[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 4767

Network Working Group                                     B.S. Feinstein
Internet-Draft                                             G.A. Matthews
Expires: August 26, 2001                             Harvey Mudd College
                                                            J.C.C. White
                                                       MITRE Corporation
                                                       February 25, 2001


            The Intrusion Detection Exchange Protocol (IDXP)
                      draft-ietf-idwg-beep-idxp-01

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 August 26, 2001.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This memo describes the Intrusion Detection Exchange Protocol
   (IDXP), an application-level protocol for exchanging data between
   intrusion detection entities. IDXP supports mutual-authentication,
   integrity, and confidentiality over a connection-oriented protocol.
   The protocol provides for the exchange of IDMEF messages,
   unstructured text, and binary data. The IDMEF message elements are
   described in the Intrusion Detection Message Exchange Format
   (IDMEF)[2], a companion document of the Intrusion Detection Exchange
   Format (IDWG) working group of the IETF.



Feinstein, et. al.      Expires August 26, 2001                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                  The IDXP                   February 2001


Table of Contents

   1.    Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   1.1   Purpose  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   1.2   Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   1.3   Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.    The Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.1   Connection Provisioning  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.2   Data Transfer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   2.3   Trust Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   3.    The IDXP Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   3.1   IDXP Profile Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   3.2   IDXP Profile Identification and Initialization . . . . . . .  9
   3.3   IDXP Profile Message Syntax  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   3.4   IDXP Profile Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   3.4.1 The IDXP-GREETING Element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   3.4.2 The IDMEF-MESSAGE Element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   4.    The IDXP DTD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   5.    Reply Codes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   6.    Fulfillment of IDWG Communications Protocol Requirements . . 16
   7.    Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   7.1   Use of the TUNNEL Profile  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   7.2   Use of Underlying Security Profiles  . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
         References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
         Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   A.    IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   B.    History of Significant Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   B.1   Significant Changes Since beep-idxp-00 . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   C.    Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
         Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24





















Feinstein, et. al.      Expires August 26, 2001                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                  The IDXP                   February 2001


1. Introduction

   IDXP is specified, in part, as a Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol
   (BEEP)[6] "profile". BEEP is a generic application protocol
   framework for connection-oriented, asynchronous interactions.
   Features such as authentication and confidentiality are provided
   through the use of other BEEP profiles. Accordingly, many aspects of
   IDXP (e.g., confidentiality) are provided within the BEEP framework.

1.1 Purpose

   IDXP provides for the exchange of IDMEF[2] messages, unstructured
   text, and binary data between intrusion detection entities.
   Addressing the security-sensitive nature of exchanges between
   intrusion detection entities, underlying BEEP security profiles
   should be used to offer IDXP the required set of security
   properties. See Section 6 for a discussion of how IDXP fulfills the
   IDWG communication protocol requirements. See Section 7 for a
   discussion of security considerations.

   IDXP is primarily intended for the exchange of data created by
   intrusion detection entities. IDMEF[2] messages should be used for
   the structured representation of this intrusion detection data,
   although IDXP may be used to exchange unstructured text and binary
   data.

1.2 Profiles

   There are several BEEP profiles discussed, the first of which we
   define in this memo:

      The IDXP Profile

      The TUNNEL Profile[5]

      The Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) Family of
      Profiles (see Section 4.1 of [6])

      The TLS Profile (see Section 3.1 of [6])

1.3 Terminology

   Throughout this memo, the terms "analyzer" and "manager" are used in
   the context of the Intrusion Detection Message Exchange
   Requirements[7]. In particular, Section 3.2 of [7] defines the
   meaning of a collection of intrusion detection terms.

   The terms "peer", "initiator", "listener", "client", and "server"
   are used in the context of BEEP[6]. In particular, Section 2.1 of


Feinstein, et. al.      Expires August 26, 2001                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                  The IDXP                   February 2001


   the BEEP framework memo discusses the roles that a BEEP peer may
   perform.

