggi-do 16419, Republic of Korea, EMail: timkim@skku.edu¶
Hyoungshick Kim - Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, 2066 Seo-ro Jangan-gu, Suwon, Gyeonggi-do 16419, Republic of Korea, EMail: hyoung@skku.edu¶
Eunsoo Kim - Department of Electronic, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, 2066 Seo-ro Jangan-gu, Suwon, Gyeonggi-do 16419, Republic of Korea, EMail: eskim86@skku.edu¶
Seungjin Lee - Department of Electronic, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, 2066 Seo-ro Jangan-gu, Suwon, Gyeonggi-do 16419, Republic of Korea, EMail: jine33@skku.edu¶
Anil Lohiya - Juniper Networks, 1133 Innovation Way, Sunnyvale, CA 94089, US, EMail: alohiya@juniper.net¶
Dave Qi - Bloomberg, 731 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022, US, EMail: DQI@bloomberg.net¶
Nabil Bitar - Nokia, 755 Ravendale Drive, Mountain View, CA 94043, US, EMail: nabil.bitar@nokia.com¶
Senad Palislamovic - Nokia, 755 Ravendale Drive, Mountain View, CA 94043, US, EMail: senad.palislamovic@nokia.com¶
Liang Xia - Huawei, 101 Software Avenue, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012, China, EMail: Frank.Xialiang@huawei.com¶
Appendix C. Changes from draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-20
The following changes are made from draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-20:¶
- This version updated a 'leaf language' pattern by adding extra parentheses around "[A-Za-z]{2,3}(-[A-Za-z]{3}(-[A-Za-z]{3}){0,2})?" and removing a range character '-' between characters 'Y' and 'Z' in "|([0-9][A-Za-z0-9]{3})))*(-[0-9A-WY-Za-wy-z]" as 'Y' is alphabetically adjacent to 'Z'.¶