MILE Working Group T. Takahashi Internet-Draft NICT Intended status: Standards Track K. Landfield Expires: June 4, 2014 McAfee T. Millar USCERT Y. Kadobayashi NAIST Dec 1, 2013 IODEF-extension for structured cybersecurity information draft-ietf-mile-sci-12.txt Abstract This document extends the Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF) defined in RFC 5070 [RFC5070] to exchange enriched cybersecurity information among security experts at organizations and facilitates their operations. It provides a well-defined pattern to consistently embed structured information, such as identifier- and XML-based information. 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 June 4, 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 Takahashi, et al. Expires June 4, 2014 [Page 1] Internet-Draft IODEF-SCI Dec 2013 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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Extension Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. IANA Table for Structured Cybersecurity Information . . . 5 4.2. Extended Data Type: XMLDATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.3. Extending IODEF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.4. Basic Structure of the Extension Classes . . . . . . . . . 7 4.5. Defining Extension Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.5.1. AttackPattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.5.2. Platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.5.3. Vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.5.4. Scoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.5.5. Weakness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.5.6. EventReport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.5.7. Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.5.8. Remediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5. Mandatory to Implement features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.1. An Example XML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.2. An XML Schema for the Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6.1. Transport-Specific Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6.2. Protection of Sensitive and Private Information . . . . . 23 6.3. Application and Server Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 8. Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Takahashi, et al. Expires June 4, 2014 [Page 2] Internet-Draft IODEF-SCI Dec 2013 1. Introduction The number of incidents in cyber society is growing day by day. Incident information needs to be reported, exchanged, and shared among organizations in order to cope with the situation. IODEF is one of the tools already in use that enables such an exchange. To more efficiently run security operations, information exchanged between organizations needs to be machine readable. IODEF provides a means to describe the incident information, but it often needs to include various non-structured types of incident-related data in order to convey more specific details about what is occurring. Further structure within IODEF increases the machine-readability of the document thus providing a means for better automating certain security operations. Within the security community there exist various means for specifying structured descriptions of cybersecurity information such as [CAPEC][CCE][CCSS][CEE][CPE][CVE][CVRF][CVSS][CWE][CWSS][MAEC] [OCIL][OVAL][SCAP][XCCDF]. In this context, cybersecurity information encompasses a broad range of structured data representation types that may be used to assess or report on the security posture of an asset or set of assets. Such structured descriptions facilitates a better understanding of an incident while enabling more streamlined automated security operations. Because of this, it would be beneficial to embed and convey these types of information inside IODEF documents. This document extends IODEF to embed and convey various types of structured information. Since IODEF defines a flexible and extensible format and supports a granular level of specificity, this document defines an extension to IODEF instead of defining a new report format. For clarity, and to eliminate duplication, only the additional structures necessary for describing the exchange of such structured information are provided. 2. Terminology The terminology used in this document follows the one defined in RFC 5070 [RFC5070]. 