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

Versions: (draft-trammell-mile-rfc6046-bis) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 RFC 6546

MILE Working Group                                           B. Trammell
Internet-Draft                                                ETH Zurich
Obsoletes: 6046 (if approved)                           December 6, 2011
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: June 8, 2012


      Transport of Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID) Messages
                   draft-ietf-mile-rfc6046-bis-02.txt

Abstract

   The Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF) defines a
   common XML format for document exchange, and Realtime Internetwork
   Defense (RID) defines extensions to IODEF intended for the
   cooperative handling of security incidents within consortia of
   network operators and enterprises.  This document specifies a
   transport protocol for RID based upon the passing of RID messages
   over HTTP/TLS.  This document updates the previous [RFC6046] to
   change the intended status to Proposed Standard, and to reference the
   updated RID specification.

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 June 8, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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



Trammell                  Expires June 8, 2012                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                RID Transport                December 2011


   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
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


1.  Introduction

   The Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF) [RFC5070]
   describes an XML document format for the purpose of exchanging data
   between Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs) or those
   responsible for security incident handling for network providers
   (NPs).  The defined document format provides an easy way for CSIRTs
   to exchange data in a way which can be easily parsed.

   IODEF defines a message format, not a transport protocol, as the
   sharing of messages is assumed to be out of scope in order to allow
   CSIRTs to exchange and store messages in a way most suited to their
   established incident handling processes.  However, Real-time Inter-
   network Defense (RID) [I-D.moriarty-mile-rfc6045-bis] do require a
   specification of a transport protocol to ensure interoperability
   among members in a RID consortium.  This document specifies the
   transport of RID messages within HTTP [RFC2616] Request and Response
   messages transported over TLS [RFC5246] (herein, HTTP/TLS).  Note
   that any IODEF message may also be transported using this mechanism,
   by sending it as a RID Report message.

1.1.  Changes from RFC6046

   This document updates [RFC6046] in the following ways:
   o  The intended status of the document is now Standards Track.
   o  The document is updated to refer to the updated RID specification,
      [I-D.moriarty-mile-rfc6045-bis], where appropriate.
   o  Language regarding the use of TCP ports for RID is clarified.
   o  The required version of TLS is upgraded to 1.1.

   Other content remains unchanged since [RFC6046].  This document, when
   published, obsoletes [RFC6046] and moves it to Historic status.


2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].





Trammell                  Expires June 8, 2012                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                RID Transport                December 2011


3.  Transmission of RID Messages over HTTP/TLS

   This section specifies the details of the transport of RID messages
   over HTTP/TLS.  In this arrangement, each RID server is both an HTTP/
   TLS server and an HTTP/TLS client.  When a RID message must be sent,
   the sending RID system connects to the receiving RID system and sends
   the message, optionally receiving a message in reply.  All RID
   systems MUST be prepared to accept HTTP/TLS connections from any RID
   peer with which it communicates, in order to support callback for
   delayed replies (see below).

   BCP 56 [RFC3205] contains a number of important considerations when
   using HTTP for application protocols.  These include the size of the
   payload for the application, whether the application will use a web
   browser, whether the protocol should be defined on a port other than
   80, and if the security provided through HTTP/TLS suits the needs of
   the new application.

   It is acknowledged within the scope of these concerns that HTTP/TLS
   is not ideally suited for RID transport, as the former is a client-
   server protocol and the latter a message-exchange protocol; however,
   the ease of implementation of RID systems over HTTP/TLS outweighs
   these concerns.  Consistent with BCP 56, RID systems listen for TCP
   connections on port 4590.  Every RID system participating in a
   consortium MUST listen for HTTP/TLS connections on the assigned port.

   RID systems SHOULD NOT use TCP port 443 (the standard port for HTTP
   over TLS/SSL) for RID messages; this avoids posting RID messages to
   web servers that may not handle RID messages correctly.

   All RID messages sent in HTTP Requests MUST be sent using the POST
   with a Request-URI of "/"; additional Request-URI paths are reserved
   for future use by RID.

   Table 1 lists the allowable RID message types in an HTTP Response for
   a given RID message type in the Request.  A RID system MUST be
   prepared to handle an HTTP Response of the given type(s) when sending
   the corresponding HTTP Request.  A RID system MUST NOT send an HTTP
   Response containing any RID message other than the one corresponding
   to the one sent in the HTTP Request.

   As the queries and replies in a RID message exchange may be
   significantly separated in time, the receiving RID system MAY return
   202 Accepted, terminate the connection, and at a later time connect
   to the requesting RID system and send the RID reply in an HTTP
   Request.  This mechanism is referred to in this document as "RID
   callback".  When performing RID callback, a responding system MUST
   connect to TCP port 4590 on the network-layer address from which the



Trammell                  Expires June 8, 2012                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                RID Transport                December 2011


   original request was sent; there is no mechanism in RID for
   redirected callback.

   While a RID system SHOULD return the reply in an HTTP Response if it
   is available immediately or within a generally accepted HTTP client
   timeout (about thirty seconds), this is not mandatory, and as such
   RID systems MUST be prepared for a query to be met with a 202
   Accepted, an empty Response body, a connection termination and a
   callback.  Note that all RID messages require a response from the
   receiving RID system, so a sending RID system can expect either an
   immediate response or a callback.

   RID systems accepting a callback message in an HTTP Request MUST
   return 202 Accepted.

   Table 1 lists the allowable request/response pairs for RID.

