Network Working Group M. StJohns Internet-Draft R. Atkinson, Extreme Networks draft-stjohns-sipso-04.txt G. Thomas, US Dept of Defense Expires: 4 JAN 2009 4 July 2008 Common Architecture Label IPv6 Security Option (CALIPSO) Status of this Memo This is an Internet-Draft. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. ABSTRACT This document describes an optional method for encoding explicit packet Sensitivity Labels on IPv6 packets. It is intended for use only within Multi-Level secure (MLS) networking environments that are both trusted and trustworthy. StJohns Et Alia [Page 1]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................3 1.1. History .............................................3 1.2. Intent ..............................................4 1.3. Deployment Examples..................................5 2. DEFINITIONS .........................................6 2.1. Domain of Interpretation.............................6 2.2. Sensitivity Level ...................................8 2.3. Compartment .........................................8 2.4. Releasability .......................................9 2.5. Sensitivity Label ..................................14 2.6. Import .............................................15 2.7 Export .............................................16 2.8. End System .........................................16 2.9. Intermediate System ................................16 2.10. System Security Policy .............................17 3. ARCHITECTURE........................................17 4. DEFAULTS............................................22 5. FORMAT..............................................24 5.1 Option Format ......................................25 5.2 Packet Word Alignment...............................28 6. USAGE...............................................29 6.1 Sensitivity Label Comparisons.......................29 6.2 End System Processing ..............................32 6.3 Intermediate System Processing......................35 7. IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS.......................39 7.1 Intermediate Systems................................40 7.2 End Systems.........................................40 7.3 Transport-Layer Protocols...........................40 8. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS.............................43 9. IANA CONSIDERATIONS.................................44 REFERENCES..........................................46 StJohns Et Alia [Page 2]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 1. INTRODUCTION The original IPv4 specification in RFC-791 includes an option for labeling the sensitivity of IP packets. That option was revised by RFC-1038 and later by RFC-1108. [RFC-791][RFC-1038][RFC-1108] Although the IETF later deprecated RFC-1108, the option continues to be in active use within a number of closed IP networks. One or another IP Sensitivity Label option has been in limited deployment for about two decades, most usually in governmental or military internal networks. There are also some commercial sector deployments, where corporate security policies require Mandatory Access Controls be applied to sensitive data. For example, some banks use MLS technology to compartment information known to their investment banking staff, so that their trading staff is unaware of that information. This option, like its IPv4 predecessors, is nearly always deployed within private internetworks, disconnected from the global Internet. This document specifies the explicit packet labeling extensions for IPv6 packets. 1.1 History This document is a direct descendent of RFC-1038 and RFC-1108 and is a close cousin to the work done in the Commercial IP Security Option (CIPSO) Working Group of the Trusted Systems Interoperability Group (TSIG).[FIPS-188] The IP Security option defined by RFC-1038 was designed with one specific purpose in mind: to support the fielding of an IPv4 packet encryption device called a BLACKER.[RFC-1038] Because of this, the definitions and assumptions in those documents were necessarily focused on the US Department of Defense and the BLACKER device. Today, IP packet Sensitivity Labeling is most commonly deployed within Multi-Level Secure (MLS) environments, often composed of Compartmented Mode Workstations (CMWs) connected via a Local Area Network (LAN). So the mechanism defined here is accordingly more general than either RFC-1038 or RFC-1108 were. Also, the deployment of Compartmented Mode Workstations ran into operational constraints caused by the limited, and relatively small, space available for IPv4 options. This caused one non-IETF specification for IPv4 packet labeling to have a large number of sub-options. A very unfortunate side-effect of having sub-options within an IPv4 label option was that it became StJohns Et Alia [Page 3]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 much more challenging to implement Intermediate System support for Mandatory Access Controls (e.g. in a router or MLS guard system) and still be able to forward traffic at, or near, wire-speed. In the last decade or so, typical Ethernet link speeds have changed from 10 Mbps half-duplex to 1 Gbps full-duplex. The 10 Gbps full-duplex Ethernet standard is widely available today in routers, Ethernet switches, and even in some servers. The IEEE is actively developing standards for both 40 Gbps Ethernet and 100 Gbps Ethernet as of this writing. Forwarding at those speeds typically requires support from ASICs; supporting more complex packet formats usually require significantly more gates than supporting simpler packet formats. So the pressure to have a single simple option format has only increased in the past decade, and is only going to increase in future. When IPv6 was initially being developed, it was anticipated that the availability of IP Security, in particular the Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and the IP Authentication Header (AH), would obviate the need for explicit packet Sensitivity Labels with IPv6. [RFC-1825, IPSEC, AH, ESP] For MLS IPv6 deployments where the use of AH or ESP is practical, use of AH and/or ESP is recommended. However, some applications (e.g. distributed file systems), most often those not designed for use with Compartmented Mode Workstations or other Multi-Level Secure (MLS) computers, multiplex different transactions at different sensitivity levels and/or with different privileges over a single IP communications session (e.g. with the User Datagram Protocol). In order to maintain data Sensitivity Labeling for such applications, in order to be able to implement routing and Mandatory Access Control decisions in routers and guards on a per-IP-packet basis, and for other reasons, there is a need to have a mechanism for explicitly labeling the sensitivity information for each IPv6 packet. 1.2. Intent This document describes a generic way of labeling IPv6 datagrams to reflect their particular sensitivity. Provision is made for separating data based on domain of interpretation (e.g. an agency, a country, an alliance, or a coalition), the relative sensitivity (i.e. sensitivity levels), and need-to-know or formal access programs (i.e. compartments or categories). StJohns Et Alia [Page 4]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 A commonly used method of encoding Releasabilities as if they were Compartments is also described. This usage does not have precisely the same semantics as some formal Releasability policies, but existing Multi-Level Secure operating systems do not contain operating system support for releasabilities as a separate concept from compartments. The semantics for this sort of Releasability encoding is close to the formal policies and has been deployed by a number of different organisations for at least a decade now. In particular, the authors believe that this mechanism is suitable for deployment in UN peace-keeping operations, in NATO or other coalition operations, in all current US Government MLS environments, and for deployment in other similar commercial or governmental environments. This option would not normally ever be visible in an IP packet on the global public Internet. However, to ensure interoperability of hosts and intermediate systems within such a labeled deployment of IPv6, it is essential to have an open specification for this option. This option is NOT designed to be an all-purpose label option and specifically does not include support for generic Domain Type Enforcement (DTE) mechanisms. If such a DTE label option is desired, it ought to be separately specified and have its own (i.e. different) IPv6 option number. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119. [RFC-2119] 1.3 Deployment Examples Two deployment scenarios for IP packet sensitivity labels are most common. In the first scenario, all the connected nodes in a given private internetwork are trusted systems that have Multi-Level Secure (MLS) operating systems, such as Compartmented Mode Workstations (CMWs), that support per-packet sensitivity labels. [TCSEC][CMW][DOD MLOS PP] In this type of deployment, all IP packets carried within the private internetwork are labeled, the IP routers apply mandatory access controls (MAC) based on the packet labels and the sensitivity ranges configured into the routers, all hosts include packet sensitivity labels in each originated packet, and all hosts apply Mandatory Access StJohns Et Alia [Page 5]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 Controls to each received packet. Packets received by a router or host that have a sensitivity label outside the permitted range for the receiving interface (or, in the case of a router, outside the permitted range for the outgoing interface) are dropped because they violate the MAC policy. The second scenario is a variation of the first where hosts with non-MLS operating systems are present on certain subnetworks of the private internetwork. By definition, these non-MLS hosts operate in "system high" mode. In "system high" mode, all information on the system is considered to have the sensitivity of the most sensitive data on the system. If a system happens to contain data only at one sensitivity level, this would also be an example of "system high" operation. In this second scenario, each subnetwork that contains any single-level hosts has one single "default" Sensitivity Label that applies to all of those single-level systems on that IP subnetwork. Because those non-MLS hosts are unable to create packets containing sensitivity labels and are also unable to apply MAC enforcement on received packets, security gateways (which are often specialised IP routers) connected to such subnetworks need to insert sensitivity labels to packets originated by the system-high hosts that are to be forwarded off subnet. For packets destined for such IP subnetworks, those last-hop IP routers also apply MAC and then either drop (if the packet is not permitted on that destination subnet) xor remove sensitivity labels and forward packets onto those system-high subnetworks (if the packet is permitted on that destination subnetwork). 2. DEFINITIONS This section defines several terms that are important to understanding and correctly implementing this specification. Because of historical variations in terminology in different user communities, several terms have defined synonyms. 