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]. Takahashi, et al. Expires June 4, 2014 [Page 3] Internet-Draft IODEF-SCI Dec 2013 3. Applicability To maintain awareness of the continually changing security threat landscape, organization needs to exchange cybersecurity information, which includes the following information: attack pattern, platform information, vulnerability and weakness, countermeasure instruction, computer event logs, and severity assessments. IODEF provides a scheme to describe and exchange such information among interested parties. However, it does not define the detailed formats to specify such information. There already exists structured and detailed formats for describing these types of information that can be used in facilitating such an exchange. They include [CAPEC][CCE][CCSS][CEE][CPE] [CVE][CVRF][CVSS][CWE][CWSS][MAEC][OCIL][OVAL][SCAP][XCCDF]. By embedding them into the IODEF document, the document can convey more detailed context information to the receivers, and the document can be easily reused. The use of structured information formats facilitates more advanced security operations on the receiver side. Since the information is machine readable, the data can be processed by computers thus allowing better automation of security operations. For instance, an organization wishing to report a security incident wants to describe what vulnerability was exploited. In this case the sender can simply use IODEF, where an XML-based [XML1.0] attack pattern record that follows the syntax and vocabulary defined by an industry specification is embedded, instead of describing everything in free form text. The receiver can identify the needed details of the attack pattern by looking up some of the XML tags defined by the specification. The receiver can accumulate the attack pattern record in its database and could distribute it to the interested parties as needed, all without requiring human interventions. In another example, an administrator is investigating an incident and detected a configuration problem that he wishes to share with a partner organization to prevent the same event from occurring. He accesses configuration information in an internal repository that was gathered prior to the initial attack specific to a new vulnerability alert to confirm the configuration was in fact vulnerable. He uses this information to automatically generate an XML-based software configuration description, embed it in an IODEF document, and send the resulting IODEF document to the partner organization. Takahashi, et al. Expires June 4, 2014 [Page 4] Internet-Draft IODEF-SCI Dec 2013 4. Extension Definition This document extends IODEF to embed structured information by introducing new classes that can be embedded consistently inside an IODEF document as element contents of the AdditionalData and RecordItem classes. 4.1. IANA Table for Structured Cybersecurity Information This extension embeds structured cybersecurity information defined by other specifications. The list of supported specifications is managed by IANA, and this document defines the needed fields for the list's entry. Each entry has namespace [XMLNames], specification name, version, reference URI, and applicable classes for each specification. Arbitrary URIs that may help readers to understand the specification could be embedded inside the Reference URI field, but it is recommended that standard/informational URI describing the specification is prepared and is embedded here. The initial IANA table has only one entry, as below. Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:mile:mmdef:1.2 Specification Name: Malware Metadata Exchange Format Version: 1.2 Reference URI: http://standards.ieee.org/develop /indconn/icsg/mmdef.html, http://grouper.ieee.org/groups /malware/malwg/Schema1.2/ Applicable Classes: AttackPattern Note that the specification was developed by The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Incorporated (IEEE), through the Industry Connections Security Group (ICSG) of its Standards Association. The table is to be managed by IANA following the allocation policy specified in Section 7. The SpecID attributes of extension classes (Section 4.5) must allow the values of the specifications' namespace fields, but otherwise, implementations are not required to support all specifications of the IANA table and may choose which specifications to support, though the specification listed in the initial table needs to be minimally supported, as described in Section 5. In case an implementation Takahashi, et al. Expires June 4, 2014 [Page 5] Internet-Draft IODEF-SCI Dec 2013 received a data it does not support, it may expand its functionality by looking up the IANA table or notify the sender of its inability to parse the data. Note that the look-up could be done manually or automatically, but automatic download of data from IANA's website is not recommended since it is not designed for mass retrieval of data by multiple devices. 4.2. Extended Data Type: XMLDATA This extension inherits all of the data types defined in the IODEF data model. One data type is added: XMLDATA. An embedded XML data is represented by the XMLDATA data type. This type is defined as the extension to the iodef:ExtensionType [RFC5070], whose dtype attribute is set to "xml". 