    +----------------------+----------+--------+----------------------+
    | Request RID type     | Callback | Result | Response RID type    |
    +----------------------+----------+--------+----------------------+
    | TraceRequest         |          | 200    | RequestAuthorization |
    | TraceRequest         |          | 200    | Result               |
    | TraceRequest         |          | 202    | [empty]              |
    | RequestAuthorization |     X    | 202    | [empty]              |
    | Result               |     X    | 202    | [empty]              |
    | Investigation        |          | 200    | Result               |
    | Investigation        |          | 202    | [empty]              |
    | Report               |     X    | 202    | [empty]              |
    | IncidentQuery        |          | 200    | Report               |
    | IncidentQuery        |          | 202    | [empty]              |
    +----------------------+----------+--------+----------------------+

                                  Table 1

   For security purposes, RID systems SHOULD NOT return 3xx Redirection
   response codes, and MUST NOT follow any 3xx Redirection.  When a RID
   System's address changes, contact point information within the
   consortium must be updated out of band.

   If a RID system receives an improper RID message in an HTTP Request,
   it MUST return an appropriate 4xx Client Error result code to the
   requesting RID system.  If a RID system cannot process a RID message
   received in an HTTP Request due to an error on its own side, it MUST
   return an appropriate 5xx Server Error result code to the requesting
   RID system.

   Note that HTTP provides no mechanism for signaling to a server that a
   response body is not a valid RID message.  If an RID system receives



Trammell                  Expires June 8, 2012                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                RID Transport                December 2011


   and improper RID message in an HTTP Response, or cannot process a RID
   message received in an HTTP Response due to an error on its own side,
   it MUST log the error and present it to the RID system administrator
   for handling; the error logging format is an implementation detail
   and is considered out of scope for this specification.

   RID systems MUST support and SHOULD use HTTP/1.1 persistent
   connections as described in [RFC2616].  RID systems MUST support
   chunked transfer encoding on the HTTP server side to allow the
   implementation of clients that do not need to precalculate message
   sizes before constructing HTTP headers.

   RID systems MUST use TLS for confidentiality, identification, and
   strong mutual authentication as in [RFC2818]; see Section 4 below for
   details.


4.  Security Considerations

   All security considerations of related documents apply, especially
   the Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF) [RFC5070] and
   Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID)
   [I-D.moriarty-mile-rfc6045-bis].  The transport described herein is
   built on the foundation of these documents; the security
   considerations contained therein are incorporated by reference.

   For transport confidentiality, identification, and authentication,
   TLS with mutual authentication MUST be used to secure the HTTP
   connection as in [RFC2818].  The session MUST use non-NULL
   ciphersuites for authentication, integrity, and confidentiality;
   sessions MAY be renegotiated within these constraints.  Although TLS
   implementations typically support the older SSL protocol, a RID peer
   MUST NOT request, offer, or use any version of SSL, or any version of
   TLS prior to 1.1 [RFC4346], due to known security vulnerabilities in
   prior versions of the protocol; see Appendix E of [RFC5246] for more.

   Each RID consortium SHOULD use a trusted public key infrastructure
   (PKI) to manage identities for RID systems participating in TLS
   connections.  At minimum, each RID system MUST trust a set of X.509
   Issuer identities ("Certificate Authorities") [RFC5280] to directly
   authenticate RID system peers with which it is willing to exchange
   information, and/or a specific white list of X.509 Subject identities
   of RID system peers.

   RID systems MUST provide for the verification of the identity of a
   RID system peer presenting a valid and trusted certificate, by
   verifying the fully qualified domain name or other network-layer
   identifier against that stored in the certificate, if available.



Trammell                  Expires June 8, 2012                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                RID Transport                December 2011


   More information on best practices in peer identity verification is
   available in [RFC6125].


5.  IANA Considerations

   Consistent with BCP 56 [RFC3205], since RID over HTTP/TLS is a
   substantially new service, and should be controlled at the consortium
   member network's border differently than HTTP/TLS, it requires a new
   port number.  IANA has assigned port 4590/tcp to RID with service
   name RID over HTTP/TLS.


6.  Acknowledgments

   The author would like to thank David Black for the review, and
   Kathleen Moriarty for work on earlier revisions of this
   specification.


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2616]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
              Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.

   [RFC2818]  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.

   [RFC3492]  Costello, A., "Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of Unicode
              for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications
              (IDNA)", RFC 3492, March 2003.

   [RFC4346]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, April 2006.

   [RFC5070]  Danyliw, R., Meijer, J., and Y. Demchenko, "The Incident
              Object Description Exchange Format", RFC 5070,
              December 2007.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.

   [RFC5280]  Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
              Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
              Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
              (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008.



Trammell                  Expires June 8, 2012                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                RID Transport                December 2011


   [I-D.moriarty-mile-rfc6045-bis]
              Moriarty, K., "Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID)",
              draft-moriarty-mile-rfc6045-bis-02 (work in progress),
              October 2011.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3205]  Moore, K., "On the use of HTTP as a Substrate", BCP 56,
              RFC 3205, February 2002.

   [RFC6046]  Moriarty, K. and B. Trammell, "Transport of Real-time
              Inter-network Defense (RID) Messages", RFC 6046,
              November 2010.

   [RFC6125]  Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and
              Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity
              within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509
              (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer
              Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, March 2011.


Author's Address

   Brian Trammell
   Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich
   Gloriastrasse 35
   8092 Zurich
   Switzerland

   Phone: +41 44 632 70 13
   Email: trammell@tik.ee.ethz.ch

















Trammell                  Expires June 8, 2012                  [Page 7]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/