[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 draft-ietf-sacm-arch
SACM Working Group A. Montville
Internet-Draft B. Munyan
Intended status: Standards Track CIS
Expires: July 20, 2018 January 16, 2018
Security Automation and Continuous Monitoring (SACM) Architecture
draft-mandm-sacm-architecture-00
Abstract
This memo documents the Security Automation and Continuous Monitoring
(SACM) architecture to be used by SACM participants when crafting
SACM-related solutions. The SACM architecture is predicated upon
information gleaned from SACM Use Cases and Requirements ([RFC7632]
and [RFC8248] respectively) and terminology as found in
[I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology].
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 July 20, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
Montville & Munyan Expires July 20, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SACM Architecture January 2018
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terms and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. The Basic Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. A Word On SACM Components, Capabilities, and Interfaces . . . 4
4.1. Policy Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Software Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Datastream Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Network Configuration Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Enumerating SACM components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Mapping to RFC8248 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction
The SACM working group has experienced some difficulty gaining
consensus around a single architectural vision. Our hope is that
this document begins to alleviate this. We have recognized viability
in approaches sometimes thought to be at odds with each other -
specifically [I-D.ietf-sacm-ecp] and [I-D.ietf-mile-xmpp-grid]. We
believe that these approaches complement each other to more
completely meet the spirit of [RFC7632] and [RFC8248].
The authors recognize that some state collection mechanisms exist
today, some do not, and of those that do, some may need to be
improved. In other words, we can gain the most advantage by
supporting a variety of collection mechanisms, including those that
exist today. The authors further recognize that SACM ideally intends
to enable a cooperative ecosystem of tools from disparate sources
with minimal operator configuration. The architecture described in
this document seeks to accommodate these recognitions by first
defining a generic abstract architecture, then making that
architecture somewhat more concrete.
Montville & Munyan Expires July 20, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SACM Architecture January 2018
1.1. Requirements notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC
2119, BCP 14 [RFC2119].
2. Terms and Definitions
This draft defers to [I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology] for terms and
definitions.
3. The Basic Architecture
The architectural approach proposed herein recognizes existing state
collection mechanisms and makes every attempt to respect [RFC7632]
and [RFC8248].
+----------+ +------+ +------------+
|Repository| |Policy| |Orchestrator|
+----^-----+ +--^---+ +----^-------+ +----------------+
A | B | C | | Downstream Uses|
| | | | +-----------+ |
+----v---------------v------------v-------+ | |Evaluations| |
| Message Transfer <-------> +-----------+ |
+----------------^------------------------+ D | +---------+ |
| | |Analytics| |
| | +---------+ |
+-------v--------- | +---------+ |
| Transfer System | | |Reporting| |
| Connector | | +---------+ |
+-------^---------+ +----------------+
|
|
+-------v-------+
| Collection |
| System |
+---------------+
Figure 1: Notional Architecture
As shown in Figure 1, the notional SACM architecture consists of some
basic SACM Components using a message transfer system to communicate.
While not depicted, the message transfer system is expected to
maximally align with the requirements described in [RFC8248], which
means that the message transfer system will support brokered (i.e.
point-to-point) and proxied data exchange.
Montville & Munyan Expires July 20, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SACM Architecture January 2018
Additionally, component-specific interfaces (i.e. such as A, B, C,
and D in Figure 1) are expected to be specified logically then bound
to one or more specific implementations. This should be done for
each capability related to the given SACM Component.
