Internet DRAFT - draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-im
draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-im
I2NSF Working Group R. Kumar
Internet-Draft A. Lohiya
Intended status: Informational Juniper Networks
Expires: January 18, 2019 D. Qi
Bloomberg
N. Bitar
S. Palislamovic
Nokia
L. Xia
Huawei
J. Jeong
Sungkyunkwan University
July 17, 2018
Information Model for Consumer-Facing Interface to Security Controller
draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-im-07
Abstract
This document defines an information model for Consumer-Facing
interface to Security Controller based on the requirements identified
in [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req]. The information
model defines various managed objects and relationship among these
objects needed to build the interface. The information model is
organized based on the "Event-Condition-Event" (ECA) policy model
defined by a capability information model for Interface to Network
Security Functions (I2NSF) [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-capability].
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 https://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 January 18, 2019.
Kumar, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Consumer-Facing Interface Information Model July 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions used in the Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Information Model for Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Event Sub-Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.1. Event-Map-Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Condition Sub-Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Action Sub-Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Information Model for Multi-Tenancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Policy-Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Policy-Tenant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3. Policy-Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4. Policy-User . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.5. Policy Management Authentication Method . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Information Model for Policy Endpoint Groups . . . . . . . . 14
5.1. Tag-Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2. User-Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.3. Device-Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.4. Application-Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.5. Location-Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Information Model for Threat Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.1. Threat-Feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.2. Custom-List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.3. Malware-Scan-Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. Information Model for Telemetry Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.1. Telemetry-Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.2. Telemetry-Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.3. Telemetry-Destination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8. Role-Based Acess Control (RBAC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Kumar, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Consumer-Facing Interface Information Model July 2018
12. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
13. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix A. Changes from draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-
interface-im-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1. Introduction
Interface to Network Security Functions (I2NSF) defines a Consumer-
Facing Interface to deliver high-level security policies to Security
Controller [RFC8192][RFC8329] for securiy enforcement in Network
Security Functions (NSFs).
The Consumer-Facing Interface would be built using a set of objects,
with each object capturing a unique set of information from Security
Admin (i.e., I2NSF User [RFC8329]) needed to express a Security
Policy. An object may have relationship with various other objects
to express a complete set of requirement. An information model
captures the managed objects and relationship among these objects.
The information model proposed in this document is in accordance with
interface requirements as defined in
[I-D.ietf-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req].
An NSF Capability model is proposed in [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-capability] as
the basic model for both the NSF-Facing interface and Consumer-Facing
Interface security policy model of this document. The information
model proposed in this document is structured in accordance with the
"Event-Condition-Event" (ECA) policy model.
[RFC3444] explains differences between an information and data model.
This document use the guidelines in [RFC3444] to define an
information model for Consumer-Facing Interface in this document.
Figure 1 shows a high-level abstraction of Consumer-Facing Interface.
A data model, which represents an implementation of the proposed
information model in a specific data representation language, will be
defined in a separate document.
Kumar, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Consumer-Facing Interface Information Model July 2018
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
| | | |
| Consumer-Facing +------>+ Consumer Facing |
| Interface | | Interface |
|Information Model| | Data Model |
+--------+--------+ +-----------------+
^
|
|
+-------------+-------------+
| |
| Policy-general |
| |
+-------------+-------------+
^
|
+------------+-------------+------------+--------------+
| | | | |
+-----+----+ +----+-----+ +----+----+ +----+----+ +------+-----+
| | | | | | | | | |
| Multi | | Endpoint | | Policy | | Threat | | Telemetry |
| tenancy | | groups | | | | feed | | data |
+----------+ +----------+ +----+----+ +---------+ +------------+
^
|
|
+------+------+
| |
| Rule |
| |
+------+------+
^
|
+----------------+----------------+
| | |
+------+------+ +------+------+ +------+------+
| | | | | |
| Event | | Condition | | Action |
| | | | | |
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
Figure 1: Diagram for High-level Abstraction of Consumer-Facing
Interface
Kumar, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Consumer-Facing Interface Information Model July 2018
2. Conventions used in the Document
BSS: Business Support System
CLI: Command Line Interface
CMDB: Configuration Management Database
Controller: Security Controller or Management System
CRUD: Create, Retrieve, Update, Delete
FW: Firewall
GUI: Graphical User Interface
IDS: Intrusion Detection System
IPS: Intrusion Prevention System
LDAP: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
NSF: Network Security Function, defined by
[I-D.ietf-i2nsf-terminology]
OSS: Operations Support System
RBAC: Role-Based Access Control
SIEM: Security Information and Event Management
URL: Universal Resource Locator
vNSF: NSF being instantiated on Virtual Machines
3. Information Model for Policy
A Policy object represents a mechanism to express a Security Policy
by Security Admin (i.e., I2NSF User) using Consumer-Facing Interface
toward Security Controller; the policy would be enforced on an NSF.
