Internet DRAFT - draft-mcfadden-endpoint-classification
draft-mcfadden-endpoint-classification
Independent Submission M McFadden
Internet Draft internet policy advisors ltd
Intended status: Informational November 2, 2020
Expires: May 2, 2021
Endpoint Security Classification
draft-mcfadden-endpoint-classification-00
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), 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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 2, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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.
Abstract
McFadden Expires May 2, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Security Classification November 2020
It seems reasonable to suggest that, despite the huge variety of
types of endpoints on the Internet, there are categories of
similarity. These categories are important because categories of
endpoint devices may share particular advantages or limitations for
endpoint security. This draft attempts to suggest a classification of
endpoints as a foundation for further work on operational security.
The goal is to identify classes of endpoints with similar
characteristics. Those characteristics may lead to the discovery that
the devices in a particular category share similar characteristics
for endpoint security.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3
2. Conventions used in this document..............................3
3. Problem Statement..............................................4
4. Simplified Endpoint Schematic..................................4
5. Taxonomy and Hierarchy.........................................5
6. Taxonomy.......................................................5
6.1. Traditional and Enterprise Computing Equipment [TECE].....6
6.1.1. Description..........................................6
6.1.2. Endpoint characteristics.............................6
6.2. Personal Computing Equipment..............................6
6.2.1. Description..........................................6
6.2.2. Endpoint characteristics.............................7
6.3. Human Interface Devices...................................8
6.3.1. Endpoint description.................................8
6.3.2. Endpoint characteristics.............................8
6.4. Human Sensor Devices......................................9
6.4.1. Endpoint characteristics............................10
6.5. Non-human Sensor Devices.................................10
6.5.1. Endpoint Description................................10
6.5.2. Endpoint characteristics............................10
6.6. Peripheral Computing Equipment and Embedded Endpoints....11
6.6.1. Endpoint Description................................11
6.6.2. Endpoint characteristics............................12
6.7. Application Layer Endpoints..............................12
6.7.1. Description.........................................12
6.7.2. Endpoint Characteristics............................13
6.8. Edge Network and Acquisition Endpoints...................13
6.8.1. Description.........................................13
6.8.2. Endpoint characteristics............................14
7. Security Considerations.......................................15
8. IANA Considerations...........................................15
9. References....................................................15
9.1. Normative References.....................................15
McFadden Expires May 2, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Security Classification November 2020
9.2. Informative References...................................15
10. Acknowledgments..............................................15
Appendix A. Document History.....................................16
1. Introduction
A document entitled "BCP 72 - A Problem Statement [I-D. draft-
mcfadden-smart-threat-changes-01] suggests that the Internet's threat
landscape has changed significantly since the publication of BCP 72.
One of those changes is the evolution of security at endpoints. From
an operational viewpoint, the end-to-end principle has previously
focused activity on endpoint security.
Operational experience has identified limitations of endpoint-only
security solutions. Significant changes in technology, economics and
protocol development have impacted the provision of endpoint
security.
There are an enormous variety of endpoints on the Internet. It seems
a daunting task to try to make generalizations about endpoint
security when there is such diversity in the types of devices
connected to the Internet.
However, it seems reasonable to suggest that, despite the huge
variety of types of endpoints, there are categories of similarity.
These categories are important because categories of endpoint devices
may share particular advantages or limitations for endpoint security.
This draft attempts to suggest a classification of endpoints as a
foundation for further work on operational security. The goal is to
identify classes of endpoints with similar characteristics. Those
characteristics may lead to the discovery that the devices in a
particular category share similar characteristics for endpoint
security. While a general-purpose taxonomy of Internet endpoints
might be useful in a variety of settings, it is not the intended goal
of this document.
In addition, this document does not attempt to assess and document
the endpoint security characteristics of each part of the taxonomy.
2. Conventions used in this document
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 [RFC2119].
McFadden Expires May 2, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Security Classification November 2020
3. Problem Statement
User Equipment encompasses a very broad set of endpoints. It may be
useful to provide a set of categories - or, groups - of endpoints
that have similar properties. Endpoints in the same groups may share
security characteristics that are particular to that group. The
fundamental question is: can a classification of endpoint devices be
created that allows for grouping of endpoints that have similar
security characteristics? And: is such a grouping - along with
operational experience on the Internet - useful in guiding future
security protocol design?