+----------+ +------+ +------------+
|Repository| |Policy| |Orchestrator|
+----^-----+ +--^---+ +----^-------+
| | |
| | |
+----v---------------v------------v-----------------+ +-----------------+
| XMPP-Grid <-----> Downstream Uses |
+-----^-------------^-------------^-------------^---+ +-----------------+
| | | |
| | | |
+----v----+ +----v----+ +----v----+ +----v----+
|XMPP-Grid| |XMPP-Grid| |XMPP-Grid| |XMPP-Grid|
/~~|Connector|~~~|Connector|~~~|Connector|~~~|Connector|~~\
| +----^----+ +----^----+ +----^----+ +----^----+ |
| | | | | |
| +----v----+ +----v-----+ +----v----+ +----v----+ |
| |ECP/SWIMA| |Datastream| |YANG Push| | IPFIX | |
| +---------+ +----------+ +---------+ +---------+ |
| Collectors |
\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/
Figure 2: Detailed Architecture
In Figure 2, we have a more detailed view of the architecture - one
that fosters the development of a pluggable ecosystem of cooperative
tools. Existing collection mechanisms (ECP/SWIMA included) can be
brought into this architecture by specifying the interface of the
collector and creating the XMPP-Grid Connector. Additionally, while
not directly depicted in Figure 2, this architecture does not
preclude point-to-point interfaces. In fact,
[I-D.ietf-mile-xmpp-grid] provides brokering capabilities to
facilitate such point-to-point data transfers.
Each of the SACM Components listed depicted in Figure 2 may be a
Provider, a Consumer, or both, depending on the circumstance.
4. A Word On SACM Components, Capabilities, and Interfaces
As previously mentioned, the SACM Architecture consists of a variety
of SACM Components, and named components are intended to embody one
or more specific capabilities. Interacting with these capabilities
will require at least two levels of interface specification. The
first is a logical interface specification, and the second is at
Montville & Munyan Expires July 20, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SACM Architecture January 2018
least one binding to a specific transfer mechanism, where the
preferred transfer mechanism would be XMPP-grid.
The scenarios described in this section are informational, but may be
taken as guidance or a starting point for further specifications
concerning each of these areas.
4.1. Policy Services
Consider a policy server conforming to [I-D.ietf-mile-rolie].
[I-D.ietf-mile-rolie] describes a RESTful way based on the ATOM
Publishing Protocol ([RFC5023]) to find specific data collections.
While this represents a specific binding (i.e. RESTful API based on
[RFC5023]), there is a more abstract way to look at ROLIE.
ROLIE provides notional workspaces and collections, and provides the
concept of information categories and links. Strictly speaking,
these are logical concepts independent of the RESTful binding ROLIE
specifies. In other words, ROLIE binds a logical interface (i.e.
GET workspace, GET collection, SET entry, and so on) to a specific
mechanism (namely an ATOM Publication Protocol extension).
It is not inconceivable to believe there could be a different
interface mechanism, or a connector, providing these same operations
using XMPP-Grid as the transfer mechanism.
4.2. Software Inventory
The SACM working group has accepted work on the Endpoint Compliance
Profile [I-D.ietf-sacm-ecp], which describes a collection
architecture and may be viewed as a collector coupled with a
collection-specific repository.
Montville & Munyan Expires July 20, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SACM Architecture January 2018
Posture Manager Endpoint
Orchestrator +---------------+ +---------------+
+--------+ | | | |
| | | +-----------+ | | +-----------+ |
| |<---->| | Posture | | | | Posture | |
| | pub/ | | Validator | | | | Collector | |
| | sub | +-----------+ | | +-----------+ |
+--------+ | | | | | |
| | | | | |
Evaluator Repository | | | | | |
+------+ +--------+ | +-----------+ |<-------| +-----------+ |
| | | | | | Posture | | report | | Posture | |
| | | | | | Collection| | | | Collection| |
| |<-----> | |<-----| | Manager | | query | | Engine | |
| |request/| | store| +-----------+ |------->| +-----------+ |
| |respond | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
+------+ +--------+ +---------------+ +---------------+
Figure 3: ECP Collection Architecture
In Figure 3, any of the communications between the Posture Manager
and ECP components to its left could be performed directly or
indirectly using a given message transfer mechanism. For example,
the pub/sub interface between the Orchestrator and the Posture
Manager could be using a proprietary method or using
[I-D.ietf-mile-xmpp-grid] or some other pub/sub mechanism.