The Policy object SHALL have following information:
Name: This field identifies the name of this object.
Date: Date when this object was created or last modified.
Multi-Tenancy: The multi-tenant environment information in which
the policy is applied. The Rules in the Policy can refer
Kumar, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Consumer-Facing Interface Information Model July 2018
to sub-objects (e.g., domain, tenant, role, and user) of
it. It can be either a reference to a Multi-Tenancy object
defined in another place, or a concrete object. See
details in Section 4.
End-Group: This field contains a list of logical entities in the
business environment where a Security Policy is to be
applied. It can be referenced by the Condition objects in
a Rule, e.g., Source, Destination, Match, etc. It can be
either a reference to an End-Group object defined in other
place, or a concrete object. See details in Section 5.
Threat-Feed: This field represents threat feed such as Botnet
servers, GeoIP, and Malware signature. This information
can be referenced by the Rule Action object directly to
execute the threat mitigation. See details in Section 6.
Telemetry-Data: This field represents the telemetry collection
related information that the Rule Action object can refer
to about how to collect the interested telemetry
information, for example, what type of telemetry to
collect, where the telemetry source is, where to send the
telemetry information. See details in Section 7.
Rules: This field contains a list of rules. If the rule does not
have a user-defined precedence, then any conflict must be
manually resolved.
Owner: This field defines the owner of this policy. Only the
owner is authorized to modify the contents of the policy.
A policy is a container of Rules. In order to express a Rule, a Rule
must have complete information such as where and when a policy needs
to be applied. This is done by defining a set of managed objects and
relationship among them. A Policy Rule may be related segmentation,
threat mitigation or telemetry data collection from an NSF in the
network, which will be specified as the sub-model of the policy model
in the subsequent sections.
The rule object SHALL have the following information:
Name: This field identifies the name of this object.
Date: This field indicates the date when this object was created
or last modified.
Kumar, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Consumer-Facing Interface Information Model July 2018
Event: This field includes the information to determine whether
the Rule Condition can be evaluated or not. See details in
Section 3.1.
Condition: This field contains all the checking conditions to
apply to the objective traffic. See details in
Section 3.2.
Action: This field identifies the action taken when a rule is
matched. There is always an implicit action to drop
traffic if no rule is matched for a traffic type. See
details in Section 3.3.
Precedence: This field identifies the precedence assigned to this
rule by Security Admin. This is helpful in conflict
resolution when two or more rules match a given traffic
class.
3.1. Event Sub-Model
The Event Object contains information related to scheduling a Rule.
The Rule could be activated based on a time calendar or security
event including threat level changes.
Event object SHALL have following information:
Name: This field identifies the name of this object.
Date: This field indicates the date when this object was created
or last modified.
Event-Type: This field identifies whether the event of triggering
policy enforcement is "ADMIN-ENFORCED", "TIME-ENFORCED" or
"EVENT-ENFORCED".
Time-Information: This field contains a time calendar such as
"BEGIN-TIME" and "END-TIME" for one time enforcement or
recurring time calendar for periodic enforcement.
Event-Map-Group: This field contains security events or threat
map in order to determine when a policy needs to be
activated. This is a reference to Event-Map-Group defined
later.
Kumar, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Consumer-Facing Interface Information Model July 2018
3.1.1. Event-Map-Group
This object represents an event map containing security events and
threat levels used for dynamic policy enforcement. The Event-Map-
Group object SHALL have following information:
Name: This field identifies the name of this object.
Date: This field indicates the date when this object was created
or last modified.
Security-Events: This contains a list of security events used for
purpose for Security Policy definition.
Threat-Map: This contains a list of threat levels used for
purpose for Security Policy definition.
3.2. Condition Sub-Model
This object represents Conditions that Security Admin wants to apply
the checking on the traffic in order to determine whether the set of
actions in the Rule can be executed or not.