   Note that the terms "endpoint" and "proxy" are specific to IDXP, and
   do not exist in the context of BEEP. The term "intrusion detection"
   is abbreviated as "ID".













































Feinstein, et. al.      Expires August 26, 2001                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                  The IDXP                   February 2001


2. The Model

2.1 Connection Provisioning

   Intrusion detection entities using IDXP to transfer data are termed
   IDXP endpoints. Endpoints can exist only in pairs, and these pairs
   communicate over a single BEEP session with one or more BEEP
   channels opened for transferring data. Endpoints are either managers
   or analyzers, as defined in Section 3.2 of [7].

   The relationship between analyzers and managers is potentially
   many-to-many. I.e., an analyzer might communicate with many
   managers; similarly, a manager might communicate with many
   analyzers. Likewise, the relationship between different managers is
   potentially many-to-many, so that a manager can receive the alerts
   sent by a large number of analyzers by receiving them through
   intermediate managers. Analyzers are not permitted to establish IDXP
   exchanges with other analyzers.

   An ID entity wishing to establish IDXP communications with another
   ID entity does so by initiating a BEEP session. A BEEP security
   profile offering the required security properties should initially
   be negotiated (see Section 7 for a discussion of security
   considerations). Following the successful negotiation of the BEEP
   security profile, IDXP greetings are exchanged and connection
   provisioning proceeds.

   In the following sequence an ID entity 'initial' initiates an IDXP
   exchange with the entity 'final'.

       initial                                             final
          ---------------- xport connect[1] ------------------>
         <-------------------- greeting ---------------------->
         <-------------start security profile[2] ------------->
         <-------------------- greeting ---------------------->
         <------------------ start IDXP[3] ------------------->

   Notes:

      [1] 'initial' initiates a transport connection to 'final',
         triggering the exchange of BEEP greeting messages.

      [2] both entities negotiate the use of a BEEP security profile.

      [3] both entities negotiate the use of the IDXP profile.

   In between a pair of IDXP endpoints may be an arbitrary number of
   proxies. A proxy may be necessary for administrative reasons, such
   as running on a firewall to allow restricted access. Another use


Feinstein, et. al.      Expires August 26, 2001                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                  The IDXP                   February 2001


   might be one proxy per company department, which forwards data from
   the analyzer endpoints in the department onto a company-wide manager
   endpoint.

   To create an application-layer tunnel that transparently forwards
   data over a chain of proxies, the TUNNEL profile[5] should be used.
   See [5] for more detail concerning the options available to setup an
   application-layer tunnel. Once a tunnel is established between two
   endpoints, a new BEEP greeting must be exchanged. At this point, a
   BEEP security profile offering the required security properties
   would be negotiated, followed by negotiation of the IDXP profile.

   In the following sequence an ID entity 'initial' initiates the
   creation of a BEEP session using the IDXP profile with the entity
   'final' by first contacting 'proxy1'. In the greeting exchange
   between 'initial' and 'proxy1', the TUNNEL profile is selected, and
   subsequently the use of the TUNNEL profile is extended to reach
   through 'proxy2' to 'final'.

   initial            proxy1               proxy2                final
     -- xport connect -->
    <---- greeting ----->
     -- start TUNNEL --->
                         - xport connect[1] ->
                        <----- greeting ----->
                         --- start TUNNEL --->
                                              --- xport connect -->
                                             <----- greeting ----->
                                              --- start TUNNEL --->
                                             <----- <ok>[2] ------
                        <------- <ok> -------
    <------ <ok> -------
    <------------------------- greeting -------------------------->
    <------------------ start security profile ------------------->
    <------------------------- greeting -------------------------->
    <------------------------ start IDXP ------------------------->

   Notes:

      [1] Instead of immediately acknowledging the request from
         'initial' to start TUNNEL, 'proxy1' attempts to establish use
         of TUNNEL with 'proxy2'. 'proxy2' also delays its
         acknowledgment to 'proxy1'.

      [2] 'final' acknowledges the request from 'proxy2' to start
         TUNNEL, and this acknowledgment propagates back to 'initial'
         so that a TUNNEL application-layer tunnel is established from
         'initial' to 'final'.