2.1. Domain of Interpretation A Domain of Interpretation (DOI) is a shorthand way of identifying the use of a particular labeling, classification, and handling system with respect to data, the computers and people who process it, and the networks that carry it. The DOI policies, combined with a particular Sensitivity Label (which is defined to have meaning within that DOI) applied StJohns Et Alia [Page 6]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 to a datum or collection of data, dictates which systems, and ultimately which persons may receive that data. In other words, a label of "SECRET" by itself is not meaningful; one also must know that the document or data belongs to some specific organisation (e.g. US Dept of Defense, US Dept of Energy, UK Ministry of Defence, NATO, UN, a specific commercial firm) before one can decide on who is allowed to receive the data. A CALIPSO DOI is an opaque identifier that is used as a pointer to a particular set of policies which define the Sensitivity Levels and Compartments present within the DOI, and by inference, to the "real world" (e.g. used on paper documents) equivalent labels (See "Sensitivity Label" below). Registering or defining a set of real world security policies as a CALIPSO DOI results in a standard way of labeling IP data originating from End Systems "accredited" or "approved" to operate within that DOI and the constraints of those security policies. For example, if one did this for the US Department of Defense, one would list all the acceptable labels such as "Secret" and "Top Secret", and one would link the CALIPSO DOI to the DOD 5200.28 and DOD 5200.1R documents which define how to mark and protect data with the US Department of Defense (DoD). [DoD 5200.28, DoD 5200.1-R] The scope of the DOI is dependent on the organization creating it. In some cases, the creator of the DOI might not be identical to a given user of the DOI. For example, a multi-national organisation (e.g. NATO) might create a DOI, while a given member nation or organisation (e.g. UK MoD) might be using that multi-national DOI (posssibly along with other DOIs created by others) within its private networks. To provide a different example, the US might establish a DOI with specific meanings which correspond to the normal way it labels classified documents and which would apply primarily to the US DOD, but those specific meanings might also apply to other associated agencies. A company or other organisation also might establish a DOI which applies only to itself. NOTE WELL: A CALIPSO Domain of Interpretation is different from, and is disjoint from, an ISAKMP/IKE Domain of Interpretation. It is important not to confuse the two different concepts, even though the terms might superficially appear similar. StJohns Et Alia [Page 7]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 2.2. Sensitivity Level A Sensitivity Level represents a mandatory separation of data based on relative sensitivity. Sensitivity Levels ALWAYS have a specific ordering within a DOI. Clearance to access a specific level of data also implies access to all levels whose sensitivity is less than that level. For example, if the A, B, and C are levels, and A is more sensitive than B which is in turn more sensitive than C (A > B > C), access to data at the B level implies access to C as well. As an example, common UK terms for a Sensitivity Level include (from low to high) "Unclassified", "Restricted", "Confidential", "Secret", and "Most Secret". NOTE WELL: A Sensitivity Level is only one component of a Sensitivity Label. It is important not to confuse the two terms. The term "Sensitivity Level" has the same meaning as the term "Security Level". 2.3. Compartment A Compartment represents a mandatory segregation of data based on formal information categories, formal information compartments, or formal access programs for specific types of data. For example, a small startup company creates "Finance" and "R&D" compartments to protect data critical to its success -- only employees with a specific need to know (e.g. the accountants and controller for "Finance", specific engineers for "R&D") are given access to each compartment. Each Compartment is separate and distinct. Access to one Compartment does not imply access to any other Compartment. Data may be protected in multiple compartments (e.g. "Finance" data about a new "R&D" project) at the same time, in which case access to ALL of those compartments is required to access the data. Employees only possessing clearance for a given sensitivity level (i.e. without having clearance for any specific compartments at that sensitivity level) do not have access to any data classified in any compartments (e.g. SECRET FINANCE dominates SECRET). NOTE WELL: The term "category" has the same meaning as "compartment". Some user communities have used the term "category", while other user communities have used the term "compartment", but the terms have identical meaning. StJohns Et Alia [Page 8]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 2.4 Releasability A Releasability represents a mandatory segregation of data, based on a formal decision to release information to others. Historically, most MLS deployments handled Releasability as if it were an inverted Compartment. Strictly speaking, this provides slightly different semantics and behaviour than a paper marked with the same Releasabilities would obtain, because the formal semantics of Compartments are different from the formal semantics of Releasability. The differences in behaviour are discussed in more detail later in this sub-section. In practice, for some years now some relatively large MLS deployments have been encoding Releasabilities as if they were inverted Compartments. The results have been tolerable and those deployments are generally considered successful by their respective user communities. This description is consistent with these MLS deployments, so has significant operational experience behind it. 2.4.1 Releasability Conceptual Example For example, two companies (ABC and XYZ) are engaging in a technical alliance. ABC labels all information present within its enterprise that is to be shared as part of the alliance as REL XYZ (e.g.COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL REL XYZ). However, unlike the compartment example above, COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL dominates COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL REL XYZ. This means that XYZ employees granted a COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL REL XYZ clearance can only access releasable material, while ABC employees with a COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL clearance can access all information. If REL XYZ were managed as a compartment, then users granted a COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL REL XYZ clearance would have access to all of ABC's COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL material, which is undesirable. Releasabilities can be combined (e.g. COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL REL XYZ/ABLE). In this case, users possessing a clearance of either COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL, COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL REL XYZ, COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL REL ABLE, or COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL REL XYZ/ABLE can access this StJohns Et Alia [Page 9]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 information. 2.4.2 Releasability Encoding Individual bits in this option's Compartment Bitmap field MAY be used to encode "releaseability" information. The process for making this work properly is described below. This scheme is carefully designed so that intermediate systems need not know whether a given bit in the Compartment Bitmap field represents a compartment or a releasability. All that an intermediate system needs to do is apply the usual comparison (described elsewhere) to determine whether a packet's label is in-range for an interface or not. This simplifies both the configuration and implementation of a label-aware intermediate system. Unlike bits that represent compartments, bits that represent a releasability are "active low". If a given releasability bit in the Compartment Bitmap field is "0", the information may be released to that community. If the compartment bit is "1", the information may not be released to that community. Only administrative interfaces used to present or construct binary labels in human-readable form need to understand the distinction between releasability bits and non-releasability bits. Implementers are encouraged to describe Releasability encoding in the documentation supplied to users of systems that implement this specification. 2.4.2 Releasability Encoding Examples For objects, such as IP packets, let bits 0-3 of the Compartment Bitmap field be dedicated to controlling releasability to the communities A, B, C, and D, respectively. Example 1, Not releasable to any community: This is usually how handling restrictions such as "No Foreigners (NO FORN)" are encoded. ABCD == 1111 StJohns Et Alia [Page 10]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 Example 2, Releasable only to community A and community C: ABCD == 0101 Example 3, Releasable only to community B: ABCD == 1011 Example 4, Releasable to communities A,B,C, & D: ABCD == 0000 For subjects, such as clearances of users, the same bit encodings are used for releasabilities as are used for objects (see above). Example 1, clearance not belonging to any community: This user can see information belonging to any releasability community, since s/he is not in any releasability community. ABCD = 1111 Example 2, clearance belonging to community A and C: This user can only see Releasable AC information, and cannot see Releasable A information. ABCD == 0101 Example 3, clearance belonging to community B: This user can only see Releasable B information. ABCD == 1011 Example 4, clearance belongs to communities A,B,C, & D: This user can only see Releasable ABCD information, and cannot (for example) see Releasable AB or Releasable BD information. ABCD == 0000 Now we consider example comparisons for an IP router that is enforcing MAC by using CALIPSO labels on some interface: Let the MINIMUM label for that router interface be: CONFIDENTIAL RELEASABLE AC Therefore, this interface has a minimum Releasability of 0101. StJohns Et Alia [Page 11]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 Let the MAXIMUM label for that router interface be: TOP SECRET NOT RELEASABLE Therefore, this interface has a maximum Releasability of 1111. For the range comparisons, the bit values for the current packet need to be "greater than or equal to" the minimum value for the interface AND also the bit values for the current packet need to be "less than or equal to" the maximum value for the interface, just as with compartment comparisons. The inverted encoding scheme outlined above ensures that the proper results occur. Consider a packet with label CONFIDENTIAL RELEASABLE AC: 1) Sensitivity Level comparison: (CONFIDENTIAL <= CONFIDENTIAL <= TOP SECRET) so the Sensitivity Level is "within range" for that router interface. 2) Compartment bitmap comparison The test is [(0101 >= 0101) AND (0101 <= 1111)], so the Compartment bitmap is "within range" for that router interface. Consider a packet with label CONFIDENTIAL RELEASABLE ABCD: 1) Sensitivity Label comparison: (CONFIDENTIAL <= CONFIDENTIAL <= TOP SECRET) so the Sensitivity Level is "within range" for that router interface. 2) Compartment bitmap comparison The test is [(0000 >= 0101) AND (0000 <= 1111)], so the Compartment Bitmap is NOT "within range" for that router interface. Consider a packet with label SECRET NOT RELEASABLE: 1) Sensitivity Label comparison: (CONFIDENTIAL <= SECRET <= TOP SECRET) so the Sensitivity Level is "within range" for that router interface. 