The Condition object SHALL have following information:
Source: This field identifies the source of the traffic. This
could be a reference to either Policy-Endpoint-Group,
Threat-Feed or Custom-List as defined earlier. This could
be a special object "ALL" that matches all traffic. This
could also be Telemetry-Source for telemetry collection
policy.
Destination: This field identifies the destination of the
traffic. This could be a reference to either Policy-
Endpoint-Group, Threat-Feed or Custom-List as defined
earlier. This could be a special object "ALL" that matches
all traffic. This could also be Telemetry- Destination for
telemetry collection policy.
Match: This field identifies the match criteria used to evaluate
whether the specified action needs to be taken or not.
This could be either a Policy-Endpoint-Group identifying an
Application set or a set of traffic rules.
Match-Direction: This field identifies whether the match criteria
is to be evaluated for both directions or only one
direction of the traffic with a default of allowing the
other direction for stateful match conditions. This is
Kumar, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Consumer-Facing Interface Information Model July 2018
optional and by default a rule should apply to both
directions.
Exception: This field identifies the exception consideration when
a rule is evaluated for a given communication. This could
be a reference to "Policy-Endpoint-Group" object or set of
traffic matching criteria.
The condition object is made of condition clauses. Each condition
clause consists of three tuples; variable, operator and value.
The variable and value can be source and destination IP address, for
example, and they have logical operator in between to check whether
they match the condition criteria set by a security admin. For
Example: If condition A AND B is true: THEN execute actions ENDIF
where A denotes a destination address, and B denotes a blacklisted IP
address. The operator AND is the logical AND operation.
1..n
+----------------+
| |
+------------>+ Policy rule |
| | |
1..n | +----------------+
+--------+--------+
| |
+Condition clause +
| |
+--------+--------+
^ ^ ^
| | |
+--------------+ | +--------------+
1..n | 1..n | 1..n |
+--------+-------+ +--------+--------+ +-------+-------+
| | | | | |
| Variable | | Operator | | Value |
| | | | | |
+----------------+ +-----------------+ +---------------+
Figure 2: Condition Clause Diagram
The semantics used in a condition clause is also used in the clauses
in the Event-submodel and Action sub-model.
Kumar, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Consumer-Facing Interface Information Model July 2018
3.3. Action Sub-Model
This object represents actions that Security Admin wants to perform
based on certain traffic class.
The Action object SHALL have following information:
Name: This field identifies the name of this object.
Date: This field indicates the date when this object was created
or last modified.
Primary-Action: This field identifies the action when a rule is
matched by an NSF. The action could be one of "PERMIT",
"DENY", "DROP-CONNECTION", "AUTHENTICATE-CONNECTION",
"MIRROR", "REDIRECT", "NETFLOW", "COUNT", "ENCRYPT",
"DECRYPT", "THROTTLE", "MARK", or "INSTANTIATE-NSF".
Secondary-Action: Security Admin can also specify additional
actions if a rule is matched. This could be one of "LOG",
"SYSLOG", or "SESSION-LOG".
4. Information Model for Multi-Tenancy
Multi-tenancy is an important aspect of any application that enables
multiple administrative domains in order to manage application
resources. An Enterprise organization may have multiple tenants or
departments such as Human Resources (HR), Finance, and Legal, with
each tenant having a need to manage their own Security Policies. In
a Service Provider, a tenant could represent a Customer that wants to
manage its own Security Policies.
There are multiple managed objects that constitute multi-tenancy
aspects. This section lists these objects and any relationship among
these objects. Below diagram shows an example of multi-tenancy in an
Enterprise domain.
Kumar, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Consumer-Facing Interface Information Model July 2018
+-------------------+
(Multi-Tenancy) | Domain |
|(e.g., Enterprise) |
+---------+---------+
^
|
+--------------------+--------------------+
| | |
+--------+-------+ +---------+--------+ +--------+--------+
| Department 1 | | Department 2 | | Department n |
+--------+-------+ +---------+--------+ +--------+--------+
^ ^ ^
| | |
+--------+--------+ +-----------------+ +--------+--------+
| Sub-domain 1..n | | Sub-domain 1..n | | Sub-domain 1..n |
+--------+--------+ +--------+--------+ +--------+--------+
^ ^ ^
| | |
+--------+--------+ +--------+--------+ +--------+--------+
| Tenant 1..n | | Tenant 1..n | | Tenant 1..n |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+
Figure 3: Multi-tenancy Diagram
4.1. Policy-Domain
This object defines a boundary for the purpose of policy management
within a Security Controller. This may vary based on how the
Security Controller is deployed and hosted. For example, if an
Enterprise hosts a Security Controller in their network; the domain
in this case could just be the one that represents that Enterprise.