Feinstein, et. al.      Expires August 26, 2001                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                  The IDXP                   February 2001


2.2 Data Transfer

   Between a pair of ID entities communicating over a BEEP session,
   zero or more BEEP channels may be open using the IDXP profile. If
   necessary, additional BEEP sessions may be provisioned to offer
   additional channels using the IDXP profile. However, in most
   situations additional channels using the IDXP profile should be
   opened within an existing BEEP session, as opposed to provisioning a
   new BEEP session containing the additional channels using the IDXP
   profile.

   Endpoints assume the role of client or server on a per-channel
   basis, with one acting as the client and the other as the server. An
   endpoint's role of client or server is determined independent of
   whether the endpoint assumed the role of initiator or listener
   during the BEEP session establishment. Clients and servers act as
   sources and sinks, respectively, for exchanging data.

   In a simple case, an analyzer endpoint sends data to a manager
   endpoint. E.g.,

           +----------+                          +---------+
           |          |                          |         |
           |          |****** BEEP session ******|         |
           |          |                          |         |
           | Analyzer | ----- IDXP profile ----> | Manager |
           |          |                          |         |
           |          |**************************|         |
           |          |                          |         |
           +----------+                          +---------+

   Note that the arrowhead for the BEEP channel using the IDXP profile
   points from client to server.

   Use of multiple BEEP channels in a BEEP session facilitates
   categorization and prioritization of data sent between IDXP
   endpoints. For example, a manager 'M1', sending alert data to
   another manager, 'M2', may choose to open a separate channel to
   exchange different categories of alerts. 'M1' would act as the
   client on each of these channels, and manager 'M2' can then process
   and act on the incoming alerts based on their respective channel
   categorizations.









Feinstein, et. al.      Expires August 26, 2001                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                  The IDXP                   February 2001


   +---------+                                            +---------+
   |         |                                            |         |
   |         |*************** BEEP session ***************|         |
   |         |                                            |         |
   |         | -- IDXP profile, network-based alerts ---> |         |
   | Manager |                                            | Manager |
   |         | ---- IDXP profile, host-based alerts ----> |         |
   |   M1    |                                            |   M2    |
   |         | ------ IDXP profile, other alerts -------> |         |
   |         |                                            |         |
   |         |********************************************|         |
   |         |                                            |         |
   +---------+                                            +---------+

2.3 Trust Model

   In our model, trust is placed exclusively in the endpoints. Proxies
   are always assumed to be untrustworthy. A BEEP security profile is
   used to establish end-to-end security between pairs of IDXP
   endpoints, doing away with the need to place trust in any
   intervening proxies. Only after successful negotiation of the
   underlying security profile are IDXP endpoints to be trusted. Only
   BEEP security profiles offering at least the protections required by
   Section 6 of [7] should be used to secure a BEEP session containing
   channels using the IDXP profile. See Section 3 of [6] for the
   registration of the TLS profile, an example of a BEEP security
   profile meeting the requirements of Section 6 of [7]. See Section 6
   for a discussion of how IDXP fulfills the IDWG communications
   protocol requirements.






















Feinstein, et. al.      Expires August 26, 2001                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                  The IDXP                   February 2001


3. The IDXP Profile

3.1 IDXP Profile Overview

   The IDXP profile provides a mechanism for exchanging information
   between intrusion detection entities. The TUNNEL profile may be used
   to provision a BEEP session running the IDXP profile over an
   application-layer tunnel. An underlying BEEP security profile may be
   used to provide the required combination of mutual-authentication,
   integrity, and confidentiality for the IDXP profile.

   The IDXP profile supports two elements of interest:

   o  The "IDXP-Greeting" element identifies an analyzer or manager at
      one end of a BEEP channel to the analyzer or manager at the other
      end of the channel.

   o  The "IDMEF-Message" element carries the structured information to
      be exchanged between the peers.

3.2 IDXP Profile Identification and Initialization

   The IDXP profile is identified as

      http://www.cs.hmc.edu/idwg/IDXP

   in the BEEP "profile" element during channel creation.

   During channel creation, the corresponding "profile" element in the
   BEEP "start" element may contain an "IDXP-Greeting" element. If
   channel creation is successful, then before sending the
   corresponding reply, the BEEP peer processes the "IDXP-Greeting"
   element and includes the resulting response in the reply. This
   response will be an "ok" element or an "error" element. The choice
   of which element is returned is dependant on local provisioning of
   the server. Including an "IDXP-Greeting" element in the initial
   "start" element has exactly the same semantics as passing it as the
   first MSG message on the channel.