2) Compartment bitmap comparison: The test is [(1111 >= 0101) AND (1111 <= 1111)], so the Compartment bitmap is "within range" for that router interface. StJohns Et Alia [Page 12]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 2.4.3 Limitations of this Releasability Approach For example, If one considers a person "Jane Doe" who is a member of two Releasability communities (A and also B), she is permitted to see a paper document that is marked "Releasable A", "Releasable B", OR "Releasable AB" -- provided that her Clearance and Compartments are in-range for the Sensitivity Level and Compartments (respectively) of the paper document. Now, let us consider an equivalent electronic example implemented and deployed as outlined above. In this we consider 2 Releasability communities (A and B). Those bits will be set to 00 for the electronic user-id used by user "Jane Doe". However, the electronic Releasability approach above will ONLY permit her to see information marked as "Releasable AB". The above electronic approach will deny her the ability to read documents marked "Releasable A" or "Releasable B". This is because "Releasable A" is encoded as 01, "Releasable B" is encoded as 10, while "Releasable AB" is encoded as 00. If one looks at the compartment dominance computation, 00 dominates 00, but 00 does NOT dominate 01, and 00 also does NOT dominate 10. Users report that the current situation is tolerable, but not ideal, and can lead to various operational complexities. Several deployments work around this limitation by assigning an electronic user several parallel clearances. Referring to the (fictitious) example above, the user "Jane Doe" might have one clearance without any Releasability, another separate clearance with Releasability A, and a third separate clearance with Releasability B. While this has implications (e.g. a need to be able to associate multiple separate parallel clearances with a single user-id) for implementers of MLS systems, this specification cannot (and does not) levy any requirements that an implementation be able able to associate multiple clearances with each given user-id because that level of detail is beyond the scope of an IP labelling option. Separating the Releasability bits into a separate bitmap within the CALIPSO option was seriously considered. However, existing MLS implementations lack operating system support for Releasability. So even if CALIPSO had a separate bitmap field, those bits would have been mapped to Compartment bits by the sending/receiving nodes, so the operational StJohns Et Alia [Page 13]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 results would not have been different than those described here. Several MLS network deployments connect MLS hosts both to a labelled national network and also to a labelled coalition network simultaneously. Depending on whether the data is labelled according to national rules or according to coalition rules, the set of Releasability marks will vary. Some choices are likely to lead to more (or fewer) incorrect Releasability decisions (although the results of the above Releasability encodings are believed to be fail-safe). 2.5. Sensitivity Label A Sensitivity Label is a quadruple consisting of a DOI, a Sensitivity Level, a Compartment Set, and a Releasability Set. The Compartment Set may be the empty set if and only if no compartments apply. A Releasability Set may be the empty set if and only if no releasabilities apply. A DOI used within an end system may be implicit or explicit depending on its use. CALIPSO Sensitivity Labels always have an explicit DOI. A CALIPSO Sensitivity Label consists of a Sensitivity Label in a particular format (defined below). A CALIPSO Sensitivity Label ALWAYS contains an explicit DOI value. In a CALIPSO Sensitivity Label, the Compartment Bitmap field is used to encode both the logical Compartment Set and also the logical Releasability Set. Hosts using operating systems with MLS capabilities that also implement IPv6 normally will be able to include CALIPSO labels in packets they originate and will be able to enforce MAC policy on the CALIPSO labels in any packets they receive. Hosts using an operating system that lacks Multi-Level Secure capabilities operate in "system high" mode. This means that all data on the system is considered to have the Sensitivity Label of the most sensitive data on the system. Such a system normally is neither capable of including CALIPSO labels in packets that it originates, nor of enforcing CALIPSO labels in packets that it receives. Note Well: The term "Security Marking" has the same meaning as "Sensitivity Label". StJohns Et Alia [Page 14]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 2.5.1 Sensitivity Label Comparison Two Sensitivity Labels (A and B) can be compared. Indeed, Sensitivity Labels exist primarily so they can be compared as part of a Mandatory Access Control decision. Comparison is critical to determining if a subject (a person, network, etc.) operating at one Sensitivity Label (A) should be allowed to access an object (file, packet,route, etc) classified at another Sensitivity Label (B). The comparison of two labels (A and B) can return one (and only one) of the following results: 1) A dominates B (e.g. A=SECRET, B=UNCLASSIFIED); A can read B, 2) B dominates A (e.g. A=UNCLASSIFIED, B=SECRET); A cannot access B, 3) A equals B (e.g. A=SECRET, B=SECRET); A can read/write B, xor 4) A is incomparable to B (e.g. A=SECRET R&D, B=SECRET FINANCE); A cannot access B, and also, B cannot access A. By definition, if A and B are members of different DOIs, the result of comparison is always incomparable. It is possible to overcome this if and only if A and/or B can be promoted such that the labels are interpretable within some single DOI. 2.5.2 Range A range is a pair of Sensitivity Labels which indicate both a minimum and a maximum acceptable Sensitivity Label for objects compared against it. A range is usually expressed as "<minimum> : <maximum>" and always has the property that the maximum Sensitivity Label dominates the minimum Sensivitity Label. In turn, this requires that the two Sensitivity Labels MUST be comparable. A range where <minimum> equals <maximum> may be expressed simply as "<minimum>"; in this case, the only acceptable Sensitivity Label is <minimum>. 2.6. Import The act of receiving a datagram and translating the CALIPSO Sensitivity Label of that packet into the appropriate internal (i.e. End System specific) Sensitivity Label. StJohns Et Alia [Page 15]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 2.7. Export The act of selecting an appropriate DOI for an outbound datagram, translating the internal (End System specific) label into an CALIPSO Sensitivity Label based on that DOI, and sending the datagram. The selection of the appropriate DOI may be based on many factors including, but not necessarily limited to: Source Port Destination Port Transport Protocol Application Protocol Application Information End System Subnetwork Network Sending Interface System Implicit/Default DOI Regardless of the DOI selected, the Sensitivity Label of the outbound datagram must be consistent with the security policy monitor of the originating system and also with the DOI definition used by all other devices cognisant of that DOI. 2.8. End System An End System is a host or router from which a datagram originates or to which a datagram is ultimately delivered. The IPv6 community often uses the term Node, which includes both routers and end systems. This document sometimes uses the term "host" to refer to an end system. 2.9. Intermediate System An Intermediate System (IS) is a node that receives and transmits a particular datagram without being either the source or destination of that datagram. This document sometimes uses the term "router" or "guard" to refer to an intermediate system. So an IPv6 router is one example of an intermediate system. A firewall or security guard device that applies security policies and forwards IPv6 packets that comply with those security policies is another example of an intermediate system. An intermediate system may handle ("forward") a datagram destined for some other node without necessarily importing or exporting the datagram to/from itself. StJohns Et Alia [Page 16]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 NOTE WELL: Any given system can be both an end system and an intermediate system -- which role the system assumes at any given time depends on the address(es) of the datagram being considered and the address(es) associated with that system. 2.10 System Security Policy A System Security Policy (SSP) consists of a Sensitivity Label and the organizational security policies associated with content labeled with a given security policy. The SSP acts as a bridge between how the organization's Mandatory Access Control (MAC) policy is stated and managed and how the network implements that policy. Typically, the SSP is a document created by the Information Security administrator of the site or organisation covered by that SSP. 3. ARCHITECTURE This document describes a convention for labeling an IPv6 datagram within a particular system security policy. The labels are designed for use within a Mandatory Access Control (MAC) system. A real world example is the security classification system in use within the UK Government. Some data held by the government is "classified", and is therefore restricted by law to those people who have the appropriate "clearances". Commercial examples of information labelling schemes also exist.[CW87] For example, one global electrical equipment company has a formal security policy that defines 6 different Sensitivity Levels for its internal data, ranging from "Class 1" to "Class 6" information. Some financial institutions use multiple compartments to restrict access to certain information (e.g. "mergers & acquisitions", "trading") to those working directly on those projects and to deny access to other groups within the company (e.g. equity trading). A CALIPSO Sensitivity Label is the network instantiation of a particular information security policy, and the policy's related labels, classifications, compartments, and releasabilities. Some years ago, the Mandatory Access Control (MAC) policy for US Government classified information was specified formally in mathematical notation.[BL73] As it happens, many other organisations or governments have the same basic Mandatory Access Control (MAC) policy for information with differing ("vertical") Sensitivity Levels. This document builds upon the formal definitions of Bell-LaPadula.[BL73] There are two basic principles "no write down" and "no read up". StJohns Et Alia [Page 17]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 The first rule means that an entity having minimum Sensitivity Level X must not be able to write information that is marked with a Sensitivity Level below X. The second rule means that an entity having maximum Sensitivity Level X must not be able to read information having a Sensitivity Level above X. In a normal deployment, information downgrading ("write down") must not occur automatically, and is permitted if and only if a person with appropriate "downgrade" privilege manually verifies the information is permitted to be downgraded before s/he manually re-labels (i.e. "downgrades") the information. Subsequent to the original work by Bell and LaPadula in this area, this formal model was extended to also support ("horizontal") Compartments of information. This document extends Bell-LaPadula to accommodate the notion of separate Domains of Interpretation (DOI). [BL73] Each DOI constitutes a single comparable domain of Sensitivity Labels as stated by Bell-LaPadula. Sensitivity Labels from different domains cannot be directly compared using Bell-LaPadula semantics. This document is focused on providing standards for encoding Sensitivity Labels in packets, as well as certain standards for how these labels are to be interpreted and enforced at the IP layer. This document recognizes that there are several kinds of application processing that occur above the IP layer that significantly impact end-to-end system security policy enforcement, but are out of scope for this document. In particular, how the network labeling policy is enforced within processing in an end system is critical, but is beyond the scope of a network (IP) layer Sensitivity Label encoding standard. Other specifications exist which discuss such details. [TCSEC] [CMW] [ISO-15408] [CC] [DoD MLOS PP] This standard does not preclude an End System capable of providing labeled packets across some range of Sensitivity Labels. A Compartmented Mode Workstation (CMW) is an example of such an End System.