But if a Cloud Service Provider hosts managed services, then a domain
could represent a single customer of that Provider. Multi-tenancy
model should be able to work in all such environments.
The Policy-Domain object SHALL have following information:
Name: Name of the organization or customer representing this
domain.
Address: Address of the organization or customer.
Contact: Contact information of the organization or customer.
Date: Date when this account was created or last modified.
Kumar, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Consumer-Facing Interface Information Model July 2018
Authentication-Method: Authentication method to be used for this
domain. It should be a reference to a 'Policy-Management-
Authentication-Method' object.
4.2. Policy-Tenant
This object defines an entity within an organization. The entity
could be a department or business unit within an Enterprise
organization that would like to manage its own Policies due to
regulatory compliance or business reasons.
The Policy-Tenant object SHALL have following information:
Name: Name of the Department or Division within an organization.
Date: Date when this account was created or last modified.
Domain: This field identifies the domain to which this tenant
belongs. This should be a reference to a Policy-Domain
object.
4.3. Policy-Role
This object defines a set of permissions assigned to a user in an
organization that wants to manage its own Security Policies. It
provides a convenient way to assign policy users to a job function or
a set of permissions within the organization.
The Policy-Role object SHALL have the following information:
Name: This field identifies the name of the role.
Date: Date when this role was created or last modified.
Access-Profile: This field identifies the access profile for the
role. The profile grants or denies the permissions to
access Endpoint Groups for the purpose of policy management
or may restrict certain operations related to policy
managements.
4.4. Policy-User
This object represents a unique identity within an organization. The
identity authenticates with Security Controller using credentials
such as a password or token in order to perform policy management. A
user may be an individual, system, or application requiring access to
Security Controller.
Kumar, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Consumer-Facing Interface Information Model July 2018
The Policy-User object SHALL have the following information:
Name: Name of a user.
Date: Date when this user was created or last modified.
Password: User password for basic authentication.
Email: E-mail address of the user.
Scope-Type: This field identifies whether the user has domain-
wide or tenant-wide privileges.
Scope-Reference: This field should be a reference to either a
Policy-Domain or a Policy-Tenant object.
Role: This field should be a reference to a Policy-Role object
that defines the specific permissions.
4.5. Policy Management Authentication Method
This object represents authentication schemes supported by Security
Controller.
This Policy-Management-Authentication-Method object SHALL have the
following information:
Name: This field identifies name of this object.
Date: Date when this object was created or last modified.
Authentication-Method: This field identifies the authentication
methods. It could be a password-based, token-based,
certificate-based or single sign-on authentication.
Mutual-Authentication: This field indicates whether mutual
authentication is mandatory or not.
Token-Server: This field stores the information about server that
validates the token submitted as credentials.
Certificate-Server: This field stores the information about
server that validates certificates submitted as
credentials.
Single Sign-on-Server: This field stores the information about
server that validates user credentials.
Kumar, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Consumer-Facing Interface Information Model July 2018
5. Information Model for Policy Endpoint Groups
The Policy Endpoint Group is a very important part of building User-
construct based policies. Security Admin would create and use these
objects to represent a logical entity in their business environment,
where a Security Policy is to be applied.
There are multiple managed objects that constitute a Policy Endpoint
Group. This section lists these objects and relationship among these
objects.
+-------------------+
| Endpoint Group |
+---------+---------+
^
|
+------------+-------+-----+---------------+
1..n | 1..n | 1..n | 1..n |
+-----+----+ +----+---+ +------+------+ +-----+----+
| User | | Device | | Application | | Location |
+----------+ +--------+ +-------------+ +----------+
Figure 4: Endpoint Group Diagram
5.1. Tag-Source
This object represents information source for tag. The tag in a
group must be mapped to its corresponding contents to enforce a
Security Policy.
Tag-Source object SHALL have the following information:
Name: This field identifies name of this object.
Date: Date when this object was created or last modified.
Tag-Type: This field identifies the Endpoint Group type. It can
be a User-Group, App-Group, Device-Group or Location-Group.
Tag-Source-Server: This field identifies information related to
the source of the tag such as IP address and UDP/TCP port
information.