4.3. Extending IODEF This document defines eight extension classes, namely AttackPattern, Platform, Vulnerability, Scoring, Weakness, EventReport, Verification and Remediation. Figure 1 describes the relationships between the IODEF Incident class [RFC5070] and the newly defined classes. It is expressed in Unified Modeling Language (UML) syntax as with the RFC 5070 [RFC5070]. The UML representation is for illustrative purposes only; elements are specified in XML as defined in Section 5.2. Takahashi, et al. Expires June 4, 2014 [Page 6] Internet-Draft IODEF-SCI Dec 2013 +---------------+ | Incident | +---------------+ | ENUM purpose |<>---------[IncidentID] | STRING |<>--{0..1}-[AlternativeID] | ext-purpose |<>--{0..1}-[RelatedActivity] | ENUM lang |<>--{0..1}-[DetectTime] | ENUM |<>--{0..1}-[StartTime] | restriction |<>--{0..1}-[EndTime] | |<>---------[ReportTime] | |<>--{0..*}-[Description] | |<>--{1..*}-[Assessment] | |<>--{0..*}-[Method] | | |<>--{0..*}-[AdditionalData] | | |<>--{0..*}-[AttackPattern] | | |<>--{0..*}-[Vulnerability] | | |<>--{0..*}-[Weakness] | |<>--{1..*}-[Contact] | |<>--{0..*}-[EventData] | | |<>--{0..*}-[Flow] | | | |<>--{1..*}-[System] | | | |<>--{0..*}-[AdditionalData] | | | |<>--{0..*}-[Platform] | | |<>--{0..*}-[Expectation] | | |<>--{0..1}-[Record] | | |<>--{1..*}-[RecordData] | | |<>--{1..*}-[RecordItem] | | |<>--{0..*}-[EventReport] | |<>--{0..1}-[History] | |<>--{0..*}-[AdditionalData] | | |<>--{0..*}-[Verification] | | |<>--{0..*}-[Remediation] +---------------+ Figure 1: Incident class 4.4. Basic Structure of the Extension Classes Figure 2 shows the basic structure of the extension classes. Some of the extension classes have extra elements as defined in Section 4.5, but the basic structure is the same. Takahashi, et al. Expires June 4, 2014 [Page 7] Internet-Draft IODEF-SCI Dec 2013 +---------------------+ | New Class Name | +---------------------+ | ENUM SpecID |<>--(0..*)-[ RawData ] | STRING ext-SpecID |<>--(0..*)-[ Reference ] | STRING ContentID | +---------------------+ Figure 2: Basic Structure Three attributes are defined as below. SpecID: REQUIRED. ENUM. A specification's identifier that specifies the format of a structured information. The value should be chosen from the namespaces [XMLNames] listed in the IANA table (Section 4.1) or "private". The value "private" is prepared for conveying structured information based on a format that is not listed in the table. This is usually used for conveying data formatted according to an organization's private schema. When the value "private" is used, ext-SpecID element MUST be used. ext-SpecID: OPTIONAL. STRING. A specification's identifier that specifies the format of a structured information. This is usually used to support private schema that is not listed in the IANA table (Section 4.1). This attribute MUST be used only when the value of SpecID element is "private." ContentID: OPTIONAL. STRING. An identifier of a structured information. Depending on the extension classes, the content of the structured information differs. This attribute enables IODEF documents to covey the identifier of a structured information instead of conveying the information itself. Likewise, three elements are defined as below. RawData: Zero or more. XMLDATA. An XML of a structured information. This is a complete document that is formatted according to the specification and its version identified by the SpecID/ext-SpecID. When this element is used, writers/senders MUST ensure that the namespace specified by SpecID/ext-SpecID and the schema of the XML are consistent; if not, the namespace identified by SpecID SHOULD be preferred, and the inconsistency SHOULD be logged so a human can correct the problem. Reference: Zero or more of iodef:Reference [RFC5070]. A reference to a structured information. This element allows an IODEF document to include a link to a structured information instead of directly embedding it into a RawData element. Takahashi, et al. Expires June 4, 2014 [Page 8] Internet-Draft IODEF-SCI Dec 2013 Though ContentID, RawData, and Reference are optional attribute and elements, one of them MUST be used to convey structured information. Note that only one of them SHOULD be used to avoid confusing the receiver. 4.5. Defining Extension Classes This document defines the following seven extension classes. 4.5.1. AttackPattern An AttackPattern is an extension class to the Incident.Method.AdditionalData element with a dtype of "xml". It describes attack patterns of incidents or events. It is RECOMMENDED that Method class contain the extension elements whenever available. An AttackPattern class is structured as follows. +---------------------+ | AttackPattern | +---------------------+ | ENUM SpecID |<>--(0..*)-[ RawData ] | STRING ext-SpecID |<>--(0..*)-[ Reference ] | STRING ContentID |<>--(0..*)-[ Platform ] +---------------------+ Figure 3: AttackPattern class This class has the following attributes. SpecID: REQUIRED. ENUM. See Section 4.4. ext-SpecID: OPTIONAL. STRING. See Section 4.4. ContentID: OPTIONAL. STRING. An identifier of an attack pattern information. See Section 4.4. Likewise, this class has the following elements. RawData: Zero or more. XMLDATA. An XML of an attack pattern information. See Section 4.4. Reference: Zero or more. A reference to an attack pattern information. See Section 4.4. Takahashi, et al. Expires June 4, 2014 [Page 9] Internet-Draft IODEF-SCI Dec 2013 Platform: Zero or more. An identifier of software platform involved in the specific attack pattern. See Section 4.5.2. 