[CMW] This is useful if the End System is capable of, and accredited to, separate processing across some range of Sensitivity Labels. Such a node would have a range associated with it within the network interface connecting the node to the network. As an example, an End System has the range "SECRET: TOP SECRET" associated with it in the Intermediate System to which the node is attached. SECRET processing on the node is allowed to traverse the network to other "SECRET : SECRET" segments of the network, ultimately to a "SECRET : SECRET" node. Likewise, TOP SECRET processing on the node is allowed to traverse a network through "TOP SECRET: TOP SECRET" segments, ultimately to some "TOP SECRET: TOP SECRET" node. The StJohns Et Alia [Page 18]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 node in this case can allow a user on this node to access SECRET and TOP SECRET resources, provided the user holds the appropriate clearances and has been correctly configured. With respect to a given network, each distinct Sensitivity Label represents a separate virtual network which shares the same physical network. There are rules for moving information between the various virtual networks. The model we use within this document is based on the Bell-LaPadula model, but is extended to cover the concept of differing Domains of Interpretation. Nodes that implement this protocol MUST enforce this mandatory separation of data. CALIPSO provides for both horizontal ("Compartment") and vertical ("Sensitivity Level") separation of information, as well as separation based on DOI. The basic rule is that data MUST NOT be delivered to a user or system that is not approved to receive it. NOTE WELL: wherever we say "not approved", we also mean "not cleared", "not certified", and/or "not accredited" as applicable in one's operational community. This specification does not enable AUTOMATIC relabeling of information, within a DOI or to a different DOI. That is, neither automatic "upgrading" nor automatic "downgrading" of information are enabled by this specification. Local security policies might allow some limited downgrading, but this normally requires the intervention of some human entity and is usually done within an End System with respect to the internal Sensitivity Label, rather than on a network or in an intermediate-system (e.g. router, guard). Automatic downgrading is not suggested operational practice; further discussion of downgrading is outside the scope of this protocol specification. Implementers of this specification MUST NOT permit automatic upgrading or downgrading of information in the default configuration of their implementation. Implementers MAY add a configuration knob that would permit a System Security Officer holding appropriate privilege to enable automatic upgrading or downgrading of information. If an implementation supports such a knob, the existence of the configuration knob must be clearly documented and the default knob setting MUST be that automatic upgrading or downgrading is DISABLED. Automatic information upgrading and downgrading is not recommended operational practice. Many existing MLS deployments already use (and operationally StJohns Et Alia [Page 19]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 need to use) more than one DOI concurrently. User feedback from early drafts of this specification indicates that it is common at present for a single of network link (i.e. IP subnetwork) to carry traffic for both a particular "coalition" (or joint-venture) activity and also for the government (or other organisation) that owns and operates that particular network link. On such a link, one CALIPSO DOI would typically be used for the "coalition" traffic and some different CALIPSO DOI would typically be used for non-coalition traffic (i.e. traffic that is specific to the government that owns and operates that particular network link). For example, a UK military network that is part of a NATO deployment might have and use a UK MoD DOI for information originating/terminating on another UK system, while concurrently using a different NATO DOI for information originating/terminating on a non-UK NATO system. Additionally, operational experience with existing MLS systems has shown that if a system only supports a single DOI at a given time, then it is impossible for a deployment to migrate from using one DOI value to a different DOI value in a smooth, lossless, zero downtime, manner. Therefore, a node that implements this specification MUST be able to support at least 2 CALIPSO DOIs concurrently. Support for more than 2 concurrent CALIPSO DOIs is encouraged. This requirement to support at least 2 CALIPSO DOIs concurrently is not necessarily an implementation constraint upon MLS operating system internals that are unrelated to the network. Indeed, use of multiple DOIs is also operationally useful in deployments having a single administration that also have very large numbers of compartments. For example, such a deployment might have one set of related compartments in one CALIPSO DOI and a different set of compartments in a different CALIPSO DOI. Some compartments might be present in both DOIs, possibly at different bit positions of the compartment bitmap in different DOIs. While this might make some implementations more complex, it might also be used to reduce the typical size of the IPv6 CALIPSO option in data packets. Moving information between any two DOIs is permitted -- if and only if -- the owners of the DOIs: 1) Agree to the exchange, AND 2) Publish a document with a table of equivalencies that StJohns Et Alia [Page 20]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 maps the CALIPSO values of one DOI into the other and make that document available to security administrators of MLS systems within the deployment scope of those two DOIs. The owners of two DOIs may choose to permit the exchange on or between any of their systems, or may restrict exchange to a small subset of the systems they own/accredit. One way agreements are permissible, as are agreements which are a subset of the full table of equivalences. Actual administration of inter-DOI agreements is outside the scope of this document. When data leaves an end system it is "exported" to the network, and marked with a particular DOI, Sensitivity Level, and Compartment Set. (This triple is collectively termed a Sensitivity Label.) This Sensitivity Label is derived from the internal Sensitivity Label (the End System specific implementation of a given Sensitivity Label), and the export DOI. The export DOI is selected based on a range of parameters described in detail later in this document. When data arrives at an end system, it is "imported" from the network to the End System. The data from the datagram takes on an internal Sensitivity Label based on the Sensitivity Label contained in the datagram. This assumes the datagram is marked with a recognizable DOI, there is a corresponding internal Sensitivity Label equivalent to the CALIPSO Sensitivity Label, and the datagram is "within range" for the receiving logical interface. A node has one or more physical interfaces. Each physical interface is associated with a physical network segment used to connect the node, router, LAN, or WAN. Each physical network interface has one or more Sensitivity Label ranges associated with it. Sensitivity Label ranges from multiple DOIs must be enumerated separately. Multiple ranges from the same DOI are permissible. Each node also might have one or more logical network interfaces. A given logical network interface might be associated with more than one physical interface. For example, a layer-3 switch/router might have 2 Ethernet ports that are associated with the same VLAN (i.e. where that one VLAN mapped to a single IPv6 subnetwork). [IEEE 802.1Q] A given physical network interface might have more than one StJohns Et Alia [Page 21]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 associated logical interface. For example, a node might have 2 logical network interfaces, each for a different IP subnetwork ("super-netting"), on a single physical network interface (e.g. on a single Network Interface Card of a personal computer). Alternatively, also as an example, a single Ethernet port might have multiple Virtual LANs (VLANs) associated with it, where each VLAN could be a separate logical network interface. Each logical network interface has one or more Sensitivity Label ranges associated with it. Sensitivity Label ranges from multiple DOIs must be enumerated separately. Multiple ranges from the same DOI are permissible. Each range associated with a logical interface must fall within a range separately defined for the corresponding physical interface. There is specific user interest in having IPv6 routers that can apply per-logical-interface mandatory access controls based on the contents of the CALIPSO Sensitivity Labels in IPv6 packets. The authors note that since the early 1990s, and continuing through today, some commercial IPv4 router products provide MAC enforcement for the RFC-1108 IP Security Option. In transit, a datagram is handled based on its CALIPSO Sensitivity Label, and is usually neither imported to or exported from the various intermediate systems it transits. There also is the concept of "CALIPSO Gateways" which import data from one DOI and export it to another DOI such that the effective Sensitivity Label is NOT changed, but is merely represented using a different DOI. In other words, such devices would be trustworthy, trusted, and authorised to provide on-the-fly re-labeling of packets at the boundaries between complete systems of hosts within a single DOI. Typically, such systems require specific certification(s) and accreditation(s) before deployment or use. 4. DEFAULTS This Section describes the default behaviour of CALIPSO compliant end nodes and intermediate systems. Implementers MAY implement configuration knobs to vary from this behaviour, provided that the default behaviour (i.e. if the system administrator does not explicitly change the configured behaviour of the device) is as described below. If implementers choose to implement such configuration knobs, the configuration parameters and the behaviours that they enable and disable SHOULD be documented for the benefit of system administrators of those devices. Each Intermediate System or End System is responsible for StJohns Et Alia [Page 22]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 properly interpreting and enforcing the MLS Mandatory Access Control policy. Practically, this means that each node must evaluate the label on the inbound packet, ensure that this Sensitivity Label is valid (i.e. within range) for the receiving interface, and at a minimum only forward the packet to an interface and node where the Sensitivity Label of the packet falls within the assigned range of that node's receiving interface. Packets with an invalid (e.g. out of range) Sensitivity Label for the receiving interface MUST be dropped upon receipt. A Sensitivity Label is valid if and only if the Sensitivity Label falls within the range assigned to the transmitting interface on the sending system and within the range assigned to the receiving interface on the receiving system. These rules also need to be applied by intermediate systems on each hop that a CALIPSO-labeled packet traverses, not merely at the end points of a labeled IP session. As an example, it is a violation of the default MLS MAC policy for a packet with a higher sensitivity level (e.g. "MOST SECRET") to transit a link whose maximum sensitivity level is less than that first sensitivity level (e.g. "SECRET"). If an unlabeled packet is received from a node which is not aware of CALIPSO Sensitivity Labels (i.e. unaware to assign Sensitivity Labels itself) and the packet is destined for a node which is sensitivity label aware, the receiving intermediate system needs to insert a Sensitivity Label. This Sensitivity Label will be equal to the maximum Sensitivity Label assigned to the originating node if and only if that is known