SACM                                                       N. Cam-Winget
Internet-Draft                                             Cisco Systems
Intended status: Informational                               L. Lorenzin
Expires: January 22, 2016                                   Pulse Secure
                                                           July 21, 2015

    Secure Automation and Continuous Monitoring (SACM) Requirements


   This document defines the scope and set of requirements for the
   Secure Automation and Continuous Monitoring (SACM) architecture, data
   model and transport protocols.  The requirements and scope are based
   on the agreed upon use cases.

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

   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 January 22, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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
   ( 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 & Lorenzin   Expires January 22, 2016                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title                  July 2015

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Requirements for SACM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Requirements for the Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.3.  Requirements for the Information Model  . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.4.  Requirements for the Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     2.5.  Requirements for Data Model Operations  . . . . . . . . .  12
     2.6.  Requirements for SACM Transport Protocols . . . . . . . .  13
   3.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     5.1.  Trust between Provider and Requestor  . . . . . . . . . .  15
   6.  Change Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     6.1.  -05 to -06  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17

1.  Introduction

   Today's environment of rapidly-evolving security threats highlights
   the need to automate the sharing of such information while protecting
   user information as well as the systems that store, process, and
   transmit this information.  Security threats can be detected in a
   number of ways.  SACM's charter focuses on how to collect and share
   this information based on use cases that involve posture assessment
   of endpoints.

   Scalable and sustainable collection, expression, and evaluation of
   endpoint information is foundational to SACM's objectives.  To secure
   and defend a network, one must reliably determine what devices are on
   the network, how those devices are configured from a hardware
   perspective, what software products are installed on those devices,
   and how those products are configured.  We need to be able to
   determine, share, and use this information in a secure, timely,
   consistent, and automated manner to perform endpoint posture

   This document focuses on describing the requirements for facilitating
   the exchange of posture assessment information in the enterprise, in
   particular, for the use cases as exemplified in
   [I-D.ietf-sacm-use-cases].  Also, this document uses terminology
   defined in [I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology].

Cam-Winget & Lorenzin   Expires January 22, 2016                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title                  July 2015

2.  Requirements

   This document defines requirements based on the SACM use cases
   defined in [I-D.ietf-sacm-use-cases].  This section describes the
   requirements used by SACM to assess and compare candidate data
   models, interfaces, and protocols, to suit the SACM architecture.
   These requirements express characteristics or features that a
   candidate protocol or data model must be capable of offering to
   ensure security and interoperability.

   Multiple data models, protocols, and transports may be employed in a
   SACM environment.  A SACM transport protocol is one that runs on top
   of L3 protocols such as TCP/IP or L4 protocols such as HTTP, carries
   operations (requests / responses), and moves data.

   SACM defines an architecture and information model focused on
   addressing the needs for determining, sharing, and using posture
   information via Posture Information Providers and Posture Information
   Consumers mediated by a Controller.  With the information model
   defining assets and attributes to facilitate the guidance,
   collection, and assessment of posture, these are some of the tasks
   that should be considered:

   1.  Asset Classification: Map the assets on the target endpoints to
       asset classes.  This enables identification of the attributes
       needed to exchange information pertaining to the target endpoint.

   2.  Attribute Definition: Define the attributes desired to be
       collected from each target endpoint.  This is what we want to
       know about a target endpoint.  For instance, organizations will
       want to know what software is installed and its many critical
       security attributes such as patch level.

   3.  Policy Definition: This is where an organization can express its
       policy for acceptable or problematic values of an endpoint
       attribute.  The expected values of an endpoint attribute are
       determined for later comparison against the actual endpoint
       attribute values during the evaluation process.  Expected values
       may include both those values which are good as well as those
       values which represent problems, such as vulnerabilities.  The
       organization can also specify the endpoint attributes that are to
       be present for a given target endpoint.

   4.  Information Collection: Collect information (attribute values)
       from the target endpoint to populate the endpoint data.

Cam-Winget & Lorenzin   Expires January 22, 2016                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title                  July 2015

   5.  Endpoint Assessment: Evaluate the actual values of the endpoint
       attributes against those expressed in the policy.  (An evaluation
       result may become additional endpoint data).

   6.  Result Reporting: Report the results of the evaluation for use by
       other components.  Examples of use of a report would be
       additional evaluation, network enforcement, vulnerability
       detection, and license management.

2.1.  Requirements for SACM

   Many deployment scenarios can be instantiated to address the above
   tasks and use cases defined in [I-D.ietf-sacm-use-cases].  To ensure
   interoperability, scalability, and flexibility in any of these
   deployments, the following requirements are defined for proposed SACM

   G-001  Solution Extensibility: The information model, data models,
    protocols, and transports defined by SACM MUST be designed to allow
    support for future extensions, including both standard and
    proprietary transport protocols and data models.

    1.  The information model and interfaces MUST support the ability to
        add new operations while maintaining backwards compatibility.
        SACM-defined transport protocols MUST have extensibility to
        allow them to transport operations that are defined in the

    2.  The query language MUST allow for general inquiries, as well as
        expression of specific attributes or relationships between
        attributes to follow; the retrieval of specific information
        based on an event, or on a continuous basis; and the ability to
        retrieve specific pieces of information, specific types or
        classes of information, or the entirety of available

    3.  The information model MUST accommodate the interoperable
        addition of new data types and/or schemas.

   G-002  Interoperability: The data models, protocols, and transports
    must be specified with enough details to ensure interoperability.

   G-003  Scalability: SACM needs to support a broad set of deployment
    scenarios.  The data models, protocols, and transports MUST be
    scalable unless they are specifically defined to apply to a special-
    purpose scenario, such as constrained devices.  A SACM transport

Cam-Winget & Lorenzin   Expires January 22, 2016                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title                  July 2015

    protocol standard SHOULD include a section on scalability
    considerations that addresses the number of endpoints and amount of
    information to which it can reasonably be expected to scale.
    Scalability must be addressed to support:

    *  Large datagrams: It is possible that the size of posture
       assessment information can vary from a single assessment that is
       small in size to a very large datagram or a very large set of
       assessments (up to multiple gigabytes in size).

    *  Large number of providers and consumers: A deployment may consist
       of a very large number of endpoints requesting and/or producing
       posture assessment information.

    *  Large number of target endpoints: A deployment may be managing
       information of a very large number of target endpoints.

   G-004  Agility: The data model, protocols, and transports MUST be
    suitably specified to enable implementations to fit into different
    deployment models and scenarios, including considerations for
    implementations of data models and transports operating in
    constrained environments.

   G-005  Information Extensibility: Non-standard (implementation-
    specific) attributes MUST be supported.  A method SHOULD be defined
    for preventing collisions from occurring in the naming of all
    attributes independent of their source.  For interoperability and
    scope boundary, the information model MUST define the mandatory set
    of attributes.  The set of attributes defined by the information
    model MUST be well defined.

   G-006  Data Integrity: A method for ensuring data integrity MUST be
    provided.  This method is required to be available (i.e. all data-
    handling components must support it), but is not required to be used
    in all cases.

   G-007  Data Partitioning: A method for partitioning data MUST be
    supported to accommodate considerations such as geographic,
    regulatory, operational requirements, overlay boundaries, and
    federation (where the data may be collected in multiple locations
    and either centralized or kept in the local region).  Where
    replication of data is supported, it is required that methods exist
    to prevent update loops.

   G-008  Versioning and Backward Compatibility: Announcement and
    negotiation of versions, inclusive of existing capabilities (such as

Cam-Winget & Lorenzin   Expires January 22, 2016                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title                  July 2015

    transport protocols, data models, specific attributes within data
    models, standard attribute expression sets, etc.)  MUST be
    supported.  Negotiation for both versioning and capability is needed
    to accommodate future growth and ecosystems with mixed capabilities.

   G-009  Information Discovery: There MUST be mechanisms for components
    to discover what information is available across the ecosystem (i.e.
    a method for cataloging data available in the ecosystem and
    advertising it to consumers), where to go to get a specific piece of
    that information (i.e. which provider has the information), and what
    schemas are in use for organizing the information.  For example,
    providing a method by which a node can locate the advertised
    information so that consumers are not required to have a priori
    knowledge to find available information.

   G-010  Target Endpoint Discovery: SACM MUST define the means by which
    target endpoints may be discovered.  Use Case 2.1.2 describes the
    need to discover endpoints and their composition.

   G-011  Push and Pull Access: Three methods of data access MUST be
    supported: the standard Pull model as well as solicited and
    unsolicited Push models.  All of the methods of data access MUST
    support the ability for the initiator to filter the set of posture
    assessment information to be delivered.  Additionally, the provider
    of the information MUST be able to filter the set of posture
    assessment information based on the permissions of the recipient.
    This requirement is driven by use cases 2.1.3, 2.1.4 and 2.1.5.

   G-012  Device Interface: The interfaces by which SACM components
    communicate to share endpoint posture information MUST be well
    defined.  That is, the interface defines the data model, SACM
    transport protocols, and network transport protocols to enable SACM
    components to communicate.  [Revised per our 6/29 conversation -
    does this work? -LL]

   G-013  Endpoint Location and Network Topology: The SACM architecture
    and interfaces MUST allow for the target endpoint (network) location
    and network topology to be modeled and understood.  Where
    appropriate, the data model and the interfaces SHOULD allow for
    discovery of the target endpoint location or network topology or

   G-014  Target Endpoint Identity: The SACM architecture and interfaces
    MUST support the ability of components to provide attributes that
    can be used to compose an identity for a target endpoint.  These
    identities MAY be composed of attributes from one or more SACM

Cam-Winget & Lorenzin   Expires January 22, 2016                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title                  July 2015

   G-015  Data Access Control: Methods of access control MUST be
    supported to accommodate considerations such as geographic,
    regulatory, operational and federations.  Entities accessing or
    publishing data MUST identify themselves and pass access policy.

2.2.  Requirements for the Architecture

   At the simplest abstraction, the SACM architecture represents the
   core components and interfaces needed to perform the production and
   consumption of posture assessment information.  Requirements relating
   to SACM's architecture include:

   ARCH-001  Scalability: The architectural components MUST account for
    a range of deployments, from very small sets of endpoints to very
    large deployments.

   ARCH-002  Flexibility: The architectural components MUST account for
    different deployment scenarios where the architectural components
    may be implemented, deployed, or used within a single application,
    service, or network, or may comprise a federated system.

   ARCH-003  Separation of Data and Management Functions: SACM MUST
    define both the configuration and management of the SACM data models
    and protocols used to transport and share posture assessment

   ARCH-004  Topology Flexibility: Both centralized and decentralized
    (peer-to-peer) information exchange MUST be supported.  Centralized
    data exchange enables use of a common data format to bridge together
    data exchange between diverse systems, and can leverage a virtual
    data store that centralizes and offloads all data access, storage,
    and maintenance to a dedicated resource.  Decentralized data
    exchange enables simplicity of sharing data between relatively
    uniform systems, and between small numbers of systems, especially
    within a single enterprise domain.  The fact that a centralized or
    decentralized deployment is used SHOULD be invisible to a consumer.

   ARCH-005  Modularity: Announcement and negotiation of functional
    capabilities (such as authentication protocols, authorization
    schemes, data models, transport protocols, etc.) must be supported,
    enabling a SACM component to make inquiries about the capabilities
    of other components in the SACM ecosystem.

   ARCH-006  Role-based Authorization: The SACM architecture MUST be
    capable of effecting role-based authorization.  Distinction of
    endpoints capable of and authorized to provide or consume
    information is required to address appropriate access controls.

Cam-Winget & Lorenzin   Expires January 22, 2016                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title                  July 2015

   ARCH-007  Context-based Authorization: The SACM architecture MUST be
    capable of effecting context-based authorization.  Different
    policies (e.g. business, regulatory, etc.) may specify what data may
    be exposed to, or shared by, consumers based on one or more
    attributes of the consumer.  The policy may specify that consumers
    are required to share specific information either back to the system
    or to administrators.

   ARCH-008  Time Synchronization: Actions or decisions based on time-
    sensitive data (such as user logon/logoff, endpoint connection/
    disconnection, endpoint behavior events, etc.) are all predicated on
    a synchronized understanding of time.  The SACM architecture MUST
    provide a mechanism for all components to synchronize time.  A
    mechanism for detecting and reporting time discrepancies SHOULD be
    provided by the architecture and reflected in the information model.

2.3.  Requirements for the Information Model

   The SACM information model represents the abstracted representation
   for Posture Assessment information to be communicated.  SACM data
   models must adhere to and comply with the SACM information model.
   The requirements for the SACM information model include:

   IM-001  Extensible Attribute Dictionary: the information model MUST
    define a minimum set of attributes for communicating Posture
    Information, to ensure interoperability between data models.
    (Individual data models may define attributes beyond the mandatory-
    to-implement minimum set.)  The attributes should be defined with a
    clear mechanism for extensibility to enable data models to adhere to
    SACM's required attributes as well as allow for their own
    extensions.  The attribute dictionary should be defined with a clear
    mechanism for extensibility to enable future versions of the
    information model to be interoperably expanded with new attributes.