4.5.2. Platform A Platform is an extension class that identifies a software platform. It is RECOMMENDED that AttackPattern, Vulnerability, Weakness, and System classes contain the extension elements whenever available. A Platform element is structured as follows. +---------------------+ | Platform | +---------------------+ | ENUM SpecID |<>--(0..*)-[ RawData ] | STRING ext-SpecID |<>--(0..*)-[ Reference ] | STRING ContentID | +---------------------+ Figure 4: Platform class This class has the following attributes. SpecID: REQUIRED. ENUM. See Section 4.4. ext-SpecID: OPTIONAL. STRING. See Section 4.4. ContentID: OPTIONAL. STRING. An identifier of a platform information. See Section 4.4. Likewise, this class has the following elements. RawData: Zero or more. XMLDATA. An XML of a platform information. See Section 4.4. Reference: Zero or more. A reference to a platform information. See Section 4.4. 4.5.3. Vulnerability A Vulnerability is an extension class to the Incident.Method.AdditionalData element with a dtype of "xml". The extension describes the vulnerabilities that are exposed or were exploited in incidents. It is RECOMMENDED that Method class contain the extension elements whenever available. A Vulnerability element is structured as follows. Takahashi, et al. Expires June 4, 2014 [Page 10] Internet-Draft IODEF-SCI Dec 2013 +---------------------+ | Vulnerability | +---------------------+ | ENUM SpecID |<>--(0..*)-[ RawData ] | STRING ext-SpecID |<>--(0..*)-[ Reference ] | STRING ContentID |<>--(0..*)-[ Platform ] | |<>--(0..*)-[ Scoring ] +---------------------+ Figure 5: Vulnerability class This class has the following attributes. SpecID: REQUIRED. ENUM. See Section 4.4. ext-SpecID: OPTIONAL. STRING. See Section 4.4. ContentID: OPTIONAL. STRING. An identifier of a vulnerability information. See Section 4.4. Likewise, this class has the following elements. RawData: Zero or more. XMLDATA. An XML of a vulnerability information. See Section 4.4. Reference: Zero or more. A reference to a vulnerability information. See Section 4.4. Platform: Zero or more. An identifier of software platform affected by the vulnerability. See Section 4.5.2. Scoring: Zero or more. An indicator of the severity of the vulnerability. See Section 4.5.4. 4.5.4. Scoring A Scoring is an extension class that describes the severity scores in terms of security. It is RECOMMENDED that Vulnerability and Weakness classes contain the extension elements whenever available. A Scoring class is structured as follows. Takahashi, et al. Expires June 4, 2014 [Page 11] Internet-Draft IODEF-SCI Dec 2013 +---------------------+ | Scoring | +---------------------+ | ENUM SpecID |<>--(0..*)-[ RawData ] | STRING ext-SpecID |<>--(0..*)-[ Reference ] | STRING ContentID | +---------------------+ Figure 6: Scoring class This class has two attributes. SpecID: REQUIRED. ENUM. See Section 4.4. ext-SpecID: OPTIONAL. STRING. See Section 4.4. ContentID: OPTIONAL. STRING. An identifier of a score set. See Section 4.4. Likewise, this class has the following elements. RawData: Zero or more. XMLDATA. An XML of a score set. See Section 4.4. Reference: Zero or more. A reference to a score set. See Section 4.4. 4.5.5. Weakness A Weakness is an extension class to the Incident.Method.AdditionalData element with a dtype of "xml". The extension describes the weakness types that are exposed or were exploited in incidents. It is RECOMMENDED that Method class contain the extension elements whenever available. A Weakness element is structured as follows. +---------------------+ | Weakness | +---------------------+ | ENUM SpecID |<>--(0..*)-[ RawData ] | STRING ext-SpecID |<>--(0..*)-[ Reference ] | STRING ContentID |<>--(0..*)-[ Platform ] | |<>--(0..*)-[ Scoring ] +---------------------+ Figure 7: Weakness class Takahashi, et al. Expires June 4, 2014 [Page 12] Internet-Draft IODEF-SCI Dec 2013 This class has the following attributes. SpecID: REQUIRED. ENUM. See Section 4.4. ext-SpecID: OPTIONAL. STRING. See Section 4.4. ContentID: OPTIONAL. STRING. An identifier of a weakness information. See Section 4.4. Likewise, this class has the following elements. RawData: Zero or more. XMLDATA. An XML of a weakness information. See Section 4.4. Reference: Zero or more. A reference to a weakness information. See Section 4.4. Platform: Zero or more. An identifier of software platform affected by the weakness. See Section 4.5.2. Scoring: Zero or more. An indicator of the severity of the weakness. See Section 4.5.4. 