to the receiving node. If this receiving intermediate system does not know which Sensitivity Label is assigned to the originating node, the maximum Sensitivity Label of the interface the packet was received upon will be inserted. [NOTE WELL: The procedure in the preceding paragraph is NOT a label upgrade -- because it is not changing an existing label; instead, it is simply inserting a Sensivity Label that has the only "safe" value, given that no other information is known to the receiving node. In large-scale deployments, it is very unlikely that a given node will have any authoritative a priori information about the security configuration of any node that is NOT on a directly attached link.] If a packet is to be sent to a node which is defined to not be Sensitivity Label aware, from a node which is label aware, then the Sensitivity Label MAY be StJohns Et Alia [Page 23]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 removed upon transmission if and only if local security policy explicitly permits this. The originating node is still responsible for ensuring that the Sensitivity Label on the packet falls within the Sensitivity Label range associated with the receiving node. If the packet will traverse more than one subnetwork between origin and destination, and those subnetworks are labeled, then the packet SHOULD normally contain a Sensitivity Label so that the packet will be able to reach the destination and the intermediate systems will be able to apply the requisite MAC policy to the packet. [NOTE WELL that in some IPv4 labeled network deployments that exist as of this writing, the first hop router will insert a Sensitivity Label into a received unlabeled packet upon the receipt of that unlabeled packet, in the manner described above. So sending a packet without a label across a multiple subnetwork path to a destination does not guarantee that the packet will arrive containing no Sensitivity Label.] 5. FORMAT This section describes the format of the CALIPSO option for use with IPv6 datagrams. CALIPSO is an IPv6 hop-by-hop option to ensure that a security gateway or router could apply access controls to IPv6 packets based on the CALIPSO label carried by the packet. An IPv6 datagram normally contains at most one CALIPSO label. In the special case where (1) a labeled IPv6 datagram is tunnelled inside another labeled IPv6 datagram AND (2) IP Security is NOT providing confidentiality protection for the inner packet, the outer CALIPSO Sensivity Label must have the same meaning as the inner CALIPSO Sensitivity Label. For example, it would be invalid to encapsulate an unencrypted IPv6 packet with a Sensitivity Label of (SECRET, no compartments) inside a packet with an outer Sensitivity Label of (TOP SECRET, A B). If the inner IPv6 packet is tunnelled inside the Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and confidentiality is being provided to that inner packet, then the outer packet MAY have a different CALIPSO Sensitivity Label -- subject to local security policy. This option's syntax has been designed with intermediate systems in mind. It is now common for a MLS network deployment to contain an intermediate systems acting as a guard (sometimes StJohns Et Alia [Page 24]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 several acting as guards). Such a guard device needs to be able to very rapidly parse the sensitivity label in each packet, apply ingress interface MAC policy, forward the packet while aware of the packet's Sensitivity Label, and then apply egress interface MAC policy. At least one prior IP Sensitivity Label option used a syntax that was unduly complex to implement in IP routers, hence never was implemented in an IP router. So there is a deliberate effort to choose a streamlined option syntax that is easy to parse, to encode, and to implement in more general terms. 5.1. Option Format The CALIPSO option is an IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Option and is designed to comply with IPv6 optional header rules. Following the nomenclature of RFC-2460, Section 4.2, the Option Data field of this option must have 4n alignment.[RFC-2460] The CALIPSO Option Data MUST NOT change en-route, except when (1) "DOI translation" is performed by a trusted intermediate system, (2) a CALIPSO Option is inserted by a trusted intermediate system upon receipt of an unlabeled IPv6 packet, or (3) a CALIPSO Option is removed by a last-hop trusted intermediate system immediately prior to forwarding the packet to a destination node that does not implement support for CALIPSO labels. The details of these 3 exceptions are described elsewhere in this document. If the option type is not recognised by a node examining the packet, the option is ignored. However, all implementations of this specification MUST be able to recognise this option and therefore MUST NOT ignore this option if it is present in an IPv6 packet. This option is designed to comply with the IPv6 optional header rules. [RFC-2460] The CALIPSO option is always carried in a Hop-By-Hop Option Header, never in any other part of an IPv6 packet. This rule exists because IPv6 routers need to be able to see the CALIPSO label so that those routers are able to apply MLS Mandatory Access Controls to those packets. The diagram below shows the CALIPSO option along with the required (first) 2 fields of the Hop-By-Hop Option Header that envelopes the CALIPSO option. The design of the CALIPSO option is arranged to avoid the need for 16 bits of padding StJohns Et Alia [Page 25]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 between the HDR EXT LEN field and the start of the CALIPSO option. Also, the CALIPSO Domain of Interpretation field is laid out so that it normally will be 32-bit aligned. ------------------------------------------------------------ | Next Header | Hdr Ext Len | Option Type | Option Length| +-------------+---------------+-------------+--------------+ | CALIPSO Domain of Interpretation | +-------------+---------------+-------------+--------------+ | Cmpt Length | Sens Level | Checksum (CRC-16) | +-------------+---------------+-------------+--------------+ | Compartment Bitmap (Optional; variable length) | +-------------+---------------+-------------+--------------+ 5.1.1. OPTION TYPE field This field contains an unsigned 8-bit value. Its value is (TO BE ASSIGNED BY IANA; the high order bits of this option need to be 000). Nodes that do not recognise this option should ignore it. In the event the IPv6 packet is fragmented, this option MUST be copied on fragmentation. Virtually all users want the choice of using the IP Authentication Header (a) to authenticate this option and (b) to bind this option to the associated IPv6 packet. 5.1.2. OPTION LENGTH field This field contains an unsigned integer 1 octet in size. It has minimum value is 8 (e.g. when the Compartment Bitmap field is absent). This field specifies the Length of the option data field of this option in octets. The Option Type and Option Length fields are not included in the length calculation. 5.1.3 COMPARTMENT LENGTH field This field contains an unsigned 8-bit integer. The field specifies the size of the COMPARTMENT BITMAP field in 64-bit words. The minimum value is zero, which is used only when the information in this packet is not in any compartment. (In that situation, the CALIPSO Sensitivity Label has no need for a Compartment Bitmap). Because this specification represents Releasabilities on the wire as inverted Compartments, the size of the COMPARTMENT BITMAP StJohns Et Alia [Page 26]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 field needs to be large enough to hold not only the set of logical Compartments, but instead to hold the sum of the set of logical Compartments and the set of logical Releasabilities. Recall that the overall length of this option MUST follow IPv6 optional header rules, including the word alignment rules. This has implications for the valid values for this field. In some cases the length of the Compartment Bitmap field might need to exceed the number of bits required to hold the sum of the logical Compartments and the logical Releasabilities, in order to comply with IPv6 alignment rules. 5.1.5 DOMAIN OF INTERPRETATION field This field contains an unsigned 32-bit integer. IANA maintains a registry with assignments of the DOI values used in this field. The DOI identifies the rules under which this datagram must be handled and protected. The NULL DOI, in which this field is all zeros, MUST NOT appear in any IPv6 packet on any network. NOTE WELL: The DOMAIN OF INTERPRETATION where all 4 octets contain zero is defined to be the NULL DOI. The NULL DOI has no compartments and has a single level whose value and CALIPSO representation are each zero. The NULL DOI MUST NOT ever appear on the wire. If a packet is received containing the NULL DOI, that packet MUST be dropped and the event SHOULD be logged as a security fault. Also note that the CALIPSO DOI is unrelated to the IP Security DOI. 5.1.6. SENSITIVITY LEVEL field This contains an unsigned 8-bit value. This field contains an opaque octet whose value indicates the relative sensitivity of the data contained in this datagram in the context of the indicated DOI. The values of this field MUST be ordered, with 00000000 being the lowest sensitivity level and 11111111 being the highest sensitivity level. However, in a typical deployment, not all 256 Sensitivity Levels will be in use. So the set of valid Sensitivity Level values depends upon the CALIPSO DOI in use. This sensitivity ordering rule is necessary so that intermediate systems (e.g. routers or MLS guards) will be able to apply MAC policy with minimal per-packet computation and minimal configuration. StJohns Et Alia [Page 27]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 5.1.7. 16-bit Checksum Field This field contains an unsigned 16-bit integer holding the 16-bit checksum calculated over the entire CALIPSO option in this packet. The checksum algorithm is the 16-bit checksum defined in Appendix C of RFC-1662.[RFC-1662] For processing simplicity, keeping the potential for a hardware implementation in mind, this 16-bit checksum is always present, even when AH is used. 5.1.8. Compartment Bitmap This contains a variable number of 64-bit words. Each bit represents one compartment within the DOI. Each "1" bit within an octet in the "Compartment Bitmap" field represents a separate compartment under whose rules the data in this packet must be protected. Hence, each "0" bit indicates that the compartment corresponding with that bit is not applicable to the data in this packet. The assignment of identity to individual bits within a Compartment Bitmap for a given DOI is left to the owner of that DOI. This specification represents a Releasability on the wire as if it were an inverted Compartment. So the Compartment Bitmap holds the sum of both logical Releasabilities and also logical Compartments for a given DOI value. The encoding of the Releasabilities in this field is described elsewhere in this document. The Releasability encoding is designed to permit the Compartment Bitmap evaluation to occur without the evaluator necessarily knowing the human semantic associated with each bit in the Compartment Bitmap. In turn, this facilitates the implementation and configuration of Mandatory Access Controls based on the Compartment Bitmap within IPv6 routers or guard devices. 5.2. Packet Word Alignment considerations The basic option is variable length, due to the variable length Compartment Bitmap field. Intermediate Systems that lack custom silicon processing capabilities and most End Systems perform best when processing fixed length, fixed location items. So the IPv6 base specification levies certain requirements on all IPv6 optional headers. So the Compartment Bitmap field must have length in quanta of 64-bit words (e.g. 0 bits, 64 bits, 128 bits) StJohns Et Alia [Page 28]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 6. USAGE This section describes specific protocol processing steps required for systems that claim to implement or conform with this specification. 