   IM-002  Posture Data Publication: The information model MUST allow
    for the data to be provided by a SACM component either solicited or
    unsolicited.  No aspect of the information model should be dependent
    upon or assume a push (unsolicited) or pull (solicited) model of

   IM-003  Data Model Negotiation: SACM's information model MUST allow
    support for different data models, data model versions, and
    different versions of the operations (and network layer transport).
    The SACM information model MUST include the ability to discover and
    negotiate the use of a particular data model or any data model.

   IM-004  Data Model Identification: The information model MUST provide
    a means to uniquely identify each data model uniquely.  The

Cam-Winget & Lorenzin   Expires January 22, 2016                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title                  July 2015

    identifier MUST contain both an identifier of the data model and a
    version indicator for the data model.  The identifiers SHOULD be
    decomposable so that a customer can query for any version of a
    specific data model and compare returned values for older or newer
    than a desired version.

   IM-005  Data Lifetime Management: The information model MUST provide
    a means to allow data models to include data lifetime management.
    The information model must identify attributes that can allow data
    models to, at minimum, identify the data's origination time and
    expected time of next update or data longevity (how long should the
    data be assumed to still be valid).

   IM-006  Singularity and Modularity: The SACM information model MUST
    be singular (i.e. there is only one information model, not multiple
    alternative information models from which to choose) and MAY be
    modular (a conjunction of several sub-components) for ease of
    maintenance and extension.  For example, endpoint identification
    could be an independent sub-component of the information model, to
    simplify updating of endpoint identification attributes.

2.4.  Requirements for the Data Model

   The SACM information model represents an abstraction for "what"
   information can be communicated and "how" it is to be represented and
   shared.  It is expected that as applications may produce posture
   assessment information, they may share it using a specific data
   model.  Similarly, applications consuming or requesting posture
   assessment information, may require it be based on a specific data
   model.  Thus, while there may exist different data models and
   schemas, they should adhere to the SACM information model and meet
   the requirements defined in this section.

   The specific requirements for candidate data models include:

   DM-001  Element Association: The data model MUST contain a data model
    element for each information model element (e.g. endpoint, IP
    address, asset).  In other words, for every item in the information
    model, there must be an item in the data model.  The data model can
    also include elements that do not exist in the information model.

   DM-002  Data Model Structure: The data model can be structured either
    as one single module or separated into modules and sub-modules that
    allow for references between them.  The data model structure MAY
    reflect structure in the information model, but does not need to.
    For example, the data model may use one module to define endpoints,
    and that module will reference other modules that describe the
    various assets associated with the endpoint.  Constraints and

Cam-Winget & Lorenzin   Expires January 22, 2016                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title                  July 2015

    interfaces may further be defined to resolve or tolerate ambiguity
    in the references (e.g. same IP address used in two separate

   DM-003  Search Flexibility: The search interfaces and actions MUST
    include the ability to start a search anywhere within a data model
    structure, and the ability to search based on patterns ("wildcard
    searches") as well as specific data elements.

   DM-004  Full Vs.  Partial Updates: The data model SHOULD include the
    ability to allow providers of data to provide the data as a whole,
    or when updates occur.  For example, a consumer can request a full
    update on initial engagement, then request to receive deltas
    (updates containing only the changes since the last update) on an
    ongoing basis as new data is generated.

   DM-005  Loose Coupling: The data model SHOULD allow for a loose
    coupling between the provider and the consumer, such that the
    consumer can request information without being required to request
    it from a specific provider, and a provider can publish information
    without having a specific consumer targeted to receive it.

   DM-006  Provider Identification: The interfaces and actions in the
    data model MUST include the ability to identify data from a specific
    provider.  For example, a SACM consumer should be able to request
    all data to come from a specific provider (e.g.  Provider A) as
    there can be a larger set of providers.

   DM-007  Data Cardinality: The data model MUST describe their
    constraints (e.g. cardinality).  As posture information and the
    tasks for collection, aggregation, or evaluation, could comprise one
    or more attributes, interfaces and actions MUST allow and account
    for such cardinality as well as whether the attributes are
    conditional, optional, or mandatory.

   DM-008  Data Model Negotiation: The interfaces and actions in the
    data model MUST include capability negotiation to enable discovery
    of supported and available data types and schemas.

