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

Versions: (draft-quigley-nfsv4-labreqs) 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 7204

NFSv4                                                     T. Haynes, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                    NetApp
Intended status: Standards Track                          March 29, 2012
Expires: September 30, 2012


                      Requirements for Labeled NFS
                    draft-ietf-nfsv4-labreqs-00.txt

Abstract

   This Internet-Draft outