idnits 2.17.1 draft-dbh-sacm-terminology-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (August 10, 2013) is 3910 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-nea-pt-eap' is defined on line 180, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-nea-pt-tls' is defined on line 185, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg' is defined on line 190, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-netmod-system-mgmt' is defined on line 195, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-savi-framework' is defined on line 200, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC0826' is defined on line 205, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC1213' is defined on line 210, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2790' is defined on line 214, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2863' is defined on line 217, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2865' is defined on line 220, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2922' is defined on line 224, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3535' is defined on line 227, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3552' is defined on line 230, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5226' is defined on line 241, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5424' is defined on line 245, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5792' is defined on line 247, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5793' is defined on line 251, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6733' is defined on line 255, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6933' is defined on line 258, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-ietf-nea-pt-eap-06 == Outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-12 == Outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt-08 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 24 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Security Automation and Continuous Monitoring WG D. Waltermire 3 Internet-Draft NIST 4 Intended status: Informational A. Montville 5 Expires: February 11, 2014 TW 6 D. Harrington 7 Effective Software 8 August 10, 2013 10 Terminology for Security Assessment 11 draft-dbh-sacm-terminology-00 13 Abstract 15 This memo documents terminology used in the documents produced by the 16 SACM WG (Security Automation and Continuous Monitoring). 18 Status of This Memo 20 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 21 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 23 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 24 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 25 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 26 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 28 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 29 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 30 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 31 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 33 This Internet-Draft will expire on February 11, 2014. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 38 document authors. All rights reserved. 40 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 41 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 42 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 43 publication of this document. Please review these documents 44 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 45 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 46 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 47 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 48 described in the Simplified BSD License. 50 Table of Contents 52 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 2. Terms and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 54 2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 6. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 6.1. -00- draft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 1. Introduction 67 Our goal with this document is to improve our agreement on the 68 terminology used in documents produced by the IETF Working Group for 69 Security Automation and Continuous Monitoring. Agreeing on 70 terminology should help reach consensus on which problems we're 71 trying to solve, and propose solutions and decide which ones to use. 73 This document is expected to be temorary work product, and will 74 probably be incorporated into the architecture or other document. 76 2. Terms and Definitions 78 assessment 80 Defined in [RFC5209] as "the process of collecting posture for a 81 set of capabilities on the endpoint (e.g., host-based firewall) 82 such that the appropriate validators may evaluate the posture 83 against compliance policy." 85 Within this document the use of the term is expanded to support 86 other uses of collected posture (e.g. reporting, network 87 enforcement, vulnerability detection, license management). The 88 phrase "set of capabilities on the endpoint" includes: hardware 89 and software installed on the endpoint." 91 asset 93 Defined in [RFC4949] as "a system resource that is (a) required to 94 be protected by an information system's security policy, (b) 95 intended to be protect by a countermeasure, or (c) required for a 96 system's mission. 98 attribute 100 Defined in [RFC5209] as "data element including any requisite 101 meta-data describing an observed, expected, or the operational 102 status of an endpoint feature (e.g., anti-virus software is 103 currently in use)." 105 endpoint 107 Defined in [RFC5209] as "any computing device that can be 108 connected to a network. Such devices normally are associated with 109 a particular link layer address before joining the network and 110 potentially an IP address once on the network. This includes: 111 laptops, desktops, servers, cell phones, or any device that may 112 have an IP address." 