idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-mile-implementreport-03.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 date (May 17, 2015) is 3265 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC5901' is defined on line 588, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5941' is defined on line 591, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6545' is defined on line 594, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6546' is defined on line 597, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5070 (Obsoleted by RFC 7970) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 MILE C. Inacio 3 Internet-Draft CMU 4 Intended status: Informational D. Miyamoto 5 Expires: November 18, 2015 UTokyo 6 May 17, 2015 8 MILE Implementation Report 9 draft-ietf-mile-implementreport-03 11 Abstract 13 This document is a collection of implementation reports from vendors, 14 consortiums, and researchers who have implemented one or more of the 15 standards published from the IETF INCident Handling (INCH) and 16 Management Incident Lightweight Exchange (MILE) working groups. 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 November 18, 2015. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (c) 2015 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. Consortiums and Information Sharing and Analysis Centers 54 (ISACs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 2.1. Anti-Phishing Working Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 2.2. Advanced Cyber Defence Centre (ACDC) . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 3. Open Source Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 3.1. EMC/RSA RID Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 3.2. NICT IODEF-SCI implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 3.3. n6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 4. Vendor Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 4.1. Deep Secure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 4.2. IncMan Suite, DFLabs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 4.3. Surevine Proof of Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 65 4.4. MANTIS Cyber-Intelligence Management Framework . . . . . 7 66 5. Vendors with Planned Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 67 5.1. Threat Central, HP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 68 6. Other Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 69 6.1. Collaborative Incident Management System . . . . . . . . 8 70 6.2. Automated Incident Reporting - AirCERT . . . . . . . . . 9 71 6.3. US Department of Energy CyberFed . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 72 6.4. TrendMicro Sharing System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 73 7. Implementation Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 74 7.1. Code Generators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 75 7.2. iodeflib . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 76 7.3. iodefpm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 77 7.4. Usability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 78 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 79 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 80 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 81 11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 82 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 84 1. Introduction 86 This document is a collection of implementation reports from vendors 87 and researchers who have implemented one or more of the standards 88 published from the INCH and MILE working groups. The standards 89 include: 91 o Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF) v1, RFC5070, 93 o Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF) v2, 94 RFC5070-bis, 96 o Extensions to the IODEF-Document Class for Reporting Phishing, 97 RFC5901 99 o Sharing Transaction Fraud Data, RFC5941 101 o IODEF-extension for Structured Cybersecurity Information, RFCXXXX 103 o Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID), RFC6545 105 o Transport of Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID) Messages over 106 HTTP/TLS, RFC6546. 108 o Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF) Extension for 109 Structured Cybersecurity Information, RFC7203 111 The implementation reports included in this document have been 112 provided by the team or product responsible for the implementations 113 of the mentioned RFCs. Additional submissions are welcome and should 114 be sent to the draft editor. A more complete list of 115 implementations, including open source efforts and vendor products, 116 can also be found at the following location: 118 http://siis.realmv6.org/implementations/ 120 2. Consortiums and Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs) 122 2.1. Anti-Phishing Working Group 124 Description of how IODEF is used will be provided in a future 125 revision. 127 2.2. Advanced Cyber Defence Centre (ACDC) 129 Description of how IODEF is used will be provided in a future 130 revision. http://www.botfree.eu/ 132 3. Open Source Implementations 134 3.1. EMC/RSA RID Agent 136 The EMC/RSA RID agent is an open source implementation of the 137 Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) standards for the exchange of 138 incident and indicator data. The code has been released under an MIT 139 license and development will continue with the open source community 140 at the Github site for RSA Intelligence Sharing: 142 https://github.com/RSAIntelShare/RID-Server.git 144 The code implements the RFC6545, Real-time Inter-network Defense 145 (RID) and RFC6546, Transport of RID over HTTP/TLS protocol. The code 146 supports the evolving RFC5070-bis Incident Object Description 147 Exchange Format (IODEF) data model from the work in the IETF working 148 group Managed Incident Lightweight Exchange (MILE). 150 3.2. NICT IODEF-SCI implementation 152 Japan's National Institute of Information and Communications 153 Technology (NICT) Network Security Research Institute implemented 154 open source tools for exchanging, accumulating, and locating IODEF- 155 SCI documents. 157 Three tools are available in GitHub. They assist the exchange of 158 IODEF-SCI documents between parties. IODEF-SCI is the IETF draft 159 that extends IODEF so that IODEF document can embed structured 160 cybersecurity information (SCI). For instance, it can embed MMDEF, 161 CEE, MAEC in XML and CVE identifiers. 163 The three tools are generator, exchanger, and parser. The generator 164 generates IODEF-SCI document or appends an XML to existing IODEF 165 document. The exchanger sends the IODEF document to its 166 correspondent node. The parser receives, parses, and stores the 167 IODEF-SCI document. It also equips the interface that enable users 168 to locate IODEF-SCI documents it has ever received. The code has 169 been released under an MIT license and development will continue 170 here. 172 Note that users can enjoy this software with their own 173 responsibility. 175 Available Online: 177 https://github.com/TakeshiTakahashi/IODEF-SCI 179 3.3. n6 181 n6 is a platform for processing security-related information, 182 developed by NASK, CERT Polska. Its API provides a common and 183 unified way of representing data across the different sources that 184 participate in knowledge management. 186 n6 exposes a REST-ful API over HTTPS with mandatory authentication 187 via TLS client certificates, to ensure confidential and trustworthy 188 communications. Moreover, it uses an event-based data model for 189 representation of all types of security information. 191 Each event is represented as a JSON object with a set of mandatory 192 and optional attributes. It also supports alternative output data 193 formats for keeping compatibility with existing systems - IODEF and 194 CSV - although they lack some of the attributes that may be present 195 in the native JSON format. 197 Available Online: 199 https://github.com/CERT-Polska/n6sdk 201 4. Vendor Implementations 203 4.1. Deep Secure 205 Deep-Secure Guards are built to protect a trusted domain from: 207 o releasing sensitive data that does not meet the organisational 208 security policy 210 o applications receiving badly constructed or malicious data which 211 could exploit a vulnerability (known or unknown) 213 Deep-Secure Guards support HTTPS and XMPP (optimised server to server 214 protocol) transports. The Deep-Secure Guards support transfer of XML 215 based business content by creating a schema to translate the known 216 good content to and from the intermediate format. This means that 217 the Deep-Secure Guards can be used to protect: 219 o IODEF/RID using the HTTPS transport binding (RFC 6546) 221 o IODEF/RID using an XMPP binding 223 o ROLIE using HTTPS transport binding (draft-field-mile-rolie-02) 225 o STIX/TAXII using the HTTPS transport binding 227 Deep-Secure Guards also support the SMTP transport and perform deep 228 content inspection of content including XML attachments. The Mail 229 Guard supports S/MIME and Deep Secure are working on support for the 230 upcoming PLASMA standard which enables information centric policy 231 enforcement of data. 233 4.2. IncMan Suite, DFLabs 235 The Incident Object Description Exchange Format, documented in the 236 RFC 5070, defines a data representation that provides a framework for 237 sharing information commonly exchanged by Computer Security Incident 238 Response Teams (CSIRTs) about computer security incidents. IncMan 239 Suite implements the IODEF standard for exchanging details about 240 incidents, either for exporting and importing activities. This has 241 been introduced to enhance the capabilities of the various CSIRT, to 242 facilitate collaboration and sharing of useful experiences, conveying 243 awareness on specific cases. 245 The IODEF implementation is specified as an XML schema, therefore all 246 data are stored in an xml file: in this file all data of an incident 247 are organized in a hierarchical structure to describe the various 248 objects and their relationships. 250 IncMan Suite relies on IODEF as a transport format, composed by 251 various classes for describing the entities which are part of the 252 incident description: for instance the various relevant timestamps 253 (detect time , start time, end time, report time), the techniques 254 used by the intruders to perpetrate the incident, the impact of the 255 incident, either technical and non-technical (time and monetary) and 256 obviously all systems involved in the incident. 258 4.2.1. Exporting Incidents 260 Each incident defined in IncMan Suite can be exported via a User 261 Interface feature and it will populate an xml document. Due to the 262 nature of the data processed, the IODEF extraction might be 263 considered privacy sensitive by the parties exchanging the 264 information or by those described by it. For this reason, specific 265 care needs to be taken in ensuring the distribution to an appropriate 266 audience or third party, either during the document exchange and 267 subsequent processing. 269 The xml document generated will include description and details of 270 the incident along with all the systems involved and the related 271 information. At this stage it can be distributed for import into a 272 remote system. 274 4.2.2. Importing Incidents 276 IncMan Suite provides a functionality to import incidents stored in 277 files and transported via IODEF-compliant xml documents. The 278 importing process comprises of two steps: firstly, the file is 279 inspected to validate if well formed, then all data are uploaded 280 inside the system. 282 If an incident is already existing in the system with the same 283 incident id, the new one being imported will be created under a new 284 id. This approach prevents from accidentally overwriting existing 285 info or merging inconsistent data. 287 IncMan Suite includes also a feature to upload incidents from emails. 289 The incident, described in xml format, can be stored directly into 290 the body of the email message or transported as an attachment of the 291 email. At regular intervals, customizable by the user, IncMan Suite 292 monitors for incoming emails, filtered by a configurable white-list 293 and black-list mechanism on the sender's email account, then a parser 294 processes the received email and a new incident is created 295 automatically, after having validated the email body or the 296 attachment to ensure it is a well formed format. 298 4.3. Surevine Proof of Concept 300 XMPP is enhanced and extended through the XMPP Extension Protocols 301 (or XEPs). XEP-0268 (http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0268.html) 302 describes incident management (using IODEF) of the XMPP network 303 itself, effectively supporting self-healing the XMPP network. In 304 order to more generically cover incident management of a network and 305 over a network, XEP-0268 requires some updates. We are working on 306 these changes together with a new XEP that supports "social 307 networking" over XMPP, enhancing the publish-and-subscribe XEP (XEP- 308 0060). This now allows nodes to publish any type of content and 309 subscribe to and therefore receive the content. XEP-0268 will be 310 used to describe IODEF content. We now have an alpha version of the 311 server-side software and client-side software required to demonstrate 312 the "social networking" capability and are currently enhancing this 313 to support Cyber Incident management in real-time. 315 4.4. MANTIS Cyber-Intelligence Management Framework 317 MANTIS provides an example implementation of a framework for managing 318 cyber threat intelligence expressed in standards such as STIX, CybOX, 319 IODEF, etc. The aims of providing such an example implementation 320 are: 322 o To aide discussions about emerging standards such as STIX, CybOX 323 et al. with respect to questions regarding tooling: how would a 324 certain aspect be implemented, how do changes affect an 325 implementation? Such discussions become much easier and have a 326 better basis if they can be lead in the context of example tooling 327 that is known to the community. 329 o To lower the entrance barrier for organizations and teams (esp. 330 CERT teams) in using emerging standards for cyber-threat 331 intelligence management and exchange. 333 o To provide a platform on the basis of which research and 334 community-driven development in the area of cyber-threat 335 intelligence management can occur. 337 5. Vendors with Planned Support 339 5.1. Threat Central, HP 341 HP has developed HP Threat Central, a security intelligence platform 342 that enables automated, real-time collaboration between organizations 343 to combat today's increasingly sophisticated cyber attacks. One way 344 automated sharing of threat indicators is achieved is through close 345 integration with the HP ArcSight SIEM for automated upload and 346 consumption of information from the Threat Central Server. In 347 addition HP Threat Central supports open standards for sharing threat 348 information so that participants who do not use HP Security Products 349 can participate in the sharing ecosystem. General availability of 350 Threat Central will be in 2014. It is planned that future versions 351 also support IODEF for the automated upload and download of threat 352 information. 354 6. Other Implementations 356 6.1. Collaborative Incident Management System 358 Collaborative Incident Management System (CIMS) is a proof-of-concept 359 system for collaborative incident handling and for the sharing of 360 cyber defence situational awareness information between the 361 participants, developed for the Cyber Coalition 2013 (CC13) exercise 362 organized by NATO. CIMS was implemented based on Request Tracker 363 (RT), an open source software widely used for handling incident 364 response by many CERTs and CSIRTs. 