SACM Working Group A. Montville Internet-Draft B. Munyan Intended status: Standards Track CIS Expires: July 20, 2018 January 16, 2018 Security Automation and Continuous Monitoring (SACM) Architecture draft-mandm-sacm-architecture-00 Abstract This memo documents the Security Automation and Continuous Monitoring (SACM) architecture to be used by SACM participants when crafting SACM-related solutions. The SACM architecture is predicated upon information gleaned from SACM Use Cases and Requirements ([RFC7632] and [RFC8248] respectively) and terminology as found in [I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology]. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on July 20, 2018. 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 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of Montville & Munyan Expires July 20, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SACM Architecture January 2018 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terms and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. The Basic Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. A Word On SACM Components, Capabilities, and Interfaces . . . 4 4.1. Policy Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. Software Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.3. Datastream Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.4. Network Configuration Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Enumerating SACM components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Appendix A. Mapping to RFC8248 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1. Introduction The SACM working group has experienced some difficulty gaining consensus around a single architectural vision. Our hope is that this document begins to alleviate this. We have recognized viability in approaches sometimes thought to be at odds with each other - specifically [I-D.ietf-sacm-ecp] and [I-D.ietf-mile-xmpp-grid]. We believe that these approaches complement each other to more completely meet the spirit of [RFC7632] and [RFC8248]. The authors recognize that some state collection mechanisms exist today, some do not, and of those that do, some may need to be improved. In other words, we can gain the most advantage by supporting a variety of collection mechanisms, including those that exist today. The authors further recognize that SACM ideally intends to enable a cooperative ecosystem of tools from disparate sources with minimal operator configuration. The architecture described in this document seeks to accommodate these recognitions by first defining a generic abstract architecture, then making that architecture somewhat more concrete. Montville & Munyan Expires July 20, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SACM Architecture January 2018 1.1. Requirements notation 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 RFC 2119, BCP 14 [RFC2119]. 2. Terms and Definitions This draft defers to [I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology] for terms and definitions. 3. The Basic Architecture The architectural approach proposed herein recognizes existing state collection mechanisms and makes every attempt to respect [RFC7632] and [RFC8248]. +----------+ +------+ +------------+ |Repository| |Policy| |Orchestrator| +----^-----+ +--^---+ +----^-------+ +----------------+ A | B | C | | Downstream Uses| | | | | +-----------+ | +----v---------------v------------v-------+ | |Evaluations| | | Message Transfer <-------> +-----------+ | +----------------^------------------------+ D | +---------+ | | | |Analytics| | | | +---------+ | +-------v--------- | +---------+ | | Transfer System | | |Reporting| | | Connector | | +---------+ | +-------^---------+ +----------------+ | | +-------v-------+ | Collection | | System | +---------------+ Figure 1: Notional Architecture As shown in Figure 1, the notional SACM architecture consists of some basic SACM Components using a message transfer system to communicate. While not depicted, the message transfer system is expected to maximally align with the requirements described in [RFC8248], which means that the message transfer system will support brokered (i.e. point-to-point) and proxied data exchange. Montville & Munyan Expires July 20, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SACM Architecture January 2018 Additionally, component-specific interfaces (i.e. such as A, B, C, and D in Figure 1) are expected to be specified logically then bound to one or more specific implementations. This should be done for each capability related to the given SACM Component. +----------+ +------+ +------------+ |Repository| |Policy| |Orchestrator| +----^-----+ +--^---+ +----^-------+ | | | | | | +----v---------------v------------v-----------------+ +-----------------+ | XMPP-Grid <-----> Downstream Uses | +-----^-------------^-------------^-------------^---+ +-----------------+ | | | | | | | | +----v----+ +----v----+ +----v----+ +----v----+ |XMPP-Grid| |XMPP-Grid| |XMPP-Grid| |XMPP-Grid| /~~|Connector|~~~|Connector|~~~|Connector|~~~|Connector|~~\ | +----^----+ +----^----+ +----^----+ +----^----+ | | | | | | | | +----v----+ +----v-----+ +----v----+ +----v----+ | | |ECP/SWIMA| |Datastream| |YANG Push| | IPFIX | | | +---------+ +----------+ +---------+ +---------+ | | Collectors | \~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/ Figure 2: Detailed Architecture In Figure 2, we have a more detailed view of the architecture - one that fosters the development of a pluggable ecosystem of cooperative tools. Existing collection mechanisms (ECP/SWIMA included) can be brought into this architecture by specifying the interface of the collector and creating the XMPP-Grid Connector. Additionally, while not directly depicted in Figure 2, this architecture does not preclude point-to-point interfaces. In fact, [I-D.ietf-mile-xmpp-grid] provides brokering capabilities to facilitate such point-to-point data transfers. Each of the SACM Components listed depicted in Figure 2 may be a Provider, a Consumer, or both, depending on the circumstance. 