Tag-Source-Application: This filed identifies the protocol, e.g.,
LDAP, Active Directory, or CMDB used to communicate with a
server.
Kumar, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Consumer-Facing Interface Information Model July 2018
Tag-Source-Credentials: This field identifies the credential
information needed to access the server.
5.2. User-Group
This object represents a user group based on either tag or other
information.
The User-Group object SHALL have the following information:
Name: This field identifies the name of this object.
Date: Date when this object was created or last modified.
Group-Type: This field identifies whether the user group is based
on User-tag, User-name or IP-address.
Metadata-Server: This field should be a reference to a Metadata-
Source object.
Group-Member: This field is a list of User-tag, User-names or IP
addresses based on Group-Type.
Risk-Level: This field represents the risk level or importance of
the Endpoint to Security Admin for policy purpose; the
valid range may be 0 to 9.
5.3. Device-Group
This object represents a device group based on either tag or other
information.
The Device-Group object SHALL have the following information:
Name: This field identifies the name of this object.
Date: Date when this object was created or last modified.
Group-Type: This field identifies whether the device group is
based on Device-tag or Device-name or IP address.
Tag-Server: This field should be a reference to a Tag-Source
object.
Group-Member: This field is a list of Device-tag, Device-name or
IP address based on Group-Type.
Kumar, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Consumer-Facing Interface Information Model July 2018
Risk-Level: This field represents the risk level or importance of
the Endpoint to Security Admin for policy purpose; the
valid range may be 0 to 9.
5.4. Application-Group
This object represents an application group based on either tag or
other information.
The Application-Group object SHALL have the following information:
Name: This field identifies the name of this object.
Date: Date when this object was created or last modified.
Group-Type: This field identifies whether the application group
is based on App-tag or App-name, or IP address.
Tag-Server: This field should be a reference to a Tag-Source
object.
Group-Member: This field is a list of Application-tag
Application-name or IP address and port information based
on Group-Type.
Risk-Level: This field represents the risk level or importance of
the Endpoint to Security Admin for policy purpose; the
valid range may be 0 to 9.
5.5. Location-Group
This object represents a location group based on either tag or other
information.
The 'Location-Group' object SHALL have the following information:
Name: This field identifies the name of this object.
Date: Date when this object was created or last modified.
Group-Type: This field identifies whether the location group is
based on Location-tag, Location-name or IP address.
Tag-Server: This field should be a reference to a Tag-Source
object.
Group-Member: This field is a list of Location-tag, Location-name
or IP addresses based on Group-Type.
Kumar, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Consumer-Facing Interface Information Model July 2018
Risk Level: This field represents the risk level or importance of
the Endpoint to Security Admin for policy purpose; the
valid range may be 0 to 9.
6. Information Model for Threat Prevention
The threat prevention plays an important part in the overall security
posture by reducing the attack surfaces. This information could come
in the form of threat feeds such as Botnet and GeoIP feeds usually
from a third party or external service.
There are multiple managed objects that constitute this category.
This section lists these objects and relationship among these
objects.
+---------------------+
| Threat Prevention |
+----------+----------+
^
|
+---------------------+----------------------+
1..n | 1..n | 1..n |
+----------+---------+ +---------+---------+ +----------+---------+
| Threat feed | | Custom list | | Malware scan group |
+--------------------+ +-------------------+ +--------------------+
Figure 5: Threat Prevention Diagram
6.1. Threat-Feed
This object represents a threat feed such as Botnet servers and
GeoIP.
The Threat-Feed object SHALL have the following information:
Name: This field identifies the name of this object.
Date: Date when this object was created or last modified.
Feed-Type: This field identifies whether a feed type is IP
address-based or URL-based.
Feed-Server: This field identifies the information about the feed
provider, it may be an external service or local server.
Feed-Priority: This field represents the feed priority level to
resolve conflict if there are multiple feed sources; the
valid range may be 0 to 9.
Kumar, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Consumer-Facing Interface Information Model July 2018
6.2. Custom-List
This object represents a custom list created for the purpose of
defining exception to threat feeds. An organization may want to
allow a certain exception to threat feeds obtained from a third party
The Custom-List object SHALL have the following information:
Name: This field identifies the name of this object.
Date: Date when this object was created or last modified.
List-Type: This field identifies whether the list type is IP
address-based or URL-based.