114 Network infrastructure devices (e.g. switches, routers, 115 firewalls), which fit the definition, are also considered to be 116 endpoints within this document. 118 Based on the previous definition of an asset, an endpoint is a 119 type of asset. 121 posture 123 Defined in [RFC5209] as "configuration and/or status of hardware 124 or software on an endpoint as it pertains to an organization's 125 security policy." 127 This term is used within the scope of this document to represent 128 the state information that is collected from an endpoint (e.g. 129 software/hardware inventory, configuration settings). 131 posture attributes 133 Defined in [RFC5209] as "attributes describing the configuration 134 or status (posture) of a feature of the endpoint. For example, a 135 Posture Attribute might describe the version of the operating 136 system installed on the system." 138 Within this document this term represents a specific assertion 139 about endpoint state (e.g. configuration setting, installed 140 software, hardware). The phrase "features of the endpoint" refers 141 to installed software or software components. 143 system resource 144 Defined in [RFC4949] as "data contained in an information system; 145 or a service provided by a system; or a system capacity, such as 146 processing power or communication bandwidth; or an item of system 147 equipment (i.e., hardware, firmware, software, or documentation); 148 or a facility that houses system operations and equipment. 150 2.1. Requirements Language 152 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 153 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 154 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 156 3. IANA Considerations 158 This memo includes no request to IANA. 160 4. Security Considerations 162 This memo documents terminology for security automation. While it is 163 about security, it does not affect security. 165 5. Acknowledgements 167 6. Change Log 169 6.1. -00- draft 171 7. References 173 7.1. Normative References 175 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 176 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 178 7.2. Informative References 180 [I-D.ietf-nea-pt-eap] 181 Cam-Winget, N. and P. Sangster, "PT-EAP: Posture Transport 182 (PT) Protocol For EAP Tunnel Methods", draft-ietf-nea-pt- 183 eap-06 (work in progress), December 2012. 185 [I-D.ietf-nea-pt-tls] 186 Sangster, P., Cam-Winget, N., and J. Salowey, "PT-TLS: A 187 TLS-based Posture Transport (PT) Protocol", draft-ietf- 188 nea-pt-tls-08 (work in progress), October 2012. 190 [I-D.ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg] 191 Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface 192 Management", draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-12 (work in 193 progress), July 2013. 195 [I-D.ietf-netmod-system-mgmt] 196 Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "YANG Data Model for System 197 Management", draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt-08 (work in 198 progress), July 2013. 200 [I-D.ietf-savi-framework] 201 Wu, J., Bi, J., Bagnulo, M., Baker, F., and C. Vogt, 202 "Source Address Validation Improvement Framework", draft- 203 ietf-savi-framework-06 (work in progress), January 2012. 205 [RFC0826] Plummer, D., "Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or 206 converting network protocol addresses to 48.bit Ethernet 207 address for transmission on Ethernet hardware", STD 37, 208 RFC 826, November 1982. 210 [RFC1213] McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information Base 211 for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets:MIB-II", 212 STD 17, RFC 1213, March 1991. 214 [RFC2790] Waldbusser, S. and P. Grillo, "Host Resources MIB", RFC 215 2790, March 2000. 217 [RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group 218 MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000. 220 [RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson, 221 "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 222 2865, June 2000. 224 [RFC2922] Bierman, A. and K. Jones, "Physical Topology MIB", RFC 225 2922, September 2000. 227 [RFC3535] Schoenwaelder, J., "Overview of the 2002 IAB Network 228 Management Workshop", RFC 3535, May 2003. 230 [RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC 231 Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July 232 2003. 234 [RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2", RFC 235 4949, August 2007. 237 [RFC5209] Sangster, P., Khosravi, H., Mani, M., Narayan, K., and J. 238 Tardo, "Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA): Overview and 239 Requirements", RFC 5209, June 2008. 241 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 242 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 243 May 2008. 245 [RFC5424] Gerhards, R., "The Syslog Protocol", RFC 5424, March 2009. 247 [RFC5792] Sangster, P. and K. Narayan, "PA-TNC: A Posture Attribute 248 (PA) Protocol Compatible with Trusted Network Connect 249 (TNC)", RFC 5792, March 2010. 251 [RFC5793] Sahita, R., Hanna, S., Hurst, R., and K. Narayan, "PB-TNC: 252 A Posture Broker (PB) Protocol Compatible with Trusted 253 Network Connect (TNC)", RFC 5793, March 2010. 255 [RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn, 256 "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733, October 2012. 258 [RFC6933] Bierman, A., Romascanu, D., Quittek, J., and M. 259 Chandramouli, "Entity MIB (Version 4)", RFC 6933, May 260 2013. 262 Authors' Addresses 264 David Waltermire 265 National Institute of Standards and Technology 266 100 Bureau Drive 267 Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877 268 USA 270 Email: david.waltermire@nist.gov 272 Adam W. Montville 273 Tripwire, Inc. 274 101 SW Main Street, Suite 1500 275 Portland, Oregon 97204 276 USA 278 Email: amontville@tripwire.com 279 David Harrington 280 Effective Software 281 50 Harding Rd 282 Portsmouth, NH 03801 283 USA 285 Email: ietfdbh@comcast.net