3.3 IDXP Profile Message Syntax

   BEEP messages in the profile may have a MIME Content-Type[3] of
   text/xml, text/plain, or application/octet-stream. The syntax of the
   individual elements is specified in Section 4 and [2]'s Section 5.

3.4 IDXP Profile Semantics

   Each BEEP peer issues the "IDXP-Greeting" element using "MSG"
   messages. Each BEEP peer then issues "ok" in "RPY" messages or


Feinstein, et. al.      Expires August 26, 2001                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                  The IDXP                   February 2001


   "error" in "ERR" messages. (See Section 2.3.1 of [6] for the
   definitions of the "error" and "ok" elements.) Based on the
   respective client/server roles negotiated during the exchange of
   "IDXP-Greeting" elements, the client sends data using "MSG"
   messages. Depending on the MIME Content-Type, this data may be an
   "IDMEF-Message" element, plain text, or binary. The server then
   issues "ok" in "RPY" messages or "error" in "ERR" messages.

3.4.1 The IDXP-GREETING Element

   The "IDXP-Greeting" element serves to identify an analyzer or
   manager at one end of the BEEP channel to the analyzer or manager at
   the other end of the channel. The "IDXP-Greeting" element includes
   the role of the peer on the channel (client or server) and the
   Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)[1] of the peer. Additionally, the
   "IDXP-Greeting" element may include a combination of the fully
   qualified domain name (see [4]) and IP address of the peer. The IP
   address chosen should be the IP address associated with the
   underlying transport protocol carrying the channel. The character
   data of the element is free-form human-readable text. It may be used
   to further identify the peer, such as describing the physical
   location of the machine.

   An "IDXP-Greeting" element may be sent by either peer at any time.
   The peer receiving the "IDXP-Greeting" responds with an "ok"
   (indicating acceptance), or an "error" (indicating rejection). A
   peer's identity and role on a channel in effect is specified by the
   most recent "IDXP-Greeting" it sent that was answered with an "ok".

   An "IDXP-Greeting" could be rejected (with an "error" element) if
   the security that has been negotiated is inadequate or if the
   authenticated peer does not have authorization to connect as the
   specified type or to serve in the specified role.


















Feinstein, et. al.      Expires August 26, 2001                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                  The IDXP                   February 2001


   For example, a successful creation with an embedded "IDXP-Greeting"
   might look like this:

   I: MSG 0 10 . 1592 210
   I: Content-Type: text/xml
   I:
   I: <start number='1'>
   I:   <profile uri='http://www.cs.hmc.edu/idwg/IDXP'>
   I:     <![CDATA[ <IDXP-Greeting uri='http://example.com/alice'
   I:       role='client' /> ]]>
   I:   </profile>
   I: </start>
   I: END
   L: RPY 0 10 . 1865 111
   L: Content-Type: text/xml
   L:
   L: <profile uri='http://www.cs.hmc.edu/idwg/IDXP'>
   L:   <![CDATA[ <ok /> ]]>
   L: </profile>
   L: END
   L: MSG 0 11 . 1976 88
   L: Content-Type: text/xml
   L:
   L: <IDXP-Greeting uri='http://example.com/bob' role='server' />
   L: END
   I: RPY 0 11 . 1802 34
   I: Content-Type: text/xml
   I:
   I: <ok />
   I: END





















Feinstein, et. al.      Expires August 26, 2001                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                  The IDXP                   February 2001


   A creation with an embedded "IDXP-Greeting" that fails might look
   like this:

   I: MSG 0 10 . 1776 208
   I: Content-Type: text/xml
   I:
   I: <start number='1'>
   I:   <profile uri='http://www.cs.hmc.edu/idwg/IDXP'>
   I:     <![CDATA[ <IDXP-Greeting uri='http://example.com/eve'
   I:       role='client' /> ]]>
   I:   </profile>
   I: </start>
   I: END
   L: RPY 0 10 . 1592 204
   L: Content-Type: text/xml
   L:
   L: <profile uri='http://www.cs.hmc.edu/idwg/IDXP'>
   L:   <![CDATA[
   L:     <error code='530'>'http://example.com/eve' must first
   L:       negotiate the TLS profile</error> ]]>
   L: </profile>
   L: END

3.4.2 The IDMEF-MESSAGE Element

   The "IDMEF-Message" element carries the information to be exchanged
   between the peers. See Section 5 of [2] for the definition of this
   element.