6.1. Sensitivity Label Comparisons This section describes how comparisons are made between two Sensitivity Labels. Implementing this comparison correctly is critical to the MLS system providing the intended Mandatory Access Controls (MAC) to network traffic entering or leaving the system. A Sensitivity Label consists of a DOI, a Sensitivity Level, and zero or more Compartments. The following notation will be used: A.DOI = the DOI portion of Sensitivity Label A A.LEV = the Sensitivity Level portion of Sensitivity Label A A.COMP = the Compartments portion of Sensitivity Label A 6.1.1. "Within Range" A Sensitivity Label, "M", is "within range" for a particular range "LO:HI" if and only if: 1. M, LO, and HI are members of the same DOI. (M.DOI == LO.DOI == HI.DOI) 2. The range is a valid range. A given range LO:HI is valid if and only if HI dominates LO. ((LO.LEV <= HI.LEV) && (LO.COMP <= HI.COMP)) 3. The Sensitivity Level of M dominates the low-end (LO) Sensitivity Level AND the Sensitivity Level of M is dominated by the high-end (HI) Sensitivty Level. (LO.LEV <= M.LEV <= HI.LEV) AND 4. The Sensitivity Label M has a compartment set that dominates the compartment set contained in the Sensitivity Label from the low-end range (LO), and which is dominated by the Compartment set contained StJohns Et Alia [Page 29]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 in the high-end Sensitivity Label (HI) from the range. (LO.COMP <= M.COMP <= HI.COMP) 6.1.2. "Less Than" or "Below Range" A Sensitivity Label "M" is "less than" some other Sensitivity Label "LO" if and only if: 1. The DOI for the Sensitivity Label M is identical to the DOI for both the low-end and high-end of the range. (M.DOI == LO.DOI == HI.DOI) AND EITHER 2. The sensitivity level of M is less than the sensitivity level of LO. (M.LEV < LO.LEV) OR 3. The compartment set of Sensitivity Label M is dominated by the compartment set of Sensitivity Label LO. (M.COMP <= LO.COMP) A Sensitivity Label "M" is "below range" for a Sensitivity Label "LO:HI", if LO dominates M and LO is not equal to M. 6.1.3. "Greater Than" or "Above Range" A Sensitivity Label, "M" is "greater than" some Sensitivity Label "HI" if and only if: 1. Their DOI's are identical. (M.DOI == HI.DOI) AND EITHER 2A. M's sensitivity level is above HI's sensitivity level. StJohns Et Alia [Page 30]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 (M.LEV > HI.LEV) OR 2B. M's compartment set is greater than HI's compartment set. (M.COMP > HI.COMP) A Sensitivity Label, "M", is "above range" for a Sensitivity Label, "LO:HI", if M dominates HI and M is not equal to HI. 6.1.4. "Equal To" A Sensitivity Label "A" is "equal to" another Sensitivity Label "B" if and only if: 1. They have the exact same DOI. (A.DOI == B.DOI) 2. They have identical sensitivity levels. (A.LEV == B.LEV) 3. Their compartment sets are identical. (A.COMP == B.COMP) 6.1.5. "Disjoint" or "Incomparable" A Sensitivity Label "A" is disjoint from another Sensitivity Label "B" if any of these conditions are true: 1. Their DOI's differ. (A.DOI <> B.DOI) 2. B does not dominate A, A does not dominate B, and A is not equal to B. (^( (A < B) || (A > B) || (A == B) )) 3. Their compartment sets are disjoint from each other; A's compartment set does not dominate B's compartment set AND B's compartment set does not StJohns Et Alia [Page 31]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 dominate A's compartment set. (^( (A.COMP >= B.COMP) || (A.COMP <= B.COMP) )) 6.2. End System Processing This section describes CALIPSO-related processing for IPv6 packets imported or exported from an End System claiming to implement or conform with this specification. This document places no additional requirements on IPv6 nodes that do not claim to implement or conform with this document. 6.2.1 Export An end system which sends data to the network is said to "export" it to the network. Before a datagram can leave an end system and be transmitted over a network the following ordered steps must occur: 1. Selection of the export DOI: a) If the upper level protocol selects a DOI, then that DOI is the one used. b) elseIf there are tables defining a specific default DOI for the specific destination End System address or for the network address, then that DOI is selected. c) elseIf there is a specific DOI associated with the sending logical interface (i.e. IP address), then that DOI is selected. d) Else the default DOI for the system is selected. NOTE WELL: A connection-oriented transport-layer protocol session (e.g. TCP session, SCTP session) MUST have the same DOI and same Sensitivity Label for the life of that connection. The DOI is selected at connection initiation and MUST NOT change during the session. A trusted multi-level application that possesses appropriate privilege MAY use multiple connection-oriented transport-layer protocol sessions with differing Sensitivity Labels concurrently. Some trusted UDP-based applications (e.g. remote StJohns Et Alia [Page 32]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 procedure call service) multiplex different transactions having different sensitivity levels in different packets for the same IP session (e.g. IP addresses and UDP ports are constant for a given UDP session). In such cases, the Trusted Computing Base MUST ensure that each packet is labeled with the correct Sensitivity Label for the information carried in that particular packet. In the event the End System selects and uses a specific DOI and that DOI is not recognised by the originating Node's first-hop router, the packet MUST be dropped by the first-hop router. In such a case, the networking API should indicate the connection failure (e.g. with some appropriate error, such as ENOTREACH). This fault represents either incorrect configuration of either the Intermediate System or of the End System -- xor correct operation for a node that is not permitted to send IPv6 packets with that DOI through that Intermediate System. When an MLS End ystem is connected to an MLS LAN, it is possible that there would be more than one first-hop Intermediate System concurrently, with different Intermediate Systems having different valid Sensitivity Label ranges. Thoughtful use of the IEEE 802 Virtual LAN (VLAN) standard (e.g. with different VLAN IDs corresponding to different sensitivity ranges) might ease proper system configuration in such deployments. 2. Export Labeling: Once the DOI is selected, the CALIPSO Sensitivity Label and values are determined based on the internal sensitivity label and the DOI. In the event the internal sensitivity level does not map to a valid CALIPSO Sensitivity Label, then an error SHOULD be returned to the upper level protocol and that error MAY be logged. No further attempt to send this datagram should be made. 3. Access Control: Once the datagram is marked and the sending logical interface is selected (by the routing code), the datagram's Sensitivity Label is compared against the Sensitivity Label range(s) associated with that logical interface. For the datagram to be sent, the interface StJohns Et Alia [Page 33]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 MUST list the DOI of the datagram Sensitivity Label as one of the permissible DOI's and the datagram Sensitivity Label must be within range for the range associated with that DOI. If the datagram fails this access test an error SHOULD be returned to the upper level protocol and MAY be logged. No further attempt to send this datagram should be made. 6.2.2. Import When a datagram arrives at an interface on an end system, the receiving end system MUST: 1. Verify the CALIPSO checksum. Datagrams with invalid checksums MUST be silently dropped. Such a drop event SHOULD be logged as a security fault with an indication of what happened. 2. Verify the CALIPSO has a known and valid DOI. Datagrams with unrecognized or illegal DOIs MUST be silently dropped. Such an event SHOULD be logged as a security fault with an indication of what happened. 3. Verify the DOI is a permitted one for the receiving interface. Datagrams with prohibited DOI values MUST be silently dropped. Such an event SHOULD be logged as a security fault with an indication of what happened. 4. Verify the CALIPSO Sensitivity Label is within the permitted range for the receiving interface: NOTE WELL: EACH permitted DOI on an interface has a separate table describing the permitted range for that DOI. A datagram which has a Sensitivity Label within the permitted range is accepted for further processing. A datagram which has a Sensitivity Label disjoint with the permitted range MUST be silently dropped. Such an event SHOULD be logged as a security fault, with an indication that the packet was dropped because of a disjoint Sensitivity Label. An ICMP error message MUST NOT be sent in this case. StJohns Et Alia [Page 34]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 A datagram which has a Sensitivity Label below the permitted range MUST be dropped. This event SHOULD be logged as a security fault with an indication of what happened. An ICMP error message MUST NOT be sent in this case. A datagram with a Sensitivity Label above the permitted range MUST be dropped. This event SHOULD be logged with an indication of what happened. An ICMP error message MUST NOT be sent in this case. 5. Once the datagram has been accepted, the import Sensitivity Label and DOI are used to associate the appropriate internal Sensitivity Label with the data contained in the datagram. This information MUST be carried as part of the information returned to the upper-layer protocol. 6.3. Intermediate System Processing This section describes CALIPSO-related processing for IPv6 packets transiting an IPv6 Intermediate System that claims to implement and comply with this specification. This document places no additional requirements on IPv6 Intermediate Systems that do not claim to comply or conform with this document. The CALIPSO packet format has been designed so that one can configure an intermediate system with the minimum sensitivity level, maximum sensitivity level, minimum compartment bitmap, and maximum compartment bitmap -- and then deploy that system without forcing the system to know the detailed human meaning of each sensitivity level or compartment bit value. Instead, once the minimum and maximum labels have been configured, the intermediate system can apply a simple algorithm to determine whether or not a packet is within range for a given interface. This design should be straight-forward to implement in ASIC or FPGA hardware because the option format is simple and easy to parse, and because only a single comparison algorithm (defined in this RFC, hence known in advance) is needed. 6.3.1. Input Intermediate Systems have slightly different rules for processing marked datagrams than do end systems. Primarily, Intermediate Systems do not IMPORT or EXPORT transit datagrams, they just forward them. Also, in most deployments intermediate systems are used to provide Mandatory Access Controls to packets StJohns Et Alia [Page 35]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 traversing more than one subnetwork. The following checks MUST occur before any other processing. Upon receiving a CALIPSO-labeled packet, an intermediate system must: 1. Determine whether or not this datagram is destined for (addressed to) this Intermediate System. If so, then the Intermediate System becomes an End System for the purposes of receiving this particular datagram and the rules for IMPORTing described above are followed. 2. Verify the CALIPSO checksum. Datagrams with invalid checksums MUST be silently dropped. The drop event SHOULD be logged as a security fault with an indication of what happened and MAY additionally be logged as a network fault. NOTE WELL: A checksum failure could indicate a general network problem (e.g. noise on a radio link) that is unrelated to the presence of a CALIPSO option, but it also could indicate an attempt by an adversary to tamper with the value of a CALIPSO label. 