Secure Automation and Continuous Monitoring (SACM) Requirements
draft-camwinget-sacm-requirements-01

Abstract

This document defines the scope and set of requirements for the Secure Automation and Continuous Monitoring working group. The requirements and scope are based on the agreed upon use cases and architecture defined.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2014.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Terminology
• 3. Requirements
• 3.1. Reference Architecture Model
• 3.2. Data Model requirements
• 3.3. Architectural Design Tenets
• 4. Security Requirements
• 5. Acknowledgements
• 6. IANA Considerations
• 7. Security Considerations
• 8. References
• 8.1. Normative References
• 8.2. Informative References
• Author's Address

1. Introduction

Today's challenges of evolving threats and improved analytics to address such threats highlight a need to automate the securing of both information and the systems that store, process and trasmit the information. SACM's charter focuses on addressing some of these challenges in a narrower scope by bounding the task to address use cases that pertain to the posture assessment of endpoints.

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

2. Terminology

Currently defined in [I-D.dbh-sacm-terminology].

3. Requirements

As the group continues to define an architecture and use cases, some requirements can already be formed and be used to evolve the architecture as well. This section describes the requirements used by the SACM WG to assess and compare candidate information models and protocols to suit the architecture. These requirements express characteristics or features that a candidate protocol or data model must be capable of offering so as to ensure security and interoperability.

3.1. Reference Architecture Model

Until a richer architecture is agreed upon, the requiremens are predicated on the following model:

          
            
          
            +--------+             +-----------+              +---------------------+
            | Asset  | <....A....> | Evaluator | <....B....>  | Assessment Consumer |
            +--------+             +-----------+              +---------------------+
                             +-------|   ^                                ^
            +--------+       |           | C                              |
            | Asset  | <-----+           v                                |
            +--------+            +-------------+                         |
                                  | Repository  |                         |
                                  +-------------+                         |
                                                                          |
                              +--------------------+                      |
                              | Posture Assessment |<---------------------+
                              |     Repository     |
                              +--------------------+


                                  
          

Simple Architectural Model

The Architectural Model shown above demonstrates:

• Asset: is the endpoint of interest that is posture validated.
• Evaluator: is the service that affects the posture assessment and stores the posture result into a repository.
• Repository: is the storage component bound to the Evaluator that contains the posture assessment information.
• Posture Assessment Repository: is another type of repository that holds posture assessment information. While not bound to the Evaluator, it is another source of posture assessment information (e.g. a data aggregation point aggregating posture assessment with other attributes) that can provide information to serve SACM use cases.
• Assessment Consumer: is the service that requires the posture assessments information of one or more assets.

Using this architectural reference model, the interfaces, data models and transports used to affect the posture assessment, e.g. A in the figure above have already been defined by different mechanisms, for example, an IETF defined one through NEA. As the focus of SACM is the information exchange to obtain the posture assessment information, it can be achieved through the interfaces shown as B. That is, it is not clear that there is a requirement for the Assessment Consumer to tap directly into the Repository. Similarly, it is not clear that SACM is chartered to define the interfaces and data model for how an Evaluator stores and transports the assessment results to the Repository. Thus, the focus of the requirements will revolve around the data models, protocols and transports for B, the communication of posture assessment from an Evaluator to an Assessment Consumer.

3.2. Data Model requirements

With the use cases spanning the need to collect, verify and update information about posture assessment, the set of high level requirements for the data model include:

Extensibility

Posture Assessment includes the posture attributes relating to the asset configuration but its observed status as well. The use cases already articulate the many different means in which such configuration may be queried and will evolve over time. With the explosion of different assets evolving and means in which the assets are used and configured, the data model must be extensible to allow for the support of these new upcoming attributes.

Agility

Considerations for the lightweight representation for these attributes and the tools used to consume the information will be required. Use cases, especially in the vulnerability assessment and threat defense applications require time criticality in both obtaining the information as well as consuming (e.g. parsing). The agility requirement is to ensure that the data model and its implementations are suitable to fit in different deployment models and scenarios.

Standards representation

While it is presumed that we can leverage from standards, the data model must also adhere to Internationalization especially of display strings where applicable.

Interoperability

To ensure a globalized and interoperable standard, it is understood that a minimum set of terms and attributes are defined to address the use cases defined, the expected set of posture assessments (including the expected posture configuration) and potential state or assertions.

3.3. Architectural Design Tenets

The protocol requirements must account for different network topology scenarios to ensure that the information can be (securely) routed. With the focus of enabling the communication of posture assessment information, different scenarios must also be accounted for to address the use cases. The architectural model design tenets or requirements incude:

Discovery

To address the availability of posture assessment from different Evaluators that may support different interface (or data model) versions, a discovery mechanism may be introduced by which Posture assement Evaluators and Consumers can be registered with their capabilities (e.g. version support) clearly defined.

Many to Many

The architectural model for designing the security and transport must account for a many-to-many connections. It is expected that an Assessment Consumer may probe, request and consume Posture assessment information from various Evaluators. Similarly, Evaluators will be providing their Posture assessment information to many Assessment Consumers.

Asynchronous updates or notifications

Assessment Consumers such as Firewalls or Intrusion Prevention Systems will require realtime notifications especially of posture assessment updates.">

Bulk Updates

Just as there is a need to recieve timely updates of Posture Assessment information, there are applications where Assessment Consumers will require full state information of an Evaluator's Posture Assessment repository. As such, the repository may be very large based on both the number of assets and historical information stored by that Evaluator's Posture Assessment Repository; e.g. bulk synchronization or updates will be required.">

Support for varied network deployments

As applications defined in the use cases may be deployed in different enterprise scenarios, an enterprise's network deployment may vary and must be taken into account. In a simple enterprise scenario, an application may be expected to sit in the same internet domain; however, in today's enterprise, the application, while still part of the enterprise, may be in a different internet domain or hosted on a private cloud. As such, the transport must account that there data delivery may be feasible in different OSI transport layers and in some cases, may be over a limited bandwidth connection.

4. Security Requirements

This section describes security requirements as needed to address the mechanisms that facilitate secure exchange of posture assessment information.

• Authentication: all services or entities that either provide or consume the information must be authenticated to ensure that only authorized entities can request or provide the posture assessment information.
• Anti-replay: if the Assessment Consumer recieves the same exact message twice (e.g. because an attacker has re-intected the message), it must be detectable and the Assessment Consumer must reject the replayed message.
• Confidentiality: it should not be possible for any entity other than the targetted Assessment Consumer to read the message.

5. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Barbara Fraser, Jim Bieda and Adam Montville for reviewing and contributing to this draft.

6. IANA Considerations

This memo includes no request to IANA.

7. Security Considerations

Still to do.

8. References

8.1. Normative References

8.2. Informative References

Author's Address