4.5.6. EventReport An EventReport is an extension class to the Incident.EventData.Record.RecordData.RecordItem element with a dtype of "xml". The extension embeds structured event reports. It is RECOMMENDED that RecordItem class contain the extension elements whenever available. An EventReport element is structured as follows. +---------------------+ | EventReport | +---------------------+ | ENUM SpecID |<>--(0..*)-[ RawData ] | STRING ext-SpecID |<>--(0..*)-[ Reference ] | STRING ContentID | +---------------------+ Figure 8: EventReport class This class has the following attributes. SpecID: REQUIRED. ENUM. See Section 4.4. Takahashi, et al. Expires June 4, 2014 [Page 13] Internet-Draft IODEF-SCI Dec 2013 ext-SpecID: OPTIONAL. STRING. See Section 4.4. ContentID: OPTIONAL. STRING. An identifier of an event report. See Section 4.4. Likewise, this class has the following elements. RawData: Zero or more. XMLDATA. An XML of an event report. See Section 4.4. Reference: Zero or more. A reference to an event report. See Section 4.4. 4.5.7. Verification A Verification is an extension class to the Incident.AdditionalData element with a dtype of "xml". The extension elements describes information on verifying security, e.g., checklist, to cope with incidents. It is RECOMMENDED that Incident class contain the extension elements whenever available. A Verification class is structured as follows. +---------------------+ | Verification | +---------------------+ | ENUM SpecID |<>--(0..*)-[ RawData ] | STRING ext-SpecID |<>--(0..*)-[ Reference ] | STRING ContentID | +---------------------+ Figure 9: Verification class This class has the following attributes. SpecID: REQUIRED. ENUM. See Section 4.4. ext-SpecID: OPTIONAL. STRING. See Section 4.4. ContentID: OPTIONAL. STRING. An identifier of a verification information. See Section 4.4. Likewise, this class has the following elements. RawData: Zero or more. XMLDATA. An XML of a verification information. See Section 4.4. Takahashi, et al. Expires June 4, 2014 [Page 14] Internet-Draft IODEF-SCI Dec 2013 Reference: Zero or more. A reference to a verification information. See Section 4.4. 4.5.8. Remediation A Remediation is an extension class to the Incident.AdditionalData element with a dtype of "xml". The extension elements describes incident remediation information including instructions. It is RECOMMENDED that Incident class contain the extension elements whenever available. A Remediation class is structured as follows. +---------------------+ | Remediation | +---------------------+ | ENUM SpecID |<>--(0..*)-[ RawData ] | STRING ext-SpecID |<>--(0..*)-[ Reference ] | String ContentID | +---------------------+ Figure 10: Remediation class This class has the following attributes. SpecID: REQUIRED. ENUM. See Section 4.4. ext-SpecID: OPTIONAL. STRING. See Section 4.4. ContentID: OPTIONAL. STRING. An identifier of a remediation information. See Section 4.4. Likewise, this class has the following elements. RawData: Zero or more. XMLDATA. An XML of a remediation information. See Section 4.4. Reference: Zero or more. A reference to a remediation information. See Section 4.4. 5. Mandatory to Implement features The implementation of this document MUST be capable of sending and receiving the XML conforming to the specification listed in the initial IANA table described in Section 4.1 without error. The receiver MUST be capable of validating received XML documents that are embedded inside that against their schemata. Note that the receiver can look up the namespace in the IANA table to understand what specifications the embedded XML documents follows. Takahashi, et al. Expires June 4, 2014 [Page 15] Internet-Draft IODEF-SCI Dec 2013 For the purpose of facilitating the understanding of mandatory to implement features, the following subsections provide an XML conformant to this document, and a schema for that. 5.1. An Example XML An example IODEF document for checking implementation's MTI conformity is provided here. The document carries MMDEF metadata. Note that the metadata is generated by genMMDEF [MMDEF] with EICAR [EICAR] files. Implementations of this specification must be capable of parsing the example XML since MMDEF is specified as the document's MTI specification. 189493 2013-06-18T23:19:24+00:00 a candidate security incident A candidate attack event N/A MMDEF Generation Script Test MMDEF v1.2 file generated using genMMDEF 2013-03-23T15:12:50.726000 6ce6f415d8475545be5ba114f208b0ff da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709 e3b0c44298fc1c149afbf4c8996fb92427ae41e4649b934ca4 95991b7852b855 cf83e1357eefb8bdf1542850d66d8007d620e4050b5715dc83 Takahashi, et al. Expires June 4, 2014 [Page 16] Internet-Draft IODEF-SCI Dec 2013 f4a921d36ce9ce47d0d13c5d85f2b0ff8318d2877eec2f63b9 31bd47417a81a538327af927da3e 184 eicar_com.zip application/zip 44d88612fea8a8f36de82e1278abb02f 3395856ce81f2b7382dee72602f798b642f14140 275a021bbfb6489e54d471899f7db9d1663fc695ec2fe2a2c4 538aabf651fd0f cc805d5fab1fd71a4ab352a9c533e65fb2d5b885518f4e565e 68847223b8e6b85cb48f3afad842726d99239c9e36505c64b0 dc9a061d9e507d833277ada336ab 68 1750191932 eicar.com eicar.com file[@id="6ce6f415d8475545be5ba114f208b0ff"] file[@id="44d88612fea8a8f36de82e1278abb02f"] 2013-03-23T15:12:50.744000 iodef-sci.example.com iodef-sci.example-com contact@csirt.example.com