   DM-009  Data Origin: The data model MUST include the ability for
    consumers to identify the data origin (provider that collected the

   DM-010  Origination Time: The data model SHOULD allow the provider to
    include the information's origination time.

Cam-Winget & Lorenzin   Expires January 22, 2016               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title                  July 2015

   DM-011  Data Generation: The data model MUST allow the provider to
    include attributes defining how the data was generated (e.g. self-
    reported, reported by aggregator, scan result, etc.).

   DM-012  Data Source: The data model MUST allow the provider to
    include attributes defining the data source (target endpoint from
    which the data was collected) - e.g. hostname, domain (DNS) name or
    application name.

   DM-013  Data Updates: The data model SHOULD allow the provider to
    include attributes defining whether the information provided is a
    delta, partial, or full set of information.

   DM-014  Multiple Collectors: The data model MUST support the
    collection of attributes by a variety of collectors, including
    internal collectors, external collectors with an authenticated
    relationship with the endpoint, and external collectors based on
    network and other observers.

   DM-015  Attribute Extensibility: Use Cases in the whole of Section 2
    describe the need for an attribute dictionary.  With SACM's scope
    focused on posture assessment, the data model attribute collection
    and aggregation MUST have a well-understood set of attributes
    inclusive of their meaning or usage intent.  The data model MUST
    include all attributes defined in the information model and MAY
    include additional attributes beyond those found in the information
    model.  Additional attributes MUST be defined in accordance with the
    extensibility framework provided in the information model.

   DM-016  Solicited vs. Unsolicited Updates: The data model MUST enable
    a provider to publish data either solicited (in response to a
    request from a consumer) or unsolicited (as new data is generated,
    without a request required).  For example, an external collector can
    publish data in response to a request by a consumer for information
    about an endpoint, or can publish data as it observes new
    information about an endpoint, without any specific consumer request
    triggering the publication; a compliance-server provider may publish
    endpoint posture information in response to a request from a
    consumer (solicited), or it may publish posture information driven
    by a change in the posture of the endpoint (unsolicited).

   DM-017  Transport Agnostic: The data model MUST be transport
    agnostic, to allow for the data operations to leverage the most
    appropriate SACM transport protocol.

Cam-Winget & Lorenzin   Expires January 22, 2016               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title                  July 2015

2.5.  Requirements for Data Model Operations

   Posture information data adhering to a data model must also provide
   interfaces that include operations for access and production of the
   data.  Operations requirements are distinct from transport
   requirements in that operations requirements are requirements on the
   application performing requests and responses, whereas transport
   requirements are requirements on the transport protocol carrying the
   requests / responses.  The specific requirements for such operations

   OP-001  Time Synchronization: Request and response operations MUST be
    timestamped, and published information SHOULD capture time of
    publication.  Actions or decisions based on time-sensitive data
    (such as user logon/logoff, endpoint connection/disconnection,
    endpoint behavior events, etc.) are all predicated on a synchronized
    understanding of time.  A method for detecting and reporting time
    discrepancies SHOULD be provided.

   OP-002  Collection Abstraction: Collection is the act of a SACM
    component gathering data from a target endpoint.  The request for a
    data item MUST include enough information to properly identify the
    item to collect, but the request shall not be a command to directly
    execute nor directly be applied as arguments to a command.  The
    purpose of this requirement is primarily to reduce the potential
    attack vectors, but has the additional benefit of abstracting the
    request for collection from the collection method, thereby allowing
    more flexibility in how collection is implemented.

   OP-003  Collection Composition: A collection request MAY be composed
    of multiple collection requests (which yield collected values).  The
    desire for multiple values MUST be expressed as part of the
    collection request, so that the aggregation can be resolved at the
    point of collection without having to interact with the requestor.
    This requirement SHOULD NOT be interpreted as preventing a collector
    from providing attributes which were not part of the original

   OP-004  Attribute-based Query: A query operation is the act of
    requesting data from a provider.  Query operations SHOULD be based
    on a set of attributes.  Query operations MUST support both a query
    for specific attributes and a query for all attributes.  Use Case
    2.1.2 describes the need for the data model to support a query
    operation based on a set of attributes to facilitate collection of
    information such as posture assessment, inventory (of endpoints or
    endpoint components), and configuration checklist.