If it is possible to answer each of those questions in the
affirmative, then operational experience and research can be done on
the security characteristics of each category and influence the
development of protocols that have the greatest impact for those type
of devices.
4. Simplified Endpoint Schematic
A simplified representation of an endpoint is possible by making the
following generalization:
+------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Application |
| |
|------------------------------------------------|
| |
| OS / Execution Environment |
| |
|------------------------------------------------|
| |
| Hardware |
| |
+------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1 Endpoint Generalization
This simplification means that there are many combinations of
hardware, operating systems, execution environments and applications.
It also means that any of these three layers can be an endpoint for
the purposes of a discussion of endpoint security.
It is natural to suggest that we consider endpoints including those
which have a variety of power, computational, storage and network
capacities. It is possible that grouping devices with similar
McFadden Expires May 2, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Security Classification November 2020
characteristics will help in identifying categories of devices that
share similar endpoint security characteristics.
5. Taxonomy and Hierarchy
One suggestion for the taxonomy for endpoints is to consider a
hierarchy of endpoints that collects similar endpoint types in large
categories and then distinguishes between them in "sub-groups" or
lower levels of the taxonomy.
These groupings may provide a way to categorize threats and
mitigations to large classes of endpoints on the Internet while
providing the ability for differentiation. An example might be a
class of endpoints characterized as "constrained devices."
As an example, "constrained devices" might be further subdivided into
sub-classes such as sensors, embedded processors, specific (or,
special) purpose single-use processors, mesh gateways, and so forth.
It can even be imagined that the second level of the hierarchy could
be further subdivided by further distinguishing the endpoint types.
The current version of the draft does not take this approach. One of
the goals of the endpoint taxonomy is to provide enough
differentiation and specificity to ensure that a later operational
experience and research can successfully discuss common threats and
mitigations for each of the categories in the taxonomy. By providing
a ever greater hierarchy of endpoint types, it becomes difficult to
scale a future document that discusses threats and mitigations to the
highly specific endpoint types.
6. Taxonomy
Others have attempted to provide general-purpose taxonomy and device
classification guides. In some settings automated detection and
classification of devices provides an essential step in providing
appropriate access control and security services.
General-purpose classification systems tend to ossify or become
enormously complex. Classification has come from commercial entities,
computer science organizations, the academic community and even
regional collections of cooperating national governments.
Because of this, we limit the discussion to a taxonomy for endpoints
only. We divide endpoints into eight different classes and then
attempt to carefully describe the characteristics of devices in each
class.
McFadden Expires May 2, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Security Classification November 2020
6.1. Traditional and Enterprise Computing Equipment [TECE]
6.1.1. Description
Traditional and Enterprise Computing Equipment is characterized by
its extremely high-capacity for transactional volume, storage and
shared user population. TECE forms the backbone of high-volume, high-
availability transactional computing and is provided in both physical
and virtualized forms.
Traditional computing endpoints are shared computing environments
characterized by centralized, shared computing. These endpoints are
often in large scale data centers. These endpoints are capable of
high-availability, substantial requirements for power and
environmental control. These endpoints are also characterized by very
complex operating systems and user environments.
6.1.2. Endpoint characteristics
o Cost - these endpoints are characterized by extremely high cost.
o Physical size - these are very large endpoints, not suitable or
intended for use by an individual.
o Network link characteristics - capable of supporting extremely
high bandwidth.
o User interface - very complex and shared among multiple
individuals.
o Processing power - extremely high processing capability.
o Physical power - requires substantial provision of electrical
power and environmental controls.
o Code complexity - Extremely high support for very complex code
including parallelism, multitasking and multithreaded execution.
6.2. Personal Computing Equipment
6.2.1. Description
These are endpoints designed or intended to be used by an individual.
They can be delivered as fixed, portable or virtual instantiations of
the endpoint. It should be noted that virtual instantiations of
endpoints introduce complexities in defining the characteristics of
the endpoints. In each case, the device supports a mechanism for
McFadden Expires May 2, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Security Classification November 2020
human-interface and has the capability for both local storage and
processing. The personal computing equipment class is also
characterized by relatively low cost and power requirements.
This class of endpoint is also characterized by the devices
supporting multiple purpose use. This class is divided into two sub-
classes: fixed and mobile endpoints. The mobile subclass is further
divided into four other subclasses: laptops, tablets, intelligent
phones, and ultraportable personal computing equipment.