366 One of the functionality implemented in CIMS was the ability to 367 import and export IODEF messages in the body of emails. The intent 368 was to verify the suitability of IODEF to achieve the objective of 369 collaborative incident handling. The customized version of RT could 370 be configured to send an email message containing an IODEF message 371 whenever an incident ticket was created, modified or deleted. These 372 IODEF messages would then be imported into other incident handling 373 systems in order to allow participating CSIRTs to use their usual 374 means for incident handling, while still interacting with those using 375 the proof-of-concept CIMS. Having an IODEF message generated for 376 every change made to the incident information in RT (and for the 377 system to allow incoming IODEF email messages to be associated to an 378 existing incident) would in some way allow all participating CSIRTs 379 to actually work on a "common incident ticket", at least at the 380 conceptual level. Of particular importance was the ability for users 381 to exchange information between each other concerning actions taken 382 in the handling of a particular incident, thus creating a sort of 383 common action log, as well as requesting/tasking others to provide 384 information or perform specified action and correlating received 385 responses to the original request or tasking. As well, a specific 386 "profile" was developed to identify a subset of the IODEF classes 387 that would be used during the exercise, in an attempt to channel all 388 users into a common usage pattern of the otherwise flexible IODEF 389 standard. 391 6.2. Automated Incident Reporting - AirCERT 393 AirCERT was implemented by CERT/CC of Carnegie Mellon's Software 394 Engineering Institute CERT divison. AirCERT was designed to be an 395 Internet-scalable distributed system for sharing security event data. 396 The AirCERT system was designed to be an automated collector of flow 397 and IDS alerts. AirCERT would collect that information into a 398 relational database and be able to share reporting using IODEF and 399 IDMEF. AirCERT additionally used SNML to exchange information about 400 the network. AirCERT was implemented in a combination of C and perl 401 modules and included periodic graphing capabilities leveraging 402 RRDTool. 404 AirCERT was intended for large scale distributed deployment and 405 eventually the ability to sanitize data to be shared across 406 administrative domains. The architecture was desgined to allow 407 collection of data at a per site basis and to allow each site to 408 create data sharing based on its own particular trust relationships. 410 6.3. US Department of Energy CyberFed 412 The CyberFed system was implemented and deployed by Argonne National 413 Laboratory to automate the detection and response of attack activity 414 against Department of Energy (DoE) computer networks. CyberFed 415 automates the collection of network alerting activity from various 416 perimeter network defenses and logs those events into its database. 417 CyberFed then automatically converts that information into blocking 418 information transmitted to all participants. The original 419 implementation used IODef messages wrapped in an XML extension to 420 manage a large array of indicators. The CyberFed system was not 421 designed to describe a particular incident as much as to describe a 422 set of current network blocking indicators that can be generated and 423 deployed machine-to-machine. 425 CyberFed is primarily implemented in Perl. Included as part of the 426 CyberFed system are scripts which interact with a large number of 427 firewalls, IDS/IPS devices, DNS systems, and proxies which operate to 428 implement both the automated collection of events as well as the 429 automated deployment of blacking. 431 Currently CyberFed supports multiple exchange formats including IODef 432 and STIX. OpenIOC is also a potential exchange format that DoE is 433 considering. 435 6.4. TrendMicro Sharing System 437 More information to come. 439 7. Implementation Guide 441 The section aims at sharing the tips for development of IODEF-capable 442 systems. 444 7.1. Code Generators 446 For implementing IODEF-capable systems, it is feasible to employ code 447 generators for XML Schema Document (XSD). The generators are used to 448 save development costs since they automatically create useful 449 libraries for accessing XML attributes, composing messages, and/or 450 validating XML objects. The IODEF XSD was defined in section 8 of 451 RFC 5070, and is availabe at http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml- 452 registry/schema/iodef-1.0.xsd. 454 However, there still remains some problem. Due to the complexity of 455 IODEF XSD, some code generators could not generate from the XSD file. 456 The tested code generators were as follows. 458 o XML::Pastor [XSD:Perl] (Perl) 460 o RXSD [XSD:Ruby] (Ruby) 462 o PyXB [XSD:Python] (Python) 464 o JAXB [XSD:Java] (Java) 466 o CodeSynthesis XSD [XSD:Cxx] (C++) 468 o Xsd.exe [XSD:CS] (C#) 470 For instance, we have used XML::Pastor, but it could not properly 471 understand its schema due to the complexity of IODEF XSD. The same 472 applies to RXSD and JAXB. Only PyXB, CodeSynthesis XSD and Xsd.exe 473 were able to understand the schema. 