192.0.2.200
Takahashi, et al. Expires June 4, 2014 [Page 17] Internet-Draft IODEF-SCI Dec 2013 57
192.0.2.16/28
80
5.2. An XML Schema for the Extension An XML Schema describing the elements defined in this document is given here. Any XMLs compliant to this document including the ones in Section 5.1 should be verified against this schema by automated tools. Takahashi, et al. Expires June 4, 2014 [Page 18] Internet-Draft IODEF-SCI Dec 2013 Takahashi, et al. Expires June 4, 2014 [Page 20] Internet-Draft IODEF-SCI Dec 2013 Takahashi, et al. Expires June 4, 2014 [Page 21] Internet-Draft IODEF-SCI Dec 2013 6. Security Considerations This document specifies a format for encoding a particular class of security incidents appropriate for exchange across organizations. As merely a data representation, it does not directly introduce security issues. However, it is guaranteed that parties exchanging instances of this specification will have certain concerns. For this reason, the underlying message format and transport protocol used MUST ensure the appropriate degree of confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity for the specific environment. Specific security considerations are detailed in the messaging and transport documents, where the exchange of formatted information is automated. See Real- time Inter-network Defense (RID) [RFC6545] Section 9 for a detailed overview of security requirements and considerations. It is RECOMMENDED that organizations who exchange data using this document develop operating procedures that minimally consider the following areas of concern. 6.1. Transport-Specific Concerns The underlying messaging format, IODEF, provides data markers to indicate the sensitivity level of specific classes within the structure as well as for the entire XML document. The "restriction" attribute accomplishes this with four attribute values in IODEF. These values are RECOMMENDED for use at the application level, prior to transport, to protect data as appropriate. A standard mechanism to apply XML encryption using these attribute values as triggers is defined in RID [RFC6545] Section 9.1. This mechanism may be used whether or not the RID and RID Transport binding [RFC6546] are used Takahashi, et al. Expires June 4, 2014 [Page 22] Internet-Draft IODEF-SCI Dec 2013 in the exchange to provide object level security on the data to prevent possible intermediary systems or middle-boxes from having access to the data being exchanged. In areas where transmission security or secrecy is questionable, the application of a XML digital signature [xmldsig] and/or encryption on each report will counteract both of these concerns. The data markers are RECOMMENDED for use by applications for managing access controls, however access controls and management of those controls are out-of-scope for this document. Options such as the usage of a standard language (e.g. XACML [XACML]) for the expression of authorization policies can be used to enable source and destination systems to better coordinate and align their respective policy expressions. Any transport protocol used to exchange instances of IODEF documents MUST provide appropriate guarantees of confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity. The use of a standardized security protocol is encouraged. The RID protocol [RFC6545] and its associated transport binding [RFC6546] provide such security with options for mutual authentication session encryption and include application levels concerns such as policy and work flow. The critical security concerns are that these structured information may be falsified, accessed by unintended entities, or they may become corrupt during transit. We expect that each exchanging organization will determine the need, and mechanism, for transport protection. 6.2. Protection of Sensitive and Private Information For a complete review of privacy considerations when transporting incident related information, please see RID [RFC6545] Section 9.5. Whether or not the RID protocol is used, the privacy considerations are important to consider as incident information is often sensitive and may contain privacy related information about individuals/ organizations or endpoints involved. Often times, organizations will require legal review and formal polices to be established which outline specific details of what information can be exchanged with specific entities. Typically, identifying information is anonymized where possible and appropriate. In some cases, information brokers are used to further anonymize the source of exchanged information so that other entities are unaware of the origin of a detected threat, whether or not that threat was realized. It is RECOMMENDED that policies and procedures for the exchange of cybersecurity information are established prior to participation in data exchanges. Policy and workflow procedures for the exchange of cybersecurity information often require executive level approvals and legal reviews to appropriately establish limits on what information can be exchanged with specific organizations. RID [RFC6545] Section Takahashi, et al. Expires June 4, 2014 [Page 23] Internet-Draft IODEF-SCI Dec 2013 9.6 outlines options and considerations for application developers to consider for the policy and workflow design. 