Personal computing endpoints usually have at least one, and often
many, network links - often supporting a variety of network
connectivity technologies. These endpoints are also characterized by
having a human interface - either integral to the computing device
itself or supplied externally to the computing device.
6.2.2. Endpoint characteristics
o Cost - these endpoints have a huge range of costs, from extremely
inexpensive for simple "personal computer on a board" endpoints to
moderately expensive for specially configured laptop and fixed
devices.
o Physical size - the physical size of these devices range from
handheld to a small cabinet for fixed, desktop units.
o Network link characteristics - personal computing endpoints are
often characterized by supporting multiple connectivity
technologies.
o User interface - personal computing endpoints are characterized by
having user interfaces designed for an individual. The interface
varies from simple, text-based interaction to gesture, touch and
voice control.
o Processing power - these endpoints are characterized by a
significant range of processing power: from single CPU units to
endpoints that can support multiple concurrent processes.
o Physical power - personal computing endpoints are characterized by
using either traditional mains power or power supplied by a
battery.
o Code complexity - personal computing endpoints support complex
code and often parallel and multithreaded execution of code.
McFadden Expires May 2, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Security Classification November 2020
6.3. Human Interface Devices
6.3.1. Endpoint description
Human interface transactions begin with a task-related goal for a
user. This leads to a user behavior (such as pointing, typing or
touching) which occurs in the current computing environment. The
user's action then should trigger an event in the current computing
environment.
Early computer science research breaks the taxonomy for Human
Interface Devices into four large categories: input devices, pointing
devices, indirect pointing and speech recognition. More recent
research adds neural interfaces, VR sensors, and human attribute
sensors. In all of these cases, the endpoints have the goal of
providing a mechanism for user navigation, interconnection, form
filling, menu interaction, data entry or sensing of human input
(although not to be confused with the following category in the
taxonomy). The result is that this category of the taxonomy has been
characterized by extremely limited computing capability in the past.
In contemporary networks the human interface devices are far more
complex and, as a result, subject to a wider collections of risks as
endpoints.
Since human interface devices are often the mechanism that provides
control of a computing resource, attacks on those devices are of
particular concern. In the past, the idea that there was an external
threat to a mouse or a pointing device would be ignored. In contrast,
today's voice actuated input devices and VR interfaces are
sophisticated enough to represent a real platform for attack.
6.3.2. Endpoint characteristics
o Cost - these endpoints are typically low in cost compared to
traditional computing equipment. They are often closer in cost to
simple peripheral equipment rather than endpoints that provide
general purpose computing platforms.
o Physical size - these devices are meant to provide a human
interface and are sized appropriately to that use case. Examples
include those devices that are small enough to be handheld or
worn.
McFadden Expires May 2, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Security Classification November 2020
o Network link characteristics - human interface devices are
connected in a variety of ways. Early devices were wired to the
device to which they provided connectivity. More recently, these
devices have a network connection between them and the connected
device. Examples of this connection use Bluetooth or other, very
local network connections. These devices may have connections to
wider networks to support applications such as augmented reality.
o User interface - generally these devices provide a user interface
rather than having a distinct user interface of their own. More
complex human interface devices have limited interfaces for
settings and control of the device, and its connectivity and
function.
o Processing power - these devices are characterized by having
limited processing power.
o Physical power - most human interface devices are characterized by
having limited power requirements. They are sometimes powered by
their connection to the device. In other cases, they are powered
by a battery.
o Code complexity - human interface devices tend to have either no
or very limited capabilities to execute code. Modern interface
devices which support presentation of a virtual physical
environment are capable of executing the code needed to provide
the interface between the presentation of visual (and other)
stimuli while responding to gestures and movement of the person
using the device.
6.4. Human Sensor Devices
Description
These are endpoints whose primary purpose is to sense, store,
transmit or process information about a human being. These endpoints
are characterized as having use cases in health and wellness
monitoring, human performance enhancement, personalized medicine and
human safety.
The endpoints are characterized as sensor devices with the capacity
to sense, store and report on data collected on an individual. The
sensor may be multimodal. These endpoints are almost always
characterized by have a battery for power and having limited storage,
networking and processing capabilities.
