Internet DRAFT - draft-glenn-inch-req
draft-glenn-inch-req
Network Working Group Glenn M Keeni
Internet Draft Cyber Solutions Inc.
Expires: April 27, 2003 Hiroyuki Ohno
WIDE Project
October 28, 2002
INCH Requirements
<draft-glenn-inch-req-00.txt>
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 1, 2002.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
Expires: April 27, 2003 [Page 1]
Internet Draft October 28 2002
Abstract
The purpose of the Incident Report Format is to facilitate the
exchange of incident information and statistics among involved
parties and responsible Computer Security Incident Response Teams
(CSIRTs) for reactionary analysis of current intruder activity and
proactive identification of trends that can lead to incident
prevention. A common and well defined format will help in retrieving,
archiving and exchanging Incident Reports across organizations,
regions and countries.
This document describes the requirements for an Incident Report
format.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .................................................. 3
2. Incident Report Information ................................... 3
3. General Requirements .......................................... 3
4. Format Requirements ........................................... 3
5. Communication Requirements .................................... 4
6. Content Requirements .......................................... 4
7. Intellectual Property ......................................... 6
8. Acknowledgements .............................................. 6
References ........................................................ 7
Security Considerations ........................................... 7
Authors' Addresses ................................................ 8
Full Copyright Statement .......................................... 9
Expires: April 27, 2003 [Page 2]
Internet Draft October 28 2002
1. Introduction
Computer security incidents occur across administrative domains often
spanning different organizations and national borders. Therefore, the
exchange of incident information and statistics among involved
parties and the responsible Computer Security Incident Response Teams
(CSIRTs) is crucial for both reactionary analysis of current intruder
activity and proactive identification of trends that can lead to
incident prevention.
In the following we refer to the information pertaining to an
incident as an Incident Report (IR).
This document defines the high-level functional requirements of the
format of an IR to facilitate collaboration between CSIRTs and
parties involved when handling computer security incidents.
2. The Information.
To make the information useful for search, retrieval, aggregation and
analysis related processing the semantics of the contents should be
well defined. It should be noted that there is a generic difference
between "alerts" [Cite idwg-requirements-doc] and incident reports.
The IDMEF alerts are generated by "sensors" and processed by managers
(applications). On the other hand the incident reports will be
generated by human beings and will also be consumed by human beings.
In the case of incident reports, the intent is
- to make its semantics as clear and unambiguous as possible
even across regional and national boundaries.
- to have a well defined syntax (atleast for parts of it),
- to enable categorization and statistical analysis
- to make it possible to ensure integrity of the message,
and the authenticity of the message source authenticated
3. General Requirements
3.1. The Incident Report Format (IRF) shall reference and use
previously published RFCs where possible.
4. Format Requirements
4.1 A major part of the IR will comprise of human-readable text.
The IRF must support full internationalization and localization,
so that all users of the Internet can use their own language
and its standard character set to express themselves. This
will require compliance with the IETF Character Set Policy
[RFC2277].
4.2 IRF must be structured to support search and retrieval,
Expires: April 27, 2003 [Page 3]
Internet Draft October 28 2002
filtering and aggregation. The structure will contain several
components and some components may be structures themselves. Each
component of a structure will have a well defined semantics.
4.3 An IR may evolve with time. As investigation proceeds more
information about an incident may be revealed and parts of the
earlier information will be refined/obsoleted. The IRF must be able
to support an accurate record of the evolution of the IR with
appropriate timestamps identifying the epochs in the lifetime of an
IR..
4.4 All time references in the IR should be interpreted
in an unambigious manner. It should be possible to transform
the time references to any of the standard time references e.g.
UTC.
4.5 An IR may contain sensitive information. The IRF must
support an access control mechanism. It must be possible to define
the access control for the individual components of the IR and for
individual accessing entities.
4.5 An IR must be globally uniquely identifiable. It should be
possible to map the origin of an IR from its globally unique
identifier.
4.6. The IRF itself must be extensible. The extension will be
in terms of addition of components and/or extending the
components.
5. Communications Requirements
5.1. IR generation and exchange will normally be initiated by
humans using standard communication protocols, for example, e-mail,
HTTP, FTP, etc. The communication mechanism must have no bearing on
the authenticity, integrity, confidentiality of the IR itself.