List-Property: This field identifies the attributes of the list
property, e.g., Blacklist or Whitelist.
List-Content: This field contains contents such as IP addresses
or URL names.
6.3. Malware-Scan-Group
This object represents information needed to detect malware. This
information could come from a local server or uploaded periodically
from a third party.
The Malware-Scan-Group object SHALL have the following information:
Name: This field identifies the name of this object.
Date: Date when this object was created or last modified.
Signature-Server: This field contains information about the
server from where signatures can be downloaded periodically
as updates become available.
File-Types: This field contains a list of file types needed to be
scanned for the virus.
Malware-Signatures: This field contains a list of malware
signatures or hash values.
7. Information Model for Telemetry Data
Telemetry provides System Admin with the visibility of the network
activities which can be tapped for further security analytics, e.g.,
detecting potential vulnerabilities, malicious activities, etc.
Kumar, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Consumer-Facing Interface Information Model July 2018
7.1. Telemetry-Data
This object contains information collected for telemetry.
The Telemetry-Data object SHALL have the following information:
Name: This field identifies the name of this object.
Date: Date when this object was created or last modified.
Log-Data: This field identifies whether Log data need to be
collected.
Syslog-Data This field identifies whether Syslog data need to be
collected.
SNMP-Data: This field identifies whether SNMP traps and alarm
data need to be collected.
sFlow-Record: This field identifies whether sFlow records need to
be collected.
NetFlow-Record: This field identifies whether NetFlow record need
to be collected.
NSF-Stats: This field identifies whether statistics need to be
collected from an NSF.
7.2. Telemetry-Source
This object contains information related to telemetry source. The
source would be an NSF in the network.
The Telemetry-Source object SHALL have the following information:
Name: This field identifies the name of this object.
Date: Date when this object was created or last modified.
Source-Type: This field contains the type of the NSF telemetry
source: "NETWORK-NSF", "FIREWALL-NSF", "IDS-NSF", "IPS-
NSF", "PROXY-NSF or "OTHER-NSF".
NSF-Source: This field contains information such as IP address
and protocol (UDP or TCP) port number of the NSF providing
telemetry data.
Kumar, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Consumer-Facing Interface Information Model July 2018
NSF-Credentials: This field contains a username and a password
used to authenticate the NSF.
Collection-Interval: This field contains time in milliseconds
between each data collection. For example, a value of
5,000 means data is streamed to collector every 5 seconds.
Value of 0 means data streaming is event-based.
Collection-Method: This field contains a method of collection
whether it is PUSH-based or PULL-based.
Heartbeat-Interval: This field contains time in seconds when the
source must send telemetry heartbeat.
QoS-Marking: This field contains a DSCP value source marked on
its generated telemetry packets.
7.3. Telemetry-Destination
This object contains information related to telemetry destination.
The destination is usually a collector which is either a part of
Security Controller or external system such as SIEM.
The Telemetry-Destination object SHALL have the following
information:
Name: This field identifies the name of this object.
Date: Date when this object was created or last modified.
Collector-Source: This field contains the information such as IP
address and protocol (UDP or TCP) port number for the
collector's destination.
Collector-Credentials: This field contains a username and a
password provided by the collector.
Data-Encoding: This field contains the telemetry data encoding,
which could in the form of a schema.
Data-Transport: This field contains streaming telemetry data
protocols: whether it is gRPC, protocol buffer over UDP,
etc.
Kumar, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Consumer-Facing Interface Information Model July 2018
8. Role-Based Acess Control (RBAC)
Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) provides a powerful and centralized
control within a network. It is a policy neutral access control
mechanism defined around roles and privileges. The components of
RBAC, such as role-permissions, user-role and role-role
relationships, make it simple to perform user assignments.
+--------------+
| |
| User 1 + (has many)
| |\
+--------------+ \ +---------------+ +-------------+
. \ | | (has many) | |
. --->+ List of roles +----------->+ Permissions |
+--------------+ / | | | |
| | / +---------------+ +-------------+
| User n +/
| | (has many)
+--------------+
Figure 6: RBAC Diagram
As shown in Figure 6, a role represents a collection of permissions
(e.g., accessing a file server or other particular resources). A
role may be assigned to one or multiple users. Both roles and
permissions can be organized in a hirarchy. A role may consists of
other roles and permissions.
Following are the steps required to build RBAC.
1. Defining roles and permissions.
2. Establishing relations among roles and permissions.
3. Defining users.
4. Associating rules with roles and permissions.
5. assigning roles to users.