McFadden Expires May 2, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Security Classification November 2020
6.4.1. Endpoint characteristics
o Cost - Human Sensor Endpoints can range in cost from very low (for
instance a heartbeat sensor) to quite expensive (a sensor built
into an implanted device).
o Physical size - human sensors are very small and almost always
portable.
o Network link characteristics - human sensors usually have a single
network like technology available and are capable of very limited
bandwidth utilization on that link.
o User interface - human sensors have extremely limited, or no, user
interface.
o Processing power - human sensors are characterized by having
limited processing power - often incorporating only the ability to
collect store and forward sensed information.
o Physical power - human sensors are characterized by being powered
by internal batteries
o Code complexity - human sensors are not usually capable of running
complex code. Often, the capability of the endpoint is to simply
sense, store and forward data without reporting and analysis of
that data.
6.5. Non-human Sensor Devices
6.5.1. Endpoint Description
These endpoints are capable of sensing, storage, communication and
possibly some computation. They are characterized by having very low
bandwidth radios, a battery for power, sensor technology and a small
processor. Unlike in Section 5.4, these devices are not intended to
sense human-related information.
Compared with Human Sensors, non-human sensors often have a variety
of communications technologies available - for instance, self-
organizing into mesh networks.
6.5.2. Endpoint characteristics
o Cost - Non-human Sensor Endpoints can range in cost from very low
(for instance, a simple temperature sensor) to quite expensive (a
sensor built into an implanted device.
McFadden Expires May 2, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Security Classification November 2020
o Physical size - Non-human sensors are often small and almost
always portable.
o Network link characteristics - Non-human sensors usually have a
single network like technology available but the topology of those
network links can be highly varied. Quite often these devices are
capable of very limited bandwidth utilization on the link to which
they are attached.
o User interface - non-human sensors have extremely limited, or no,
user interface.
o Processing power - non-human sensors are characterized by having
limited processing power - often incorporating only the ability to
collect store and forward sensed information. Some non-human
sensors have the capability to process stored data, but usually
this is limited.
o Physical power - non-human sensors often require very limited
amounts of power - very often provided by a battery.
o Code complexity - non-human sensors are not usually capable of
running complex code. Often, the capability of the endpoint is to
simply sense, store and forward data without reporting and
analysis of that data.
6.6. Peripheral Computing Equipment and Embedded Endpoints
6.6.1. Endpoint Description
These are endpoints that are "embedded" in devices that may have a
different primary function. An example is a network endpoint in a
printer that supports remote access, configuration and printing.
Another example is an endpoint in an appliance that has a different
primary function (for instance, a refrigerator).
In either case, the endpoint is characterized as being added to
another system, machine or peripheral.
These devices are characterized as being specialized for their
particular use case and function. Their specific characteristics
often depend upon the system, device or peripheral in which they are
being hosted. As an example, the embedded endpoint gets its physical
power and networking capabilities from the device in which it is
connected.
McFadden Expires May 2, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Security Classification November 2020
6.6.2. Endpoint characteristics
o Cost - almost never available as a standalone device - instead,
always embedded into the peripheral or system which is hosting it.
o Physical size - almost always very small - to be embedded into
some other system or device.
o Network link characteristics - dependent on network services
available from the host device and not always IP-based.
o User interface - almost always provided by the "hosting" device.
Many embedded endpoints share a user interface with the
configuration and control tool for the underlying device.
o Processing power - usually limited and constrained by the use
case. Some embedded endpoints provide remote access to the
underlying resources provided by the processor.
o Physical power - generally supplied by the "host" system or
device.
o Code complexity - limited and almost always constrained by use
case.
6.7. Application Layer Endpoints
6.7.1. Description
A significant trend in the contemporary public Internet is to have
applications act as completely independent agents - a situation where
the application itself provides the necessary infrastructure (for
instance, domain name resolution) to provide services. An example
would be a web browser that independently resolved domain names and
established secure communication channels independently.
The traffic between the application and the servers it uses might not
be available for analysis by security software. As a result,
application-based endpoints would have the characteristic of having
to provide security services (for instance, traffic security or
malware detection) for itself.
This type of endpoint also has the characteristic of potentially
having adverse impacts on other applications running on the same
platform. For example, if several applications are provisioning their
own infrastructure services, then those services are being duplicated
on that platform. For security related infrastructure there would be
McFadden Expires May 2, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Security Classification November 2020
no common, platform-wide approach to securing the applications or the
traffic generated between the application and external servers.
