Security Automation and Continuous Monitoring WG D. Waltermire Internet-Draft NIST Intended status: Informational A. Montville Expires: February 11, 2014 TW D. Harrington Effective Software August 10, 2013 Terminology for Security Assessment draft-dbh-sacm-terminology-00 Abstract This memo documents terminology used in the documents produced by the SACM WG (Security Automation and Continuous Monitoring). 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 February 11, 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. Waltermire, et al. Expires February 11, 2014 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Terminology for Security Assessment August 2013 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terms and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6.1. -00- draft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1. Introduction Our goal with this document is to improve our agreement on the terminology used in documents produced by the IETF Working Group for Security Automation and Continuous Monitoring. Agreeing on terminology should help reach consensus on which problems we're trying to solve, and propose solutions and decide which ones to use. This document is expected to be temorary work product, and will probably be incorporated into the architecture or other document. 2. Terms and Definitions assessment Defined in [RFC5209] as "the process of collecting posture for a set of capabilities on the endpoint (e.g., host-based firewall) such that the appropriate validators may evaluate the posture against compliance policy." Within this document the use of the term is expanded to support other uses of collected posture (e.g. reporting, network enforcement, vulnerability detection, license management). The phrase "set of capabilities on the endpoint" includes: hardware and software installed on the endpoint." asset Defined in [RFC4949] as "a system resource that is (a) required to be protected by an information system's security policy, (b) intended to be protect by a countermeasure, or (c) required for a system's mission. Waltermire, et al. Expires February 11, 2014 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Terminology for Security Assessment August 2013 attribute Defined in [RFC5209] as "data element including any requisite meta-data describing an observed, expected, or the operational status of an endpoint feature (e.g., anti-virus software is currently in use)." endpoint Defined in [RFC5209] as "any computing device that can be connected to a network. Such devices normally are associated with a particular link layer address before joining the network and potentially an IP address once on the network. This includes: laptops, desktops, servers, cell phones, or any device that may have an IP address." Network infrastructure devices (e.g. switches, routers, firewalls), which fit the definition, are also considered to be endpoints within this document. Based on the previous definition of an asset, an endpoint is a type of asset. posture Defined in [RFC5209] as "configuration and/or status of hardware or software on an endpoint as it pertains to an organization's security policy." This term is used within the scope of this document to represent the state information that is collected from an endpoint (e.g. software/hardware inventory, configuration settings). posture attributes Defined in [RFC5209] as "attributes describing the configuration or status (posture) of a feature of the endpoint. For example, a Posture Attribute might describe the version of the operating system installed on the system." Within this document this term represents a specific assertion about endpoint state (e.g. configuration setting, installed software, hardware). The phrase "features of the endpoint" refers to installed software or software components. system resource Waltermire, et al. Expires February 11, 2014 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Terminology for Security Assessment August 2013 Defined in [RFC4949] as "data contained in an information system; or a service provided by a system; or a system capacity, such as processing power or communication bandwidth; or an item of system equipment (i.e., hardware, firmware, software, or documentation); or a facility that houses system operations and equipment. 2.1. Requirements Language 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]. 3. IANA Considerations This memo includes no request to IANA. 4. Security Considerations This memo documents terminology for security automation. While it is about security, it does not affect security. 5. Acknowledgements 6. Change Log 6.1. -00- draft 7. References 7.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 7.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-nea-pt-eap] Cam-Winget, N. and P. Sangster, "PT-EAP: Posture Transport (PT) Protocol For EAP Tunnel Methods", draft-ietf-nea-pt- eap-06 (work in progress), December 2012. [I-D.ietf-nea-pt-tls] Sangster, P., Cam-Winget, N., and J. Salowey, "PT-TLS: A TLS-based Posture Transport (PT) Protocol", draft-ietf- nea-pt-tls-08 (work in progress), October 2012. [I-D.ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg] Waltermire, et al. Expires February 11, 2014 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Terminology for Security Assessment August 2013 Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface Management", draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-12 (work in progress), July 2013. [I-D.ietf-netmod-system-mgmt] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "YANG Data Model for System Management", draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt-08 (work in progress), July 2013. [I-D.ietf-savi-framework] Wu, J., Bi, J., Bagnulo, M., Baker, F., and C. Vogt, "Source Address Validation Improvement Framework", draft- ietf-savi-framework-06 (work in progress), January 2012. [RFC0826] Plummer, D., "Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or converting network protocol addresses to 48.bit Ethernet address for transmission on Ethernet hardware", STD 37, RFC 826, November 1982. [RFC1213] McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets:MIB-II", STD 17, RFC 1213, March 1991. [RFC2790] Waldbusser, S. and P. Grillo, "Host Resources MIB", RFC 2790, March 2000. [RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000. [RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson, "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2865, June 2000. [RFC2922] Bierman, A. and K. Jones, "Physical Topology MIB", RFC 2922, September 2000. [RFC3535] Schoenwaelder, J., "Overview of the 2002 IAB Network Management Workshop", RFC 3535, May 2003. [RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July 2003. [RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2", RFC 4949, August 2007. Waltermire, et al. Expires February 11, 2014 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Terminology for Security Assessment August 2013 [RFC5209] Sangster, P., Khosravi, H., Mani, M., Narayan, K., and J. Tardo, "Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA): Overview and Requirements", RFC 5209, June 2008. [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. [RFC5424] Gerhards, R., "The Syslog Protocol", RFC 5424, March 2009. [RFC5792] Sangster, P. and K. Narayan, "PA-TNC: A Posture Attribute (PA) Protocol Compatible with Trusted Network Connect (TNC)", RFC 5792, March 2010. [RFC5793] Sahita, R., Hanna, S., Hurst, R., and K. Narayan, "PB-TNC: A Posture Broker (PB) Protocol Compatible with Trusted Network Connect (TNC)", RFC 5793, March 2010. [RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733, October 2012. [RFC6933] Bierman, A., Romascanu, D., Quittek, J., and M. Chandramouli, "Entity MIB (Version 4)", RFC 6933, May 2013. Authors' Addresses David Waltermire National Institute of Standards and Technology 100 Bureau Drive Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877 USA Email: david.waltermire@nist.gov Adam W. Montville Tripwire, Inc. 101 SW Main Street, Suite 1500 Portland, Oregon 97204 USA Email: amontville@tripwire.com Waltermire, et al. Expires February 11, 2014 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Terminology for Security Assessment August 2013 David Harrington Effective Software 50 Harding Rd Portsmouth, NH 03801 USA Email: ietfdbh@comcast.net Waltermire, et al. Expires February 11, 2014 [Page 7]