Similarly, the store connection from the Posture Manager to the
Repository could be performed internally to a given implementation,
via a RESTful API invocation over HTTPS, or even over a pub/sub
mechanism.
Our assertion is that the Evaluator, Repository, Orchestrator, and
Posture Manager all have the potential to represent SACM Components
with specific capability interfaces that can be logically specified,
then bound to one or more specific transfer mechanisms (i.e. RESTful
API, [I-D.ietf-mile-rolie], [I-D.ietf-mile-xmpp-grid], and so on).
An equally plausible way to view the ECP collection architecture
might be as depicted in Figure 4.
Montville & Munyan Expires July 20, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SACM Architecture January 2018
/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\ Endpoint
Orchestrator | +---------------+ | +---------------+
+--------+ | | | | | |
| | | | +-----------+ | | | +-----------+ |
| |<------------------------>| | Posture | | | | | Posture | |
| | | RESTful | | Validator | | | | | Collector | |
| | | API | +-----------+ | | | +-----------+ |
+--------+ | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
Evaluator | Repository | | | | | | |
+------+ | +--------+ | +-----------+ |<---->| +-----------+ |
| | | | | | | Posture | |PA/TNC| | Posture | |
| | | | | | | Collection| | | | | Collection| |
| |<--------->| |<-------| | Manager | | | | | Engine | |
| |RESTful | | |Direct | +-----------+ | | | +-----------+ |
| |API | | |DB Conn | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
+------+ | +--------+ +---------------+ | +---------------+
| |
| Posture Manager |
\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/
Figure 4: Alternate ECP Collection Architecture
Here, the Posture Manager is the aggregate of Repository, Posture
Validator, and Posture Collection Manager. An evaluator could
connect via a RESTful API, as could an Orchestrator. Alternatively,
and as depicted in Figure 5, the Posture Manager could interact with
other security ecosystem components using an XMPP-Grid connector.
Montville & Munyan Expires July 20, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SACM Architecture January 2018
/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\ Endpoint
Orchestrator | +---------------+ | +---------------+
+--------+ | | | | | |
| | | | +-----------+ | | | +-----------+ |
| |<------------------------>| | Posture | | | | | Posture | |
| | | XMPP-Grid | | Validator | | | | | Collector | |
| | | Connector | +-----------+ | | | +-----------+ |
+--------+ | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
Evaluator | Repository | | | | | | |
+------+ | +--------+ | +-----------+ |<---->| +-----------+ |
| | | | | | | Posture | |PA/TNC| | Posture | |
| | | | | | | Collection| | | | | Collection| |
| |<--------->| |<-------| | Manager | | | | | Engine | |
| |XMPP-Grid| | |Direct | +-----------+ | | | +-----------+ |
| |Connector| | |DB Conn | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
+------+ | +--------+ +---------------+ | +---------------+
| |
| Posture Manager |
\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/
Figure 5: Alternate ECP Collection Architecture
4.3. Datastream Collection
The NIST 800-126 specification, also known as SCAP 1.2, provides the
technical specifications for a "datastream collection". The
specification describes the "datastream collection" as being
"composed of SCAP data streams and SCAP source components". A
"datastream" provides an encapsulation of the SCAP source components
required to, for example, perform configuration assessment on a given
endpoint. These source components include XCCDF checklists, OVAL
Definitions, and CPE Dictionary information. A single "datastream
collection" may encapsulate multiple "datastreams", and reference any
number of SCAP components. Datastream collections were intended to
provide an envelope enabling transfer of SCAP data more easily.
The NIST 800-126 specification also defines the "SCAP result data
stream" as being conformant to the Asset Reporting Format
specification, defined in NISTIR-7694. The Asset Reporting Format
provides an encapsulation of the SCAP source components, Asset
Information, and SCAP result components, such as system
characteristics and state evaluation results.