4. A Word On SACM Components, Capabilities, and Interfaces As previously mentioned, the SACM Architecture consists of a variety of SACM Components, and named components are intended to embody one or more specific capabilities. Interacting with these capabilities will require at least two levels of interface specification. The first is a logical interface specification, and the second is at Montville & Munyan Expires July 20, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SACM Architecture January 2018 least one binding to a specific transfer mechanism, where the preferred transfer mechanism would be XMPP-grid. The scenarios described in this section are informational, but may be taken as guidance or a starting point for further specifications concerning each of these areas. 4.1. Policy Services Consider a policy server conforming to [I-D.ietf-mile-rolie]. [I-D.ietf-mile-rolie] describes a RESTful way based on the ATOM Publishing Protocol ([RFC5023]) to find specific data collections. While this represents a specific binding (i.e. RESTful API based on [RFC5023]), there is a more abstract way to look at ROLIE. ROLIE provides notional workspaces and collections, and provides the concept of information categories and links. Strictly speaking, these are logical concepts independent of the RESTful binding ROLIE specifies. In other words, ROLIE binds a logical interface (i.e. GET workspace, GET collection, SET entry, and so on) to a specific mechanism (namely an ATOM Publication Protocol extension). It is not inconceivable to believe there could be a different interface mechanism, or a connector, providing these same operations using XMPP-Grid as the transfer mechanism. 4.2. Software Inventory The SACM working group has accepted work on the Endpoint Compliance Profile [I-D.ietf-sacm-ecp], which describes a collection architecture and may be viewed as a collector coupled with a collection-specific repository. Montville & Munyan Expires July 20, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SACM Architecture January 2018 Posture Manager Endpoint Orchestrator +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------+ | | | | | | | +-----------+ | | +-----------+ | | |<---->| | Posture | | | | Posture | | | | pub/ | | Validator | | | | Collector | | | | sub | +-----------+ | | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | Evaluator Repository | | | | | | +------+ +--------+ | +-----------+ |<-------| +-----------+ | | | | | | | Posture | | report | | Posture | | | | | | | | Collection| | | | Collection| | | |<-----> | |<-----| | Manager | | query | | Engine | | | |request/| | store| +-----------+ |------->| +-----------+ | | |respond | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +------+ +--------+ +---------------+ +---------------+ Figure 3: ECP Collection Architecture In Figure 3, any of the communications between the Posture Manager and ECP components to its left could be performed directly or indirectly using a given message transfer mechanism. For example, the pub/sub interface between the Orchestrator and the Posture Manager could be using a proprietary method or using [I-D.ietf-mile-xmpp-grid] or some other pub/sub mechanism. Similarly, the store connection from the Posture Manager to the Repository could be performed internally to a given implementation, via a RESTful API invocation over HTTPS, or even over a pub/sub mechanism. Our assertion is that the Evaluator, Repository, Orchestrator, and Posture Manager all have the potential to represent SACM Components with specific capability interfaces that can be logically specified, then bound to one or more specific transfer mechanisms (i.e. RESTful API, [I-D.ietf-mile-rolie], [I-D.ietf-mile-xmpp-grid], and so on). An equally plausible way to view the ECP collection architecture might be as depicted in Figure 4. Montville & Munyan Expires July 20, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SACM Architecture January 2018 /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\ Endpoint Orchestrator | +---------------+ | +---------------+ +--------+ | | | | | | | | | | +-----------+ | | | +-----------+ | | |<------------------------>| | Posture | | | | | Posture | | | | | RESTful | | Validator | | | | | Collector | | | | | API | +-----------+ | | | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Evaluator | Repository | | | | | | | +------+ | +--------+ | +-----------+ |<---->| +-----------+ | | | | | | | | Posture | |PA/TNC| | Posture | | | | | | | | | Collection| | | | | Collection| | | |<--------->| |<-------| | Manager | | | | | Engine | | | |RESTful | | |Direct | +-----------+ | | | +-----------+ | | |API | | |DB Conn | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +------+ | +--------+ +---------------+ | +---------------+ | | | Posture Manager | \~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/ Figure 4: Alternate ECP Collection Architecture Here, the Posture Manager is the aggregate of Repository, Posture Validator, and Posture Collection Manager. An evaluator could connect via a RESTful API, as could an Orchestrator. Alternatively, and as depicted in Figure 5, the Posture Manager could interact with other security ecosystem components using an XMPP-Grid connector. Montville & Munyan Expires July 20, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SACM Architecture January 2018 /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\ Endpoint Orchestrator | +---------------+ | +---------------+ +--------+ | | | | | | | | | | +-----------+ | | | +-----------+ | | |<------------------------>| | Posture | | | | | Posture | | | | | XMPP-Grid | | Validator | | | | | Collector | | | | | Connector | +-----------+ | | | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Evaluator | Repository | | | | | | | +------+ | +--------+ | +-----------+ |<---->| +-----------+ | | | | | | | | Posture | |PA/TNC| | Posture | | | | | | | | | Collection| | | | | Collection| | | |<--------->| |<-------| | Manager | | | | | Engine | | | |XMPP-Grid| | |Direct | +-----------+ | | | +-----------+ | | |Connector| | |DB Conn | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +------+ | +--------+ +---------------+ | +---------------+ | | | Posture Manager | \~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/ Figure 5: Alternate ECP Collection Architecture 4.3. Datastream Collection The NIST 800-126 specification, also known as SCAP 1.2, provides the technical specifications for a "datastream collection". The specification describes the "datastream collection" as being "composed of SCAP data streams and SCAP source components". A "datastream" provides an encapsulation of the SCAP source components required to, for example, perform configuration assessment on a given endpoint. These source components include XCCDF checklists, OVAL Definitions, and CPE Dictionary information. A single "datastream collection" may encapsulate multiple "datastreams", and reference any number of SCAP components. Datastream collections were intended to provide an envelope enabling transfer of SCAP data more easily. The NIST 800-126 specification also defines the "SCAP result data stream" as being conformant to the Asset Reporting Format specification, defined in NISTIR-7694. The Asset Reporting Format provides an encapsulation of the SCAP source components, Asset Information, and SCAP result components, such as system characteristics and state evaluation results. What NIST 800-126 did not do is specify the interface for finding or acquiring source datastream information, nor an interface for publishing result information. Discovering the actual resources for Montville & Munyan Expires July 20, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SACM Architecture January 2018 this information could be done via ROLIE, as described in the Policy Services section above, but other repositories of SCAP data exist as well. 4.4. Network Configuration Collection Henk's draft illustrates a SACM Component incorporating a YANG Push client function and an XMPP-grid publisher function. Henk's draft further states "the output of the YANG Push client function is encapsulated in a SACM Content Element envelope, which is again encapsulated in a SACM statement envelope" which are published, essentially, via an XMPP-Grid Connector for SACM Components also part of the XMPP-Grid. This is a specific example of an existing collection mechanism being adapted to the XMPP-Grid message transfer system. 5. Enumerating SACM components The list of SACM Components is theoretically endless, but we need to start somewhere. The following is a list of suggested SACM Components. o Vulnerability Information Repository o Software Inventory Collector o Software Inventory Repository o Configuration Policy Repository o Configuration State Repository o Vulnerability Management Orchestrator o Configuration Management Orchestrator o State Collectors 6. Privacy Considerations TODO 7. Security Considerations TODO Montville & Munyan Expires July 20, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SACM Architecture January 2018 8. IANA Considerations IANA tables can probably be used to make life a little easier. We would like a place to enumerate: o Capability/operation semantics o SACM Component implementation identifiers o SACM Component versions o Associations of SACM Components (and versions) to specific Capabilities 9. References 9.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc2119>. 9.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-mile-rolie] Field, J., Banghart, S., and D. Waltermire, "Resource- Oriented Lightweight Information Exchange", draft-ietf- mile-rolie-16 (work in progress), December 2017. [I-D.ietf-mile-xmpp-grid] Cam-Winget, N., Appala, S., Pope, S., and P. Saint-Andre, "Using XMPP for Security Information Exchange", draft- ietf-mile-xmpp-grid-04 (work in progress), October 2017. [I-D.ietf-sacm-ecp] Haynes, D., Fitzgerald-McKay, J., and L. Lorenzin, "Endpoint Compliance Profile", draft-ietf-sacm-ecp-00 (work in progress), September 2017. [I-D.ietf-sacm-nea-swid-patnc] Schmidt, C., Haynes, D., Coffin, C., Waltermire, D., and J. Fitzgerald-McKay, "Software Inventory Message and Attributes (SWIMA) for PA-TNC", draft-ietf-sacm-nea-swid- patnc-01 (work in progress), March 2017. Montville & Munyan Expires July 20, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SACM Architecture January 2018 [I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology] Birkholz, H., Lu, J., Strassner, J., Cam-Winget, N., and A. Montville, "Security Automation and Continuous Monitoring (SACM) Terminology", draft-ietf-sacm- terminology-14 (work in progress), December 2017. [RFC5023] Gregorio, J., Ed. and B. de hOra, Ed., "The Atom Publishing Protocol", RFC 5023, DOI 10.17487/RFC5023, October 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5023>. [RFC7632] Waltermire, D. and D. Harrington, "Endpoint Security Posture Assessment: Enterprise Use Cases", RFC 7632, DOI 10.17487/RFC7632, September 2015, <https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc7632>. [RFC8248] Cam-Winget, N. and L. Lorenzin, "Security Automation and Continuous Monitoring (SACM) Requirements", RFC 8248, DOI 10.17487/RFC8248, September 2017, <https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc8248>. Appendix A. Mapping to RFC8248 TBD Authors' Addresses Adam W. Montville Center for Internet Security 31 Tech Valley Drive East Greenbush, NY 12061 USA Email: adam.w.montville@gmail.com Bill Munyan Center for Internet Security 31 Tech Valley Drive East Greenbush, NY 12061 USA Email: bill.munyan.ietf@gmail.com Montville & Munyan Expires July 20, 2018 [Page 11]