6.7.2. Endpoint Characteristics
o Cost - applications vary widely in cost and some are free.
o Physical size - based on code, application endpoints do not have
physical characteristics (e.g. size, power requirements, etc.).
o Network link characteristics - applications often use network
facilities provided by lower layers of the stack. In particular,
many application endpoints use the network services provided by
the underlying operating system that acts as the host for the
application. An emerging trend in both wired and wireless networks
is for the application to interface with the network link to
control or provide some of the network link services for itself.
An example of this would be an application that does DNS
resolution services for itself rather then depending on the
underlying operating system to provide that service.
o User interface - the application usually provides its own user
interface which can be minimal (for instance, command line driven)
or complex (windows or VR driven).
o Processing power - always dependent on the device on which the
application is hosted.
o Physical power - based on code, application endpoints do not have
physical requirements (e.g. power)
o Code complexity - highly variable. Applications can be very simple
or highly complex depending on the application's requirements.
6.8. Edge Network and Acquisition Endpoints
6.8.1. Description
The emergence of intelligent devices and things has led to new
network designs where data is aggregated at points topologically
close to where the data is gathered. The gathered data can then have
the option to flow to nearby gateways, or a Wi-Fi/W-LAN (SD-WAN)
router/equipment, or the telco tower/rooftop towers. These often
perform an acquisition function that includes both aggregation and
data condensation.
McFadden Expires May 2, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Security Classification November 2020
They usually have some level of processing capability. The main task
for these devices is to collect the data from various other endpoints
and send the processed data upstream. In doing so, they often perform
some low-level data processing, such as data filtering (which
determines what data is sent/blocked) and data analytics.
The acquisition systems are often architected to talk to distributed
data centers and end devices; for instance, on a factory shop floor,
a CDN's edge PoP (Point of Presence), an edge colocation local, or a
metro regional datacenter for a Telco or IT Service Provider.
In all cases, these edge computing devices represent a newer class of
endpoints. These are endpoints that are not at the extreme edge of
the network, but provide services to the devices at those edges
(especially for those devices in the class discussed in section 6.4
and 6.5 above).
The threats and mitigations for this class of device is expected to
be significantly different from those in sections 6.4 and 6.5.
6.8.2. Endpoint characteristics
o Cost - highly variable. Edge network devices in 5G networks can be
very expensive. Aggregation nodes in sensor networks can be very
inexpensive.
o Physical size - highly variable. Edge network devices in 5G
networks can be larger than personal computing equipment.
Aggregation nodes in sensor networks can be as small as a circuit
board, battery and radio.
o Network link characteristics - by their nature, these devices have
at least a pair of network links. One of these links faces toward
the network where the data is being aggregated. The other faces
toward the network where the data is being processed, analyzed or
reported upon.
o User interface - these devices usually have a limited user
interface, characterized by the need to configure the device,
provide security and allow for management of the network links.
o Processing power - usually these devices have limited processing
power: their emphasis is on aggregation and management of data
flows between networks.
McFadden Expires May 2, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Security Classification November 2020
o Physical power - highly variable. Edge network devices in 5G
networks can require significant sources of secure and consistent
power. Aggregation nodes in sensor networks can often be supported
by a small battery.
o Code complexity - usually these devices have limited ability to
load and execute code. Since their emphasis is on aggregation and
management of data flows between networks, these devices usually
have minimal ability to run general purpose code.
7. Security Considerations
This draft is non-normative and simply attempts to provide a taxonomy
for endpoints. The goal of the taxonomy is to document that there are
classes of endpoints that have different characteristics. Those
classes may have completely different threat landscapes and the
endpoints may have completely different security capabilities.
This document is intended to support further work in that combines
operational security experience with guidance for security protocol
design.
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no requirements or actions for IANA.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D:draft-taddei-smart-cless-introduction] Taddei, A., Wueest, C.,
Roundy, K., Lazanski, D., "Capabilities and Limitations of an
Endpoint-only Security Solution," https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-
taddei-smart-cless-introduction-01, March 2020.
10. Acknowledgments
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
McFadden Expires May 2, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Security Classification November 2020
Appendix A. Document History
-00
Initial Internet Draft
McFadden Expires May 2, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Endpoint Security Classification November 2020
Authors' Addresses
Mark McFadden
Internet policy advisors ltd
Chepstow Wales UK
Email: mark@internetpolicyadvisors.com
McFadden Expires May 2, 2021 [Page 17]