6.3. Application and Server Security The Cybersecurity Information extension is merely a data format. Applications and transport protocols that store or exchange IODEF documents using information that can be represented through this extension will be a target for attacks. It is RECOMMENDED that systems and applications storing or exchanging this information are properly secured, have minimal services enabled, maintain access controls and monitoring procedures. 7. IANA Considerations This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemata [XMLschemaPart1] [XMLschemaPart2] conforming to a registry mechanism described in [RFC3688]. Registration request for the IODEF structured cybersecurity information extension namespace: URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-sci-1.0 Registrant Contact: Refer here to the authors' addresses section of the document. XML: None. Registration request for the IODEF structured cybersecurity information extension XML schema: URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:iodef-sci-1.0 Registrant Contact: Refer here to the authors' addresses section of the document. XML: Refer here to the XML Schema in Section 5.2. This memo creates the following registry for IANA to manage: Name of the registry: "Structured Cybersecurity Information (SCI) specifications" Name of its parent registry: "Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF)" Takahashi, et al. Expires June 4, 2014 [Page 24] Internet-Draft IODEF-SCI Dec 2013 URL address of the registry: http://www.iana.org/assignments/iodef Namespace details: A registry entry for a Structured Cybersecurity Information Specification (SCI specification) consists of: Namespace: A URI [RFC3986] that identifies the XML namespace used by the registered SCI specification. In the case where the registrant does not request a particular URI, the IANA will assign it a Uniform Resource Name (URN) that follows RFC 3553 [RFC3553] Specification Name: A string containing the spelled-out name of the SCI specification in human-readable form. Reference URI: A list of one or more of the URIs [RFC3986] from which the registered specification can be obtained. The registered specification MUST be readily and publicly available from that URI. Applicable Classes: A list of one or more of the extension classes specified in Section 4.5 of this document. The registered SCI specification MUST only be used with the extension classes in the registry entry. Information that must be provided to assign a new value: The above list of information. Fields to record in the registry: Namespace/Specification Name/ Version/Reference URI/Applicable Classes. Note that it is not necessary to include defining reference for all assignments in this new registry. Initial registry contents: only one entry with the following values. Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:mile:mmdef:1.0 Specification Name: Malware Metadata Exchange Format Version: 1.2 Reference URI: http://standards.ieee.org/develop/indconn/icsg/ mmdef.html,http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/malware/malwg/ Schema1.2/ Applicable Classes: AttackPattern Takahashi, et al. Expires June 4, 2014 [Page 25] Internet-Draft IODEF-SCI Dec 2013 Allocation Policy: Specification Required (which includes Expert Review) [RFC5226]. The Designated Expert is expected to consult with the mile (Managed Incident Lightweight Exchange) working group or its successor if any such WG exists (e.g., via email to the working group's mailing list). The Designated Expert is expected to retrieve the SCI specification from the provided URI in order to check the public availability of the specification and verify the correctness of the URI. An important responsibility of the Designated Expert is to ensure that the registered Applicable Classes are appropriate for the registered SCI specification. 8. Acknowledgment We would like to acknowledge David Black from EMC, who kindly provided generous support, especially on the IANA registry issues. We also would like to thank Jon Baker from MITRE, Eric Burger from Georgetown University, Paul Cichonski from NIST, Panos Kampanakis from CISCO, Pearl Liang from IANA, Ivan Kirillov from MITRE, Robert Martin from MITRE, Alexey Melnikov from Isode, Kathleen Moriarty from EMC, Lagadec Philippe from NATO, Sean Turner from IECA Inc., Shuhei Yamaguchi from NICT, Anthony Rutkowski from Yaana Technology, Brian Trammell from ETH Zurich, David Waltermire from NIST, and James Wendorf from IEEE, for their sincere discussion and feedback on this document. 