Internet DRAFT - draft-camwinget-sacm-requirements
draft-camwinget-sacm-requirements
SACM N. Cam-Winget
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Informational June 8, 2014
Expires: December 10, 2014
Secure Automation and Continuous Monitoring (SACM) Requirements
draft-camwinget-sacm-requirements-04
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.
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 December 10, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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.
Cam-Winget Expires December 10, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title June 2014
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. General SACM requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. Requirements based on Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
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 transmit 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].Also, this
document uses terminology defined in [I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology].
2. Requirements
This document defines requirements based on the SACM use cases
defined in [I-D.ietf-sacm-use-cases]. This section describes the
requirements used by SACM to assess and compare candidate 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.
2.1. General SACM requirements
The use cases defined in [I-D.ietf-sacm-use-cases] apply to many
deployment scenarios. To ensure interoperability, scalability and
flexibility in any of these deployments, the following requirements
are defined for all use cases:
G-001 Extensibility: the data models, protocols and transports
defined by SACM must be extensible to allow support for non-standard
and future extensions. The transport protocol must support easily
Cam-Winget Expires December 10, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title June 2014
adding new operations while maintaining backwards compatibility.
The query language must allow general inquiries as well as
expression of specific paths to follow; retrieval of specific
information based on an event, as well as on a continuous basis; and
the ability to retrieve specific pieces of information, specific
classes of information, and/or the entirety of available
information. The information model must accommodate the addition of
new data types and/or schemas in a backwards compatible fashion.
G-002 Interoperability: The data models, protocols and transports
must be specified with enough details and state machine to ensure
interoperability.
G-003 Scalability: The data models, protocols and transports must be
scalable. SACM must support a broad set of deployment scenarios.
As such, it is possible that the size or posture assessment
information can vary from a single assessment that is small in
(record or datagram) size to a very large datagram or a very large
set of assessments and must be addressed by the SACM specifications
defined.
G-004 Agility: The agility requirement is to ensure that the data
model, protocols, transports and its implementations are suitable to
fit in different deployment models and scenarios. Considerations
for the lightweight implementations of data models and transports is
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
data.
G-005 Transport variability: Different transports must be supported
to address different deployment and time constraints. Supporting
transports at the Layer 2, Layer 3 and higher application layers.
G-006 Extensibility: a method for expressing both standard and non-
standard (implementer-specific) data attributes while avoiding
collisions should be defined. For interoperability and scope
boundary, an explicit set of data attributes as mandatory to
implement should be defined and focused on Posture Assessment should
be described to allow for interoprability too.
G-007 Access Control: To address security and privacy
considerations, the data model, protocols and transport must
consider authorization based on roles to only allow authorized
requestors and publishers to access the information being requested
or published.
Cam-Winget Expires December 10, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title June 2014
2.2. Requirements based on Use Cases
This section describes the requirements that may apply to information
models, data models, protocols or transports as identified by the use
cases in [I-D.ietf-sacm-use-cases] and referenced by the section
numbers from that draft.
REQ-001 Attribute Dictionary: Use Cases in the whole of Section 2
describe the need for an Attribute Dictionary. With SACM's scope
focused on Posture Assessment, the attribute collection and
aggregation must have a well understood set of attributes inclusive
of their meaning or usage intent.
REQ-002 Information Model: Use Case 2.1.1 describes the need for an
Information Model to drive content definition. As SACM endeavors to
reuse already existing standards which may have their own data
models defined by instantiating an information model, the data
models can be mapped to SACM's information model. See [RFC3444] for
a description and distinctions between an information and data
model.
REQ-003 Data Model to Protocol mapping: Use Case 2.1.1 describes the
need to instantiate a data model that can map to the SACM protocols
for posture content operations such as publication, query, change
detection and asynchronous notifications.
REQ-004 Endpoint Discovery: Use Case 2.1.2 describes the need to
discover endpoints and their composition.
REQ-005 Attribute based query: Use Case 2.1.2 describes the need for
the data model to support a query operation based on a set of
attributes to facilitate collection of information such as posture
assessment, inventory (of endpoints or endpoint components) and
configuration checklist. .
REQ-006 Information based query with filtering: Use Case 2.1.3
describes the need for the data model to support the means for the
information to be collected through a query mechanism. Furthermore,
the query operation requires filtering capabilities to allow for
only a subset of information to be retrieved. The query operation
may be a synchronous request or asynchronous request.
REQ-007 Asynchronous publication, updates or change modifications
with filtering: Use Cases 2.1.3, 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 describe the need
for the data model to support the means for the information to be
published asynchronously. Similarly, the data model must support
the means for a requestor to obtain updates or change modifications
asynchronously. Like the query operation, these update
Cam-Winget Expires December 10, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title June 2014
notifications can be set up with a filter to allow for only a subset
of posture assessment information to be obtained.
REQ-008 Data model scalability: Use Cases 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 describes
the need for the data model to support scalability. For example,
the query operation may result in a very large set of attributes as
well as a large set of targets.
REQ-009 Separation of Collection Request and Collection Action: the
data model must distinguish the means to request for a data item to
include enough information to properly identify the item to collect
but the request could be separate and distinct from the actual
method or process used to fulfill the request.
3. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Barbara Fraser, Jim Bieda and Adam
Montville for reviewing and contributing to this draft.
4. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
5. Security Considerations
This document defines the requirements for SACM. As such, it is
expected that several data models, protocols and transports may be
defined or reused from already existing standards. This section will
highlight security considerations that may apply to SACM based on the
architecture and standards applied in SACM.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology]
Waltermire, D., Montville, A., Harrington, D., and N. Cam-
Winget, "Terminology for Security Assessment", draft-ietf-
sacm-terminology-04 (work in progress), May 2014.
[I-D.ietf-sacm-use-cases]
Waltermire, D. and D. Harrington, "Endpoint Security
Posture Assessment - Enterprise Use Cases", draft-ietf-
sacm-use-cases-07 (work in progress), April 2014.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Cam-Winget Expires December 10, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title June 2014
6.2. Informative References
[RFC3444] Pras, A. and J. Schoenwaelder, "On the Difference between
Information Models and Data Models", RFC 3444, January
2003.
[RFC5209] Sangster, P., Khosravi, H., Mani, M., Narayan, K., and J.
Tardo, "Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA): Overview and
Requirements", RFC 5209, June 2008.
Author's Address
Nancy Cam-Winget
Cisco Systems
3550 Cisco Way
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Email: ncamwing@cisco.com
Cam-Winget Expires December 10, 2014 [Page 6]