3. Verify the CALIPSO has a known and valid DOI. Datagrams with unrecognized or illegal DOIs MUST be silently dropped. Such an event SHOULD be logged as a security fault with an indication of what happened. 4. Verify the DOI is a permitted one for the receiving interface. Datagrams with prohibited DOIs MUST be silently dropped. Such a drop SHOULD be logged as a security fault with an indication of what happened. 5. Verify the Sensitivity Label within the CALIPSO is within the permitted range for the receiving interface: NOTE WELL: Each permitted DOI on an interface has a separate table describing the permitted range for that DOI. StJohns Et Alia [Page 36]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 A rejected datagram which has a Sensitivity Label below or disjoint with the permitted range MUST be silently dropped. Such an event SHOULD be logged as a security fault with an indication of what happened. An ICMP error message MUST NOT be sent in this case. A rejected datagram with a Sensitivity Label above the permitted range MUST be dropped. The drop event SHOULD be logged as a security fault with an indication of what happened. An ICMP error message MUST NOT be sent in this case. If and only if all the above conditions are met is the datagram accepted by the IPv6 Intermediate System for further processing and forwarding. At this point, the datagram is within the permitted range for the Intermediate System, so appropriate ICMP error messages MAY be created by the IP module back to the originating End System regarding the forwarding of the datagram. These ICMP messages MUST be created with the exact same Sensitivity Label as the datagram causing the error. Standard rules about generating ICMP error messages (e.g. never generate an ICMP error message in response to a received ICMP error message) continue to apply. Note that these locally-generated ICMP messages must go through the same outbound checks (including MAC checks) as any other forwarded datagram as described in the following paragraphs. 6.3.2. Translation It is at this point that TRANSLATION of the CALIPSO takes place if at all. Please see Section 6.4 for a discussion of the appropriate processing for Translation. 6.3.3. Output Once the forwarding code has selected the interface through which the datagram will be transmitted the following takes place: 1. Verify the DOI is a permitted one for the sending interface and that the datagram is within the permitted range for the DOI and for the interface. StJohns Et Alia [Page 37]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 2. Datagrams with prohibited DOIs or with out of range Sensitivity Labels MUST be dropped. Any drop event SHOULD be logged as a security fault, including appropriate details about which datagram was dropped and why. 3. Datagrams with prohibited DOIs or out of range Sensitivity Labels MAY result in an ICMP "Destination Unreachable" error message, depending upon the security configuration of the system. If the cause of the dropped packet is that the DOI is prohibited or unrecognised, then a reason code of "No Route to Host" is used. If the dropped packet's DOI is valid, but the Sensitivity Label is out of range, then a reason code of "Administratively Prohibited" is used. If an unlabelled packet has been dropped because the packet is required to be labelled, then a reason code of "Administratively Prohibited" is used. In all cases, if an ICMP Error Message is sent, then it MUST be sent with the same Sensitivity Label as the rejected datagram. The choice of whether or not to send an ICMP message, if sending an ICMP message for this case is implemented, MUST be configurable, and SHOULD default to OFF. Standard conditions about generating ICMP error messages (e.g. never send an ICMP error message about a received ICMP error message) continue to apply. 6.4. Translation A system which provides on-the-fly re-labeling is said to "translate" from one DOI to another. There are basically two ways a datagram can be relabeled: EITHER the Sensitivity Label can be converted from a CALIPSO Sensitivity Label, to an internal Sensitivity Label, and then back to a new CALIPSO Sensitivity Label, XOR a CALIPSO Sensitivity Label can be directly remapped into a new CALIPSO Sensitivity Label. The first of these methods is the functional equivalent of "importing" the datagram then "exporting" it and is covered in detail in the "Import" and "Export" StJohns Et Alia [Page 38]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 sections above. This section describes direct relabeling. The choice of which method to use for relabeling is an implementation decision outside the scope of this document. A system which provides on-the-fly relabeling without importing or exporting is basically a special case of the Intermediate System rules listed above. Translation or relabeling takes place AFTER all input checks take place, but before any output checks are done. Once a datagram has been accepted (passing all the appropriate checks described in section 5.3), it may be relabeled. To determine the new Sensitivity Label, first determine the new DOI. The selection of the new DOI may be based on any of DESTINATION END SYSTEM, DESTINATION NETWORK, DESTINATION SUBNET, SENDING INTERFACE, or RECEIVING INTERFACE, or combinations thereof. Exact details on how the output DOI is selected are implementation dependent, with the caveat that it should be consistent and reversible. If a datagram from End System A to End System B with DOI X maps into DOI Y, then a datagram from B to A with DOI Y should map into DOI X. Once the output DOI is selected, the output Sensitivity Label is determined based on (1) the input DOI and input Sensitivity Label and (2) the output DOI. In the event the input Sensitivity Label does not map to a valid output Sensitivity Label for the output DOI, then the datagram MUST be silently dropped and the drop event SHOULD be logged as a security fault. Once the datagram is re-labeled, the output procedures under Section 5.3 "Intermediate Systems" are followed, with the exception that any error that would cause an ICMP error message to be generated back to the originating End System instead MUST silently drop the datagram without sending an ICMP error message. Such a drop SHOULD be logged as a security fault. 7. IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS This section contains "implementation considerations"; it does not contain "requirements". Implementation experience might eventually turn some of them into implementation requirements in some future version of this specification. StJohns Et Alia [Page 39]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 7.1. Intermediate Systems Performance is optimised if there is hardware support for applying the Mandatory Access Controls based on this label option. The label option syntax has been designed so that it should be straight-forward to implement support for this option and the associated Mandatory Access Controls in custom logic (e.g. in Verilog or VHDL). 7.2. End Systems It is possible for a system administrator to create two DOIs with different overlapping compartment ranges. This can be used to reduce the size of the IPv6 Sensitivity Label option in some deployments. 7.3. Upper-Level Protocols As CALIPSO is an IP option, this document focuses upon the network-layer handling of IP packets containing CALIPSO options. This section provides some discussion of upper-layer protocol issues. This section is not a complete specification for how a MLS host handles information internally after the decision has been made to accept a received IPv6 packet containing a CALIPSO option. Implementers of MLS systems might wish also to consult [TCSEC], [CMW], [CC], [ISO-15408], and [DoD MLOS PP]. In a typical MLS host, the information received from the network (i.e. information not dropped by the network-layer as a result of the CALIPSO processing described in this document) is assigned an internal Sensitivity Label while inside the host operating system. The MLS host uses the Bell-LaPadula Mandatory Access Control policy [BL73] to determine how that information is processed, including to which transport-layer sessions or to which applications the information is delivered. Within this section, we use one additional notation, in an attempt to be both clear and concise. Here, the string "W:XY" defines a Sensitivity Label where the sensitivity level is W and where X and Y are the only compartments enabled, while the string "W::" defines a Sensitivity Label where the Sensitivity Level is W and there are no compartments enabled. StJohns Et Alia [Page 40]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 7.3.1. TCP-related issues With respect to a network, each distinct Sensitivity Label represents a separate virtual network which shares the same physical network. The above statement taken from section 3 has a non-obvious, but critical, corollary. If there are separate virtual networks then it is possible for a system which exists in multiple virtual networks to have identical TCP connections, each one existing in a different virtual network. TCP connections are normally identified by source and destination port, and source and destination address. If a system labels datagrams with the CALIPSO option (which it must do if it exists in multiple virtual networks - e.g. a "multi-level secure" system), then TCP connections are identified by source and destination port, source and destination address, and an internal Sensitivity Label (optionally, a Sensitivity Label range). 7.3.2. UDP-related Issues Unlike TCP or SCTP, UDP is a stateless protocol, at least conceptually. However, many implementations of UDP have some session state (e.g. Protocol Control Blocks in 4.4 BSD), although the UDP protocol specifications do not require any state. One consequence of this is that in widely used host implementations of UDP and IPv6, a UDP listener might be bound only to a particular UDP port on its host -- without binding to a particular remote IP address or local IP address. UDP can be used with unicast or with multicast. Some existing UDP host implementations permit a single UDP packet to be delivered to more than one listener at the same time. Except for the application of Mandatory Access Controls, the behaviour of a given system should remain the same (so that application behaviour does not change in some unexpected way) with respect to delivery of UDP datagrams to listeners. For example, if a listener on UDP port X has a Sensitivity Label range with a minimum of "S:AB" and a maximum of "S:AB", then only datagrams with a destination StJohns Et Alia [Page 41]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 of UDP port X and a Sensitivity Label of "S:AB" will be delivered to that listener. For example, if a listener on UDP port Y has a Sensitivity Label range with a minimum of "W::" and a maximum of "X:ABC" (where X dominates W), then a datagram addressed to UDP port Y with a Sensitivity Label of "W:A" normally would be delivered to that listener. 