475 There is no recommended workaround, however, a double conversion of 476 XSD file is one option to go through the situation; it means XSD is 477 serialized to XML, and it is again converted to XSD. The resultant 478 XSD was process-able by the all tools above. 480 It should be noted that IODEF uses '-' (hyphen) symbols in its 481 classes or attributes, listed as follows. 483 o IODEF-Document Class; it is the top level class in the IODEF data 484 model described in section 3.1 of [RFC5070]. 486 o The vlan-name and vlan-num Attribute; according to section 3.16.2 487 of [RFC5070], they are the name and number of Virtual LAN and are 488 the attributes for Address class. 490 o Extending the Enumerated Values of Attribute; according to section 491 5.1 of [RFC5070], it is a extension techniques to add new 492 enumerated values to an attribute, and has a prefix of "ext-", 493 e.g., ext-value, ext-category, ext-type, and so on. 495 According to the language specification, many programing language 496 prohibit to contain '-' symbols in the name of class. The code 497 generators must replace or remove '-' when building the librarlies. 498 They should have the name space to restore '-' when outputting the 499 XML along with IODEF XSD. 501 7.2. iodeflib 503 iodeflib is an open source implementation written in Python. This 504 provides a simple but powerful APIs to create, parse and edit IODEF 505 documents. It was designed in order to keep its interface as simple 506 as possible, whereas generated libraries tend to inherit the 507 complexity of IODEF XSD. As well as the interface, iodeflib involves 508 functions of hiding some unnecessarily nested structures of the IODEF 509 schema, and adding more convenient shortcuts. 511 This tool is available through the following link: 513 http://www.decalage.info/python/iodeflib 515 7.3. iodefpm 517 IODEF.pm is an open source implementation written in Perl. This also 518 provides a simple interface for creating and parsing IODEF documents, 519 in order to facilitate the translation of the a key-value based 520 format to the IODEF representation. The module contains a generic 521 XML DTD parser and includes a simplified node based representation of 522 the IODEF DTD. It can hence easily be upgraded or extended to 523 support new XML nodes or other DTDs. 525 This tool is available through the following link: 527 http://search.cpan.org/~saxjazman/ 529 7.4. Usability 531 Here notes some tips to avoid problems. 533 o IODEF has category attribute for NodeRole class. Though various 534 categories are described, they are not enough. For example, in 535 the case of web mail servers, you should choose either "www" or 536 "mail". One suggestion is selecting "mail" as the category 537 attribute and adding "www" for another attirbute. 539 o The numbering of Incident ID needs to be considered. Otherwise, 540 information, such as the number of incidents within certain period 541 could be observed by document receivers. For instance, we could 542 randomize the assignment of the numbers. 544 8. Acknowledgements 546 The MILE Implementation report has been compiled through the 547 submissions of implementers of INCH and MILE working group standards. 548 A special note of thanks to the following contributors: 550 John Atherton, Surevine 552 Humphrey Browning, Deep-Secure 554 Dario Forte, DFLabs 556 Tomas Sander, HP 558 Ulrich Seldeslachts, ACDC 560 Takeshi Takahashi, National Institute of Information and 561 Communications Technology Network Security Research Institute 563 Kathleen Moriarty, EMC 565 Bernd Grobauer, Siemens 567 Dandurand Luc, NATO 569 Pawel Pawlinski, NASK 571 9. IANA Considerations 573 This memo includes no request to IANA. 575 10. Security Considerations 577 This draft provides a summary of implementation reports from 578 researchers and vendors who have implemented RFCs and drafts from the 579 MILE and INCH working groups. There are no security considerations 580 added in this draft because of the nature of the document. 582 11. Informative References 584 [RFC5070] Danyliw, R., Meijer, J., and Y. Demchenko, "The Incident 585 Object Description Exchange Format", RFC 5070, December 586 2007. 588 [RFC5901] Cain, P. and D. Jevans, "Extensions to the IODEF-Document 589 Class for Reporting Phishing", RFC 5901, July 2010. 591 [RFC5941] M'Raihi, D., Boeyen, S., Grandcolas, M., and S. Bajaj, 592 "Sharing Transaction Fraud Data", RFC 5941, August 2010. 594 [RFC6545] Moriarty, K., "Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID)", RFC 595 6545, April 2012. 597 [RFC6546] Trammell, B., "Transport of Real-time Inter-network 598 Defense (RID) Messages over HTTP/TLS", RFC 6546, April 599 2012. 601 [XSD:CS] Microsoft, "XML Schema Definition Tool (Xsd.exe)", 602 . 604 [XSD:Cxx] CodeSynthesis, "XSD - XML Data Binding for C++", 605 . 607 [XSD:Java] 608 Project Kenai, "JAXB Reference Implementation", 609 . 611 [XSD:Perl] 612 Ulsoy, A., "XML::Pastor", 613 . 615 [XSD:Python] 616 Bigot, P., "PyXB: Python XML Schema Bindings", 617 . 619 [XSD:Ruby] 620 Morsi, M., "RXSD - XSD / Ruby Translator", 621 . 623 Authors' Addresses 625 Chris Inacio 626 Carnegie Mellon University 627 4500 5th Ave., SEI 4108 628 Pittsburgh, PA 15213 629 US 631 Email: inacio@andrew.cmu.edu 633 Daisuke Miyamoto 634 The Univerisity of Tokyo 635 2-11-16 Yayoi, Bunkyo 636 Tokyo 113-8658 637 JP 639 Email: daisu-mi@nc.u-tokyo.ac.jp