What NIST 800-126 did not do is specify the interface for finding or
acquiring source datastream information, nor an interface for
publishing result information. Discovering the actual resources for
Montville & Munyan Expires July 20, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SACM Architecture January 2018
this information could be done via ROLIE, as described in the Policy
Services section above, but other repositories of SCAP data exist as
well.
4.4. Network Configuration Collection
Henk's draft illustrates a SACM Component incorporating a YANG Push
client function and an XMPP-grid publisher function. Henk's draft
further states "the output of the YANG Push client function is
encapsulated in a SACM Content Element envelope, which is again
encapsulated in a SACM statement envelope" which are published,
essentially, via an XMPP-Grid Connector for SACM Components also part
of the XMPP-Grid.
This is a specific example of an existing collection mechanism being
adapted to the XMPP-Grid message transfer system.
5. Enumerating SACM components
The list of SACM Components is theoretically endless, but we need to
start somewhere. The following is a list of suggested SACM
Components.
o Vulnerability Information Repository
o Software Inventory Collector
o Software Inventory Repository
o Configuration Policy Repository
o Configuration State Repository
o Vulnerability Management Orchestrator
o Configuration Management Orchestrator
o State Collectors
6. Privacy Considerations
TODO
7. Security Considerations
TODO
Montville & Munyan Expires July 20, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SACM Architecture January 2018
8. IANA Considerations
IANA tables can probably be used to make life a little easier. We
would like a place to enumerate:
o Capability/operation semantics
o SACM Component implementation identifiers
o SACM Component versions
o Associations of SACM Components (and versions) to specific
Capabilities
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mile-rolie]
Field, J., Banghart, S., and D. Waltermire, "Resource-
Oriented Lightweight Information Exchange", draft-ietf-
mile-rolie-16 (work in progress), December 2017.
[I-D.ietf-mile-xmpp-grid]
Cam-Winget, N., Appala, S., Pope, S., and P. Saint-Andre,
"Using XMPP for Security Information Exchange", draft-
ietf-mile-xmpp-grid-04 (work in progress), October 2017.
[I-D.ietf-sacm-ecp]
Haynes, D., Fitzgerald-McKay, J., and L. Lorenzin,
"Endpoint Compliance Profile", draft-ietf-sacm-ecp-00
(work in progress), September 2017.
[I-D.ietf-sacm-nea-swid-patnc]
Schmidt, C., Haynes, D., Coffin, C., Waltermire, D., and
J. Fitzgerald-McKay, "Software Inventory Message and
Attributes (SWIMA) for PA-TNC", draft-ietf-sacm-nea-swid-
patnc-01 (work in progress), March 2017.
Montville & Munyan Expires July 20, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SACM Architecture January 2018
[I-D.ietf-sacm-terminology]
Birkholz, H., Lu, J., Strassner, J., Cam-Winget, N., and
A. Montville, "Security Automation and Continuous
Monitoring (SACM) Terminology", draft-ietf-sacm-
terminology-14 (work in progress), December 2017.
[RFC5023] Gregorio, J., Ed. and B. de hOra, Ed., "The Atom
Publishing Protocol", RFC 5023, DOI 10.17487/RFC5023,
October 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5023>.
[RFC7632] Waltermire, D. and D. Harrington, "Endpoint Security
Posture Assessment: Enterprise Use Cases", RFC 7632,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7632, September 2015, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7632>.
[RFC8248] Cam-Winget, N. and L. Lorenzin, "Security Automation and
Continuous Monitoring (SACM) Requirements", RFC 8248,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8248, September 2017, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc8248>.
Appendix A. Mapping to RFC8248
TBD
Authors' Addresses
Adam W. Montville
Center for Internet Security
31 Tech Valley Drive
East Greenbush, NY 12061
USA
Email: adam.w.montville@gmail.com
Bill Munyan
Center for Internet Security
31 Tech Valley Drive
East Greenbush, NY 12061
USA
Email: bill.munyan.ietf@gmail.com
Montville & Munyan Expires July 20, 2018 [Page 11]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/