Cam-Winget & Lorenzin   Expires January 22, 2016               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title                  July 2015

   OP-005  Information-based Query with Filtering: The query operation
    MUST support filtering.  Use Case 2.1.3 describes the need for the
    data model to support the means for the information to be collected
    through a query mechanism.  Furthermore, the query operation
    requires filtering capabilities to allow for only a subset of
    information to be retrieved.  The query operation MAY be a
    synchronous request or asynchronous request.

   OP-006  Data Model Scalability: The operation resulting from a query
    operation MUST be able to handle the return and receipt of large
    amounts of data.  Use Cases 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 describes the need for
    the data model to support scalability.  For example, the query
    operation may result in a very large set of attributes, as well as a
    large set of targets.

   OP-007  Data Abstraction: The data model MUST allow a SACM component
    to communicate what data was used to construct the target endpoint's
    identity, so other SACM components can determine whether they are
    constructing an equivalent target endpoint (and their identity) and
    whether they have confidence in that identity.  SACM components
    SHOULD have interfaces defined to transmit this data directly or to
    refer to where the information can be retrieved.

2.6.  Requirements for SACM Transport Protocols

   The requirements for SACM transport protocols include:

   T-001  Multiple Transport Protocol Support: SACM transport protocols
    MUST support different network transport protocols in a deployment
    to support different transport layer requirements, different device
    capabilities, and system configurations dealing with connectivity.

   T-002  Data Integrity: SACM transport protocols MUST be able to
    ensure data integrity for data in transit.

   T-003  Data Confidentiality: SACM transport protocols MUST be able to
    support data confidentiality.  SACM transport protocols SHOULD
    ensure data protection for data in transit by encryption to provide
    confidentiality, integrity, and robustness against protocol-based
    attacks.  Note that while the transport MUST be able to support data
    confidentiality, implementations MAY choose to make confidentiality
    optional.  Protection for data at rest is not in scope for transport
    protocols.  Data protection MAY be used for both privacy and non-
    privacy scenarios.

   T-004  Transport Protection: SACM transport protocols MUST be capable
    of supporting mutual authentication and replay protection.

Cam-Winget & Lorenzin   Expires January 22, 2016               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title                  July 2015

   T-005  Transport Reliability: SACM transport protocols MUST provide
    reliable delivery of data.  This includes the ability to perform
    fragmentation and reassembly, and to detect replays.

   T-006  Transport Layer Requirements: Each SACM transport protocol
    MUST clearly specify the transport layer requirements it needs to
    operate correctly.  Examples of items that may need to be specified
    include connectivity requirements, replay requirements, data link
    encryption requirements, and/or channel binding requirements.  These
    requirements are needed in order for deployments to be done
    correctly.  For example, a proxy server between UDP and TCP can
    provide a connection that correctly fulfills the connectivity and
    replay requirements as well as data link requirements (through the
    use of TLS and DTLS) but would be unable to provide a channel
    binding requirement, as that implies there is no MITM to look at the

3.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Barbara Fraser, Jim Bieda, and Adam
   Montville for reviewing and contributing to this draft.  In addition,
   we recognize valuable comments and suggestions made by Jim Schaad and
   Chris Inacio.

4.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

5.  Security Considerations

   This document defines the requirements for SACM.  As such, it is
   expected that several data models, protocols, and transports may be
   defined or reused from already existing standards.  This section will
   highlight security considerations that may apply to SACM based on the
   architecture and standards applied in SACM.  In particular,
   highlights to security considerations that may apply to the SACM
   reference architecture and standard data models and transports will
   be discussed.

   To address security and privacy considerations, the data model,
   protocols, and transports must consider authorization based on
   consumer function and privileges, to only allow authorized consumers
   and providers to access specific information being requested or

   To enable federation across multiple entities (such as across
   organizational or geographic boundaries) authorization must also

Cam-Winget & Lorenzin   Expires January 22, 2016               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title                  July 2015

   extend to infrastructure elements themselves, such as central
   controllers / brokers / data repositories.

   In addition, authorization needs to extend to specific information or
   resources available in the environment.  In other words,
   authorization is based on the subject (the information requestor),
   the provider (the information responder), the object (the endpoint
   the information is being requested on), and the attribute (what piece
   of data is being requested).  The method by which this authorization
   is applied is unspecified.

   To protect the information being shared, SACM components MUST protect
   the integrity and confidentiality of data in transit (while
   information is being transferred between providers and consumers, and
   through proxies and/or repositories) and data at rest (for
   information stored on repositories and on providers / consumers).
   Mechanisms for this protection are unspecified but should include
   industry best practices such as encrypted storage, encrypted
   transports, data checksums, etc.