9. Security Considerations
An information model provides a mechanism to protect Consumer-Facing
Interface between System Admin (i.e., I2NSF User) and Security
Controller. One of the specified mechanism must be used to protect
an Enterprise network, data and all resources from external attacks.
This information model mandates that the interface must have proper
Kumar, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Consumer-Facing Interface Information Model July 2018
authentication and authorization with Role-Based Access Controls to
address the multi-tenancy requirement. The document does not mandate
that a particular mechanism should be used because a different
organization may have different needs based on their deployment.
10. IANA Considerations
This document requires no IANA actions. RFC Editor: Please remove
this section before publication.
11. Acknowledgments
This work was supported by Institute for Information & communications
Technology Promotion (IITP) grant funded by the Korea government
(MSIT) (No. R-20160222-002755, Cloud based Security Intelligence
Technology Development for the Customized Security Service
Provisioning).
12. Contributors
This document is the work of I2NSF working group, greatly benefiting
from inputs and suggestions by Kunal Modasiya, Prakash T. Sehsadri
and Srinivas Nimmagadda from Juniper Networks. The authors sincerely
appreciate their contributions.
The following are contributing authors of this document, who are
considered co-authors:
o Eunsoo Kim (Sungkyunkwan University)
o Seungjin Lee (Sungkyunkwan University)
o Hyoungshick Kim (Sungkyunkwan University)
13. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-i2nsf-capability]
Xia, L., Strassner, J., Basile, C., and D. Lopez,
"Information Model of NSFs Capabilities", draft-ietf-
i2nsf-capability-02 (work in progress), July 2018.
[I-D.ietf-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req]
Kumar, R., Lohiya, A., Qi, D., Bitar, N., Palislamovic,
S., and L. Xia, "Requirements for Client-Facing Interface
to Security Controller", draft-ietf-i2nsf-client-facing-
interface-req-05 (work in progress), May 2018.
Kumar, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Consumer-Facing Interface Information Model July 2018
[I-D.ietf-i2nsf-terminology]
Hares, S., Strassner, J., Lopez, D., Xia, L., and H.
Birkholz, "Interface to Network Security Functions (I2NSF)
Terminology", draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology-06 (work in
progress), July 2018.
[RFC3444] Pras, A. and J. Schoenwaelder, "On the Difference between
Information Models and Data Models", RFC 3444,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3444, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3444>.
[RFC8192] Hares, S., Lopez, D., Zarny, M., Jacquenet, C., Kumar, R.,
and J. Jeong, "Interface to Network Security Functions
(I2NSF): Problem Statement and Use Cases", RFC 8192,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8192, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8192>.
[RFC8329] Lopez, D., Lopez, E., Dunbar, L., Strassner, J., and R.
Kumar, "Framework for Interface to Network Security
Functions", RFC 8329, DOI 10.17487/RFC8329, February 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8329>.
Appendix A. Changes from draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-
im-06
The following changes have been made from draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-
facing-interface-im-06:
o In Section 1, Figure 1 is added to show a diagram for a high-level
abstraction of Consumer-Facing Interface.
Authors' Addresses
Rakesh Kumar
Juniper Networks
1133 Innovation Way
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US
Email: rakeshkumarcloud@gmail.com
Kumar, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Consumer-Facing Interface Information Model July 2018
Anil Lohiya
Juniper Networks
1133 Innovation Way
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US
Email: alohiya@juniper.net
Dave Qi
Bloomberg
731 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
US
Email: DQI@bloomberg.net
Nabil Bitar
Nokia
755 Ravendale Drive
Mountain View, CA 94043
US
Email: nabil.bitar@nokia.com
Senad Palislamovic
Nokia
755 Ravendale Drive
Mountain View, CA 94043
US
Email: senad.palislamovic@nokia.com
Liang Xia
Huawei
101 Software Avenue
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China
Email: Frank.Xialiang@huawei.com
Kumar, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Consumer-Facing Interface Information Model July 2018
Jaehoon Paul Jeong
Department of Software
Sungkyunkwan University
2066 Seobu-Ro, Jangan-Gu
Suwon, Gyeonggi-Do 16419
Republic of Korea
Phone: +82 31 299 4957
Fax: +82 31 290 7996
Email: pauljeong@skku.edu
URI: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php
Kumar, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 25]