Feinstein, et. al.      Expires August 26, 2001                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                  The IDXP                   February 2001


4. The IDXP DTD

   The following is the DTD defining the valid elements for the IDXP
   profile

     <!--
     DTD for the IDXP Profile, as of 2001-02-20

     Refer to this DTD as:

       <!ENTITY % IDXP PUBLIC "-//Blocks//DTD IDXP//EN"
             "http://www.cs.hmc.edu/idwg/IDXP/idxp.dtd">

       %IDXP;
     -->

     <!-- Includes -->

       <!ENTITY % BEEP PUBLIC "-//Blocks//DTD BEEP//EN"
                  "http://xml.resource.org/profiles/BEEP/beep.dtd">

       %BEEP;



       <!ENTITY % IDMEF PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD RFCxxxx IDMEF v0.3//EN"
                  "/some/path/to/the/idmef-message.dtd">

       %IDMEF;

     <!--
       Profile Summary

         BEEP profile http://www.cs.hmc.edu/idwg/IDXP

         role       MSG               RPY      ERR
         ====       ===               ===      ===
         I or L     IDXP-Greeting     ok       error
         C          IDMEF-Message     ok       error
     -->

     <!--
       Entity Definitions

             entity        syntax/reference     example
             ======        ================     =======
         an authoritative identification
             URI           See [RFC-2396]       http://example.com



Feinstein, et. al.      Expires August 26, 2001                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                  The IDXP                   February 2001


         a fully qualified domain name
             FQDN          See [RFC-1034]       www.example.com

         a dotted-quad IP address
             IP            1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT "."
                            1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT
                                                10.0.0.27
     -->

     <!ENTITY % URI      "CDATA">
     <!ENTITY % FQDN     "CDATA">
     <!ENTITY % IP       "CDATA">

     <!--
       The IDXP-Greeting element declares the role and identity of
       the peer issuing it, on a per channel basis. The contents of
       the element may include human-readable informative text,
       such as the physical location of the computer issuing the
       "IDXP-Greeting".
     -->

   <!ELEMENT IDXP-Greeting  (#PCDATA)>
   <!ATTLIST IDXP-Greeting
             uri            %URI;                #REQUIRED
             role           (client|server)      #REQUIRED
             fqdn           %FQDN;               #IMPLIED
             ip             %IP;                 #IMPLIED>

     <!--
       The IDMEF-Message element conveys the intrusion detection information
       that is exchanged.  This element is defined in the idmef-message.dtd
     -->

   <!-- End of DTD -->

















Feinstein, et. al.      Expires August 26, 2001                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                  The IDXP                   February 2001


5. Reply Codes

   This section lists the three-digit error codes the IDXP profile may
   generate.

   code    meaning
   ====    =======
   421     Service not available
           (E.g., the peer does not have sufficient resources.)

   450     Requested action not taken
           (E.g., DNS lookup failed or connection could not
            be established. See also 550.)

   454     Temporary authentication failure

   500     General syntax error
           (E.g., poorly-formed XML)

   501     Syntax error in parameters
           (E.g., non-valid XML)

   504     Parameter not implemented

   530     Authentication required

   534     Authentication mechanism insufficient
           (E.g., cipher suite too weak, sequence exhausted, etc.)

   535     Authentication failure

   537     Action not authorized for user

   550     Requested action not taken
           (E.g., peer could be contacted, but
            malformed greeting or no IDXP profile advertised.)

   553     Parameter invalid

   554     Transaction failed
           (E.g., policy violation)










Feinstein, et. al.      Expires August 26, 2001                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                  The IDXP                   February 2001


6. Fulfillment of IDWG Communications Protocol Requirements

   The following lists the communications protocol requirements
   established in Section 6 of [7] and, for each requirement, describes
   the manner in which it is fulfilled by IDXP.

   o  The [protocol] MUST support reliable transmission of messages.

         IDXP operates over BEEP, which operates only over reliable
         connection-oriented transport protocols (e.g., TCP). In
         addition, BEEP peers communicate using a simple
         request-response protocol, which provides end-to-end
         reliability between peers.

   o  The [protocol] MUST support transmission of messages between ID
      components across firewall boundaries without compromising
      security.

         The TUNNEL profile mechanism described in [5] provides a
         standard proxy to allow operation across firewalls. Tunnels
         may be configured to restrict access to known ID components,
         whose identity is authenticated through the use of a member of
         the SASL family of profiles (see Section 4.1 of [6]).

   o  The [protocol] MUST support mutual authentication of the analyzer
      and the manager to each other.

         IDXP supports mutual authentication of the peers through the
         use of an appropriate underlying BEEP security profile. The
         TLS profile and members of the SASL family of profiles are
         examples of security profiles that may be used to authenticate
         the identity of communicating ID components.

   o  The [protocol] MUST support confidentiality of the message
      content during message exchange. The selected design MUST be
      capable of supporting a variety of encryption algorithms and MUST
      be adaptable to a wide variety of environments.

         IDXP supports confidentiality through the use of an
         appropriate underlying BEEP security profile. The TLS profile
         is an example a security profile that offers confidentiality.
         At a minimum, endpoints negotiating the TLS profile must use
         the TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA cipher suite, which uses
         ephemeral Diffie-Hellman (DHE) with DSS signatures for key
         exchange and triple DES (3DES) and cipher-block chaining (CBC)
         for encryption. Stronger cipher suites are optional.

   o  The [protocol] MUST ensure the integrity of the message content.
      The selected design MUST be capable of supporting a variety of


Feinstein, et. al.      Expires August 26, 2001                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                  The IDXP                   February 2001


      integrity mechanisms and MUST be adaptable to a wide variety of
      environments.

         IDXP supports message integrity through the use of an
         appropriate underlying BEEP security profile. The TLS profile
         and members of the SASL family of profiles are examples of
         security profiles that offer message integrity. At a minimum,
         endpoints negotiating the TLS profile must use the
         TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA cipher suite, which uses the
         Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA) for integrity protection using a
         keyed message authentication code. Stronger cipher suites are
         optional.

   o  The [protocol] SHOULD be able to ensure non-repudiation of the
      origin of IDMEF messages.

         IDXP supports non-repudiation of message origin through the
         use of an appropriate underlying BEEP security profile. The
         TLS profile is an example of a security profile that offers
         non-repudiation of message origin through the authentication
         of public-key certificates.

   o  The [protocol] SHOULD resist protocol denial of service attacks.

         IDXP supports resistance to denial of service (DoS) attacks
         through the use of an appropriate underlying BEEP security
         profile. To resist DoS attacks, it is recommended that BEEP
         peers offering the TUNNEL profile be required to negotiate
         some form of SASL authentication and that BEEP peers offering
         the IDXP profile be required to negotiate an underlying TLS
         profile. Any traffic arising from a non-authenticated source
         will then be discarded by the first BEEP peer it encounters.
         See section 7 of [5] for a discussion of security
         considerations in the use of the TUNNEL profile.

   o  The [protocol] SHOULD resist malicious duplication of messages.

         IDXP supports resistance to malicious duplication of messages
         (i.e., replay attacks) through the use of an appropriate
         underlying BEEP security profile. The TLS profile is an
         example of a security profile offering resistance to replay
         attacks. At a minimum, endpoints negotiating the TLS profile
         must use the TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA cipher suite,
         which uses cipher-block chaining (CBC) to ensure that even if
         a message is duplicated the cipher-text duplicate will produce
         a very different plain-text result. Stronger cipher suites are
         optional.




Feinstein, et. al.      Expires August 26, 2001                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                  The IDXP                   February 2001


7. Security Considerations

   The IDXP profile is a profile of BEEP. In BEEP, transport security,
   user authentication, and data exchange are orthogonal. Refer to
   Section 8 of [6] for a discussion of this. It is strongly
   recommended that those wanting to use the IDXP profile initially
   negotiate a BEEP security profile between the peers that offers the
   required security properties. See Section 6 for a discussion of how
   IDXP fulfills the IDWG communications protocol requirements.