6. Content Requirements
The IRF must be flexible enough to support various degrees
of completeness. At the same time it must clearly state
the minimal information without which the information in the
IR will be seriously degraded.
6.1 An IR will generally refer to one or more entities. The entity
may be an attacker, a victim or an observer. There are several
facets of an entity involved in an IR. The entity may have
zero or more network addresses and names as well as zero or more
location names, organizational name, person names, machine names
etc. The IRF should support various facets describing the entities
Expires: April 27, 2003 [Page 4]
Internet Draft October 28 2002
involved.
6.2 There may be different rules and conventions for naming
entities in different regions and networks. The IRF must be able
to accomodate these rules and conventions. The format must be able
to identify the rule or convention that is used in the naming.
6.3 And IR must contain information based on which globally
uniquely identifier for the IR will be formed.
6.4 The IR should contain a classification of the attack.
The IRF must support well known classification/enumeration
schemes.
6.5 The IR must contain information about the originator of
the various components of the report.
6.6 The IR should contain information about the attacker and victim,
if known.
6.7 The IR should contain reference to advisories corresponding
to the IR e.g. CERT/CC, CVE,
6.8 The IR should contain a description of the incident.
6.9 The IR should contain additional references/pointers/information
This information should include IDMEF [4] messages which
may have been generated by security devices.
6.10 The IR should describe the Impact on the target, if known.
There should be guidelines to describe the impact on the target
to ensure a uniform interpretation of the description.
6.11 The IR should decribe the actions taken since the occurance
of the incidence.
6.12 The IR should carry information whereby its authenticity, integrity
can be verified and non-repudiation can be guaranteed.
6.13 The semantics of the IRF must be well defined.
The various components of the IRF should have a well defined
semantics. [Cant say the same about the contents of all components]
Expires: April 27, 2003 [Page 5]
Internet Draft October 28 2002
7. Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
8. Acknowledgments.
The precursor of this document is "IODEF Requirements" [RFC3067]
which is based on the work done at Incident Taxonomy and Description
Working Group at TERENA. Subsequent work and discussion has been
carried out in the INCH-BOF and in the WIDE-WG on Network Management
and Security.
Expires: April 27, 2003 [Page 6]
Internet Draft October 28 2002
9. References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Incident Taxonomy and Description Working Group Charter -
http://www.terena.nl/task-forces/tf-csirt/i-taxonomy/
[3] Intrusion Detection Exchange Format Requirements by Wood, M. -
December 2000, Work in Progress.
[4] Intrusion Detection Message Exchange Format Extensible Markup
Language (XML) Document Type Definition by D. Curry, H. Debar -
February 2001, Work in Progress.
[5] Guidelines for Evidence Collection and Archiving by Dominique
Brezinski, Tom Killalea - July 2000, Work in Progress.
[6] Brownlee, N. and E. Guttman, "Expectations for Computer Security
Incident Response", BCP 21, RFC 2350, June 1998.
[7] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary", FYI 36, RFC 2828, May
2000.
[8] Establishing a Computer Security Incident Response Capability
(CSIRC). NIST Special Publication 800-3, November, 1991
[9] Handbook for Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs),
Moira J. West-Brown, Don Stikvoort, Klaus-Peter Kossakowski. -
CMU/SEI-98-HB-001. - Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University,
1998.
[10] A Common Language for Computer Security Incidents by John D.
Howard and Thomas A. Longstaff. - Sandia Report: SAND98-8667,
Sandia National Laboratories -
http://www.cert.org/research/taxonomy_988667.pdf
8. Security Considerations
This does not describe a protocol by itself memo it describes
the requirements for an Incident Report. It reports themselves
are about security incidents. The contents of the Incident Reports
will have significant direct and/or indirect impact on the security
and privacy of a network and/or individuals. Protocol designers
should take care to analyze and implement the requirements
stated in 4.5 and 6.12.
Expires: April 27, 2003 [Page 7]
Internet Draft October 28 2002
Authors' Addresses
Glenn Mansfield Keeni
Cyber Solutions Inc.
Sendai
Japan
EMail: glenn@cysols.com
Hiroyuki Ohno
WIDE Project, Japan
Email: hohno@wide.ad.jp
Expires: April 27, 2003 [Page 8]
Internet Draft October 28 2002
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Expires: April 27, 2003 [Page 9]