9. References 9.1. Normative References [MMDEF] IEEE ICSG Malware Metadata Exchange Format Working Group, "Malware Metadata Exchange Format". [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005. [RFC5070] Danyliw, R., Meijer, J., and Y. Demchenko, "The Incident Object Description Exchange Format", RFC 5070, December 2007. [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an Takahashi, et al. Expires June 4, 2014 [Page 26] Internet-Draft IODEF-SCI Dec 2013 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. [RFC6545] Moriarty, K., "Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID)", RFC 6545, April 2012. [RFC6546] Trammell, B., "Transport of Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID) Messages over HTTP/TLS", RFC 6546, April 2012. [XML1.0] Bray, T., Maler, E., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., and F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth Edition)", W3C Recommendation, November 2008. [XMLschemaPart1] Thompson, H., Beech, D., Maloney, M., and N. Mendelsohn, "XML Schema Part 1: Structures Second Edition", W3C Recommendation, October 2004. [XMLschemaPart2] Biron, P. and A. Malhotra, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes Second Edition", W3C Recommendation, October 2004. [XMLNames] Bray, T., Hollander, D., Layman, A., Tobin, R., and H. Thomson, ""Namespaces in XML (Third Edition)", W3C Recommendation, December 2009. 9.2. Informative References [RFC3339] Klyne, G., Ed. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps", RFC 3339, July 2002. [RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July 2003. [RFC3553] Mealling, M., Masinter, L., Hardie, T., and G. Klyne, "An IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Protocol Parameters", BCP 73, RFC 3553, June 2003. [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, January 2004. [RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322, October 2008. [RFC6116] Bradner, S., Conroy, L., and K. Fujiwara, "The E.164 to Takahashi, et al. Expires June 4, 2014 [Page 27] Internet-Draft IODEF-SCI Dec 2013 Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)", RFC 6116, March 2011. [CAPEC] The MITRE Corporation, "Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (CAPEC)". [CCE] The MITRE Corporation, "Common Configuration Enumeration (CCE)". [CCSS] Scarfone, K. and P. Mell, "The Common Configuration Scoring System (CCSS)", NIST Interagency Report 7502, December 2010. [CEE] The MITRE Corporation, "Common Event Expression (CEE)". [CPE] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Common Platform Enumeration", June 2011. [CVE] The MITRE Corporation, "Common Vulnerability and Exposures (CVE)". [CVRF] ICASI, "Common Vulnerability Reporting Framework (CVRF)". [CVSS] Peter Mell, Karen Scarfone, and Sasha Romanosky, "The Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) and Its Applicability to Federal Agency Systems". [CWE] The MITRE Corporation, "Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)". [CWSS] The MITRE Corporation, "Common Weakness Scoring System (CWSS)". [EICAR] European Expert Group for IT-Security, "Anti-Malware Testfile", 2003. [MAEC] The MITRE Corporation, "Malware Attribute Enumeration and Characterization". [OCIL] David Waltermire and Karen Scarfone and Maria Casipe, "The Open Checklist Interactive Language (OCIL) Version 2.0", April 2011. [OVAL] The MITRE Corporation, "Open Vulnerability and Assessment Language (OVAL)". [SCAP] Waltermire, D., Quinn, S., Scarfone, K., and A. Takahashi, et al. Expires June 4, 2014 [Page 28] Internet-Draft IODEF-SCI Dec 2013 Halbardier, "The Technical Specification for the Security Content Automation Protocol (SCAP): SCAP Version 1.2", NIST Special Publication 800-126 Revision 2, September 2011. [XACML] Rissanen, E., "eXtensible Access Control Markup Language (XACML) Version 3.0", January 2013, . [XCCDF] David Waltermire and Charles Schmidt and Karen Scarfone and Neal Ziring, "Specification for the Extensible Configuration Checklist Description Format (XCCDF) version 1.2 (DRAFT)", July 2011. [xmldsig] W3C Recommendation, "XML Signature Syntax and Processing (Second Edition)", June 2008. Authors' Addresses Takeshi Takahashi National Institute of Information and Communications Technology 4-2-1 Nukui-Kitamachi Koganei 184-8795 Tokyo Japan Phone: +80 423 27 5862 Email: takeshi_takahashi@nict.go.jp Kent Landfield McAfee, Inc 5000 Headquarters Drive Plano, TX 75024 USA Email: Kent_Landfield@McAfee.com Takahashi, et al. Expires June 4, 2014 [Page 29] Internet-Draft IODEF-SCI Dec 2013 Thomas Millar US Department of Homeland Security, NPPD/CS&C/NCSD/US-CERT 245 Murray Lane SW, Building 410, MS #732 Washington, DC 20598 USA Phone: +1 888 282 0870 Email: thomas.millar@us-cert.gov Youki Kadobayashi Nara Institute of Science and Technology 8916-5 Takayama, Ikoma 630-0192 Nara Japan Email: youki-k@is.aist-nara.ac.jp Takahashi, et al. Expires June 4, 2014 [Page 30]