   See Section 2.3 for a discussion of the trust model.

7.1 Use of the TUNNEL Profile

   See Section 7 of [5] for a discussion of the security considerations
   inherent in the use of the TUNNEL profile.

7.2 Use of Underlying Security Profiles

   At present, the TLS profile is the only BEEP security profile known
   to meet all of the requirements set forth in Section 6 of [7]. When
   securing a BEEP session with the TLS profile, the
   TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA cipher suite offers an acceptable
   level of security. See Section 6 for a discussion of how IDXP
   fulfills the IDWG communications requirements.


























Feinstein, et. al.      Expires August 26, 2001                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                  The IDXP                   February 2001


References

   [1]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R.T. and L. Masinter, "Uniform
        Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August
        1998.

   [2]  Curry, D. and H. Debar, "Intrusion Detection Message Exchange
        Format Data Model and Extensible Markup Language (XML) Document
        Type Definition", February 2001,
        <draft-ietf-idwg-idmef-xml-03 (work in progress)>.

   [3]  Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
        Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, November
        1996.

   [4]  Mockapetris, P., "DOMAIN NAMES - CONCEPTS AND FACILITIES", RFC
        1034, November 1987.

   [5]  New, D., "The TUNNEL Profile Registration", February 2001,
        <draft-ietf-idwg-beep-tunnel-01 (work in progress)>.

   [6]  Rose, M.T., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core",
        January 2001,
        <draft-ietf-beep-framework-11 (work in progress)>.

   [7]  Wood, M. and M. Erlinger, "Intrusion Detection Message Exchange
        Requirements", February 2001,
        <draft-ietf-idwg-requirements-05 (work in progress)>.


Authors' Addresses

   Benjamin S. Feinstein
   Harvey Mudd College

   EMail: bfeinste@cs.hmc.edu
   URI:   http://www.cs.hmc.edu/


   Gregory A. Matthews
   Harvey Mudd College

   EMail: gmatthew@cs.hmc.edu
   URI:   http://www.cs.hmc.edu/







Feinstein, et. al.      Expires August 26, 2001                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                  The IDXP                   February 2001


   John C. C. White
   MITRE Corporation

   EMail: jccw@mitre.org
   URI:   http://www.mitre.org/














































Feinstein, et. al.      Expires August 26, 2001                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft                  The IDXP                   February 2001


Appendix A. IANA Considerations

   The IANA adds the following to its registry of BEEP profiles, upon
   approval of this document by the IESG:

   Profile identification: http://www.cs.hmc.edu/idwg/IDXP
   Messages exchanged during channel creation: "IDXP-Greeting"
   Messages starting one-to-one exchanges: "IDXP-Greeting", "IDMEF-Message"
   Messages in positive replies: "ok"
   Messages in negative replies: "error"
   Messages in one-to-many exchanges: None.
   Message syntax: See Section 3.3 of this document.
   Message semantics: See Section 3.4 of this document.
   Contact information: See the "Authors' Addresses" appendix of this document.





































Feinstein, et. al.      Expires August 26, 2001                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft                  The IDXP                   February 2001


Appendix B. History of Significant Changes

B.1 Significant Changes Since beep-idxp-00

   Added Section 6, describing how IDXP fulfills the communication
   protocol requirements of the IDWG.

   Moved IDXP profile registration to Appendix A.

   Clarified the role that underlying BEEP security profiles must play.

   Clarified how IDMEF messages fit into IDXP.

   Clarified how the IDXP profile channels and BEEP sessions interact.

   Made terminology clarifications and changes for overall consistency.



































Feinstein, et. al.      Expires August 26, 2001                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft                  The IDXP                   February 2001


Appendix C. Acknowledgements

   The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Darren New
   and Marshall T. Rose.















































Feinstein, et. al.      Expires August 26, 2001                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft                  The IDXP                   February 2001


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). 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.



















Feinstein, et. al.      Expires August 26, 2001                [Page 24]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/