   SACM's charter focuses on the sharing of posture information for
   improving efficacy of security applications such as compliance,
   configuration, assurance and other threat and vulnerability reporting
   and remediation systems.  While the goal is to facilitate the flow of
   information securely, it is important to note that participating
   endpoints may not be cooperative or trustworthy.

5.1.  Trust between Provider and Requestor

   The information given from the provider to a requestor may come with
   different levels of trustworthiness given the different potential
   deployment scenarios and compromise either at the provider, the
   requesting consumer, or devices that are involved in the transport
   between the provider and requestor.  This section will describe the
   different considerations that may reduce the level of trustworthiness
   of the information provided.

   In the information transport flow, it is possible that some of the
   devices may serve as proxies or brokers and as such, may be able to
   observe the communications flowing between an information provider
   and requestor.  Without appropriate protections, it is possible for
   these proxies and brokers to inject and affect man-in-the-middle

   It is common to, in general, distrust the network service provider,
   unless the full hop by hop communications process flow is well
   understood.  As such, the posture information provider should protect
   the posture information data it provides as well as the transport it

Cam-Winget & Lorenzin   Expires January 22, 2016               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title                  July 2015

   uses.  Similarly, while there may be providers whose goal is to
   openly share its information, there may also be providers whose
   policy is to grant access to certain posture information based on its
   business or regulatory policy.  In those situations, a provider may
   require full authentication and authorization of the requestor (or
   set of requestors) and share only the authorized information to the
   authenticated and authorized requestors.

   A requestor beyond distrusting the network service provider, must
   also account that the information received from the provider may have
   been communicated through an undetermined network communications
   system.  That is, the posture information may have traversed through
   many devices before reaching the requestor.  SACM specifications
   should provide the means for verifying data origin and data integrity
   and at minimum, provide endpoint authentication and transport

   A requestor may require data freshness indications, both knowledge of
   data origination as well as time of publication so that it can make
   more informed decisions about the relevance of the data based on its
   currency and/or age.

   It is also important to note that endpoint assessment reports,
   especially as they may be provided by the target endpoint may pose
   untrustworthy information.  The considerations for this is described
   in Section 8 of [RFC5209].

   The trustworthiness of the posture information given by the provider
   to one or many requestors is dependent on several considerations.
   Some of these include the requestor requiring:

   o  Full disclosure of the network topology path to the provider(s).

   o  Direct (peer to peer) communication with the provider.

   o  Authentication and authorization of the provider.

   o  Either or both confidentiality and integrity at the transport

   o  Either or both confidentiality and integrity at the data layer.

6.  Change Log

Cam-Winget & Lorenzin   Expires January 22, 2016               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title                  July 2015

6.1.  -05 to -06

   Updated G-005 to clarify the MUST to allow non-standard extensions,
   SHOULD avoid collisions and ensure interoperability.

   Cleaned up and clarified IM-003, DM-001.

   Cleaned up some of the OP-XXX and ARCH-XXX per Jim Schaad's comments.

   Updated some of the text around Editor notes and removed all 'Editor
   Note' comments

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

              Birkholz, H., "Secure Automation and Continuous Monitoring
              (SACM) Terminology", draft-ietf-sacm-terminology-07 (work
              in progress), July 2015.

              Waltermire, D. and D. Harrington, "Endpoint Security
              Posture Assessment - Enterprise Use Cases", draft-ietf-
              sacm-use-cases-10 (work in progress), July 2015.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC5209]  Sangster, P., Khosravi, H., Mani, M., Narayan, K., and J.
              Tardo, "Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA): Overview and
              Requirements", RFC 5209, DOI 10.17487/RFC5209, June 2008,

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3444]  Pras, A. and J. Schoenwaelder, "On the Difference between
              Information Models and Data Models", RFC 3444,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3444, January 2003,

Authors' Addresses

Cam-Winget & Lorenzin   Expires January 22, 2016               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft              Abbreviated Title                  July 2015

   Nancy Cam-Winget
   Cisco Systems
   3550 Cisco Way
   San Jose, CA  95134


   Lisa Lorenzin
   Pulse Secure
   2700 Zanker Rd., Suite 200
   San Jose, CA  95134


Cam-Winget & Lorenzin   Expires January 22, 2016               [Page 18]