7.3.3. SCTP-related Issues With respect to a network, each distinct Sensitivity Label represents a separate virtual network which shares the same physical network. The above statement taken from section 3 has a non-obvious, but critical, corollary. If there are separate virtual networks then it is possible for a system which exists in multiple virtual networks to have identical SCTP connections, each one existing in a different virtual network. As with TCP, SCTP is a connection-oriented transport protocol and has substantial session state. In single-level hosts, this state includes the set of remote IP addresses, the set of local IP addresses, the remote SCTP port number, and the local SCTP port number. In MLS hosts, the SCTP session state also includes the Sensitivity Label (or, optionally, the Sensitivity Label range) for each SCTP session. Unlike TCP, SCTP has the ability to shift an existing SCTP session from one endpoint IP address to a different IP address that belongs to the same endpoint. CALIPSO-labeled SCTP data that is received should be sent to all SCTP listeners for that particular SCTP connection where the Sensitivity Label of the received SCTP data is within range for that listener's Sensitivity Label range. Further, although a node might be multi-homed, it is entirely possible that only one of those interfaces is reachable for a given Sensitivity Label value. For example, one network interface on a node might have a Sensitivity Label range from "A::" to "B:XY" (where B dominates A), while a different network interface on the same node might have a Sensitivity Label range from "U::" "U::" (where A dominates U). In that example, if a packet has a CALIPSO label of "A:X", then that packet will not be able to use the "U"-only network interface. This might lead to novel operational issues with SCTP sessions. Implementers ought to give special attention to this SCTP-specific issue. StJohns Et Alia [Page 42]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 7.3.4. Security Logging This option is recommended for deployment only in well-protected private networks that are NOT connected to the global Internet. By definition, such private networks are also composed only of trusted systems that are believed to be trustworthy. So the risk of a denial of service attack upon the logging implementation is much lower in the intended deployment environment than it would have been for general Internet deployments. 8. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS This document describes a mechanism for adding explicit Sensitivity Labels to IPv6 datagrams. The primary purpose of these labels is to facilitate application of Mandatory Access Controls (MAC) in End Systems or Intermediate Systems that implement this specification. As such, correct implementation of this mechanism is very critical to the overall security of the systems and networks where this mechanisms is deployed. Use of high-assurance development techniques is encouraged. End users carefully should consider the assurance requirements of their particular deployment, in the context of that deployment's prospective threats. A concern is that since this label is used for mandatory access controls, some method of binding the Sensitivity Label option to the rest of the packet is needed. Without such binding, malicious modification of the Sensitivity Label in a packet would go undetected. So, implementations of this Sensitivity Label option MUST also implement support for the IP Authentication Header. Implementations MUST permit the system administrator to configure whether AH is used or not. Because the IP Authentication Header will include the CALIPSO option among the protected IPv6 header fields, modification of a CALIPSO-labeled packet that also contains an IP Authentication Header will cause the resulting packet to fail authentication at the destination node for the AH security session. Therefore, CALIPSO labels cannot be inserted, deleted, or translated for IPv6 packets that contain an IP Authentication Header. In situations where such a modification by an intermediate system is required, but is not possible due to AH, then the packet MUST be dropped instead. If the packet must be dropped for this reason, then an ICMP Destination Unreachable error message SHOULD be sent back to the originator of the dropped packet with a reason code of "Administratively Prohibited". If the packet can be forwarded properly without violating the MLS MAC policy StJohns Et Alia [Page 43]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 of the intermediate system, then (by definition) such a packet modification is not required. Note that in a number of error situations with labelled networking, an ICMP error message MUST NOT be sent in order to avoid creating security problems. In certain other error situations, an ICMP error message might be sent. Even if an ICMP error message is sent, it might be dropped along the way before reaching its intended destination -- due to MAC rules, DOI differences, or other configured security policies along the way from the node creating the ICMP error message to the intended destination node. In turn, this can mean operational faults (e.g. fibre cut, misconfiguration) in a labelled network deployment might be more difficult to identify and resolve. This mechanism is only intended for deployment in very limited circumstances where a set of systems and networks are in a well-protected operating environment and the threat of external or internal attack on this mechanism is considered acceptable to the accreditor of those systems and networks. IP packets containing visible packet labels ought never traverse the public Internet. Of course, subject to local security policies, encrypted IP packets with CALIPSO labels might well traverse the public Internet (e.g. through a Tunnel-mode ESP VPN tunnel that connects two or more MLS labelled network segments). Accreditors of a given deployment should consider not only personnel clearances and physical security issues, but also electronic security (e.g. TEMPEST), network security (NETSEC), communications security (COMSEC), and other issues. 9. IANA CONSIDERATIONS IANA is requested to assign an IPv6 Hop-by-Hop option number to the CALIPSO option described in this specification. This option is immutable during transit. (NOTE TO IANA: high-order bits of this option should be 000, indicating that nodes should ignore this option if it is not recognised by the node.) Also, IANA is requested to create a registry for CALIPSO DOI values. The initial values for this registry, shown in dotted-quad format, are as follows: DOI Value Organisation or Use ======================= ============================ StJohns Et Alia [Page 44]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 0:0:0:0 Null DOI; MUST NOT be used on any network at any time. 0:0:0:1 to 0:255:255:255 For private use among consenting parties within private networks; for reasons of interoperability, these DOI values MUST NOT ever appear on the global public Internet. 1:0:0:0 to 254:255:255:255 For assignment by IANA to organisations following the guidelines in the paragraph below. 255:0:0:0 to 255:0:0:0 Reserved to the IETF for future use by possible revisions of this specification. For the CALIPSO DOI values registry, IANA is requested to issue a new DOI value to any organisation that requests it. Any assignments made will be publicly available from the IANA website. DOI values beginning with decimcal 0:0:0 are reserved for private use amongst consenting parties; values in this range will not be allocated by IANA to any particular user or user community. For reasons of interoperability, these DOI values MUST NOT ever appear on the global public Internet. A commercial organisation will normally only be assigned at most two DOI values. A single national government or multi-national treaty organisation (e.g. NATO, UN) normally may be assigned up to 10 CALIPSO DOI values, if that is requested. If a given national government has NOT requested a set of national values, then different government departments (e.g. Ministry of Defence, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security) or different states/provinces (e.g. Queensland, New South Wales) within that given national government each normally may independently request up to 2 different CALIPSO DOI values. DOI values beginning with decimal 255 are reserved to the IETF for use in future versions of this specification. IESG approval is required for allocation of DOI values within that range. With respect to delegation in unclear circumstances, IANA StJohns Et Alia [Page 45]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 may ask the IESG to appoint "Designated Experts" to provide advice. (Editor's Note: Specific inputs from the IESG on what the text in this section should say would be very helpful.) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document is directly derived from an Internet-Draft titled "Son of IPSO (SIPSO)" written by Mike StJohns circa 1992. Packet format changes have been made since that draft, primarily to comply with IPv6 syntax rules. The concepts, most definitions, and nearly all of the processing rules here are identical to those in that earlier document. Steve Brenneman, L.C. Bruzenak, Alfred Hoenes, Jarrett Lu, Dan McDonald, Paul Moore, Joe Nall, Dave Parker, and Bill Sommerfeld (listed in alphabetical order) provided feedback on earlier versions of this document. The editors also would like to thank the several anonymous reviewers for their feedback, and particularly for sharing their insights into operational considerations with MLS networking. INFORMATIVE REFERENCES [BL73] Bell, D.E. & LaPadula, L.J., "Secure Computer Systems: Mathematical Foundations and Model" Technical Report M74-244, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA, May 1973. [CW87] D.D. Clark & D.R. Wilson, "A Comparison of Commercial and Military Computer Security Policies", in Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security & Privacy, pp. 184-194, IEEE Computer Society, Oakland, CA, May 1987. [CMW] US Defense Intelligence Agency, "Compartmented Mode Workstation Evaluation Criteria", Technical Report DDS-2600-6243-91, Washington, DC, November 1991. [DOD 5200.1] US Department of Defense, "DoD Information Security Program", Directive 5200.1, 13 December 1996. [DOD 5200.1-R] US Department of Defense, "Information Security Program Regulation", StJohns Et Alia [Page 46]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 DoD 5200.1-R, 17 January 1997. [DoD 5200.28] US Department of Defense, "Security Requirements for Automated Information Systems," Directive 5200.28, 21 March 1988. [DoD MLOS PP] US Department of Defense, "Protection Profile for Multi-level Operating Systems in Environments requiring Medium Robustness, Version 1.22, 23 May 2001. [ISO-15408] International Stanards Organisation, "Evaluation Criteria for IT Security", ISO/IEC 15408, 2005. [CC] "Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation", Version 3.1, Revision 1, CCMB-2006-09-001, September 2006. [TCSEC] US Department of Defense, "Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria", DoD 5200.28-STD, 26 December 1985. [DoD 8500.1] US Department of Defense, "Information Assurance", Directive 8500.1, 24 October 2002. [FIPS-188] US National Institute of Standards & Technology, "Standard Security Labels for Information Transfer", Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 188, September 1994. [RFC-791] J. Postel, Internet Protocol, RFC-791, September 1981. [RFC-1038] M. StJohns, Draft Revised IP Security Option, RFC-1038, January 1988. [RFC-1108] S. Kent, US DoD Security Options for the Internet Protocol, RFC-1108, November 1991. [RFC-1825] R. Atkinson, Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol, RFC-1825, August 1995. [RFC-2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC-2119, March 1997. [IPSEC] S. Kent & K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the StJohns Et Alia [Page 47]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 Internet Protocol", RFC-4301, December 2005. [AH] S. Kent, "IP Authentication Header", RFC-4302, December 2005. [ESP] S. Kent, "IP Encapsulating Security Payload", RFC-4303, December 2005. NORMATIVE REFERENCES [RFC-2460] S. Deering & R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol Version 6 Specification", RFC-2460, December 1998. [RFC-1662] W. Simpson, "PPP in HDLC-like Framing", Appendix C, RFC-1662, July 1992. AUTHORS: M. StJohns Germantown, MD R. Atkinson Extreme Networks 3585 Monroe Street Santa Clara, CA USA 95051 rja@extremenetworks.com +1 (408)579-2800 G. Thomas US Department of Defense Washington, DC USA StJohns Et Alia [Page 48]
Internet-Draft 04 JUL 08 IETF IPR Clause The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. COPYRIGHT Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Draft Expires: 04 JAN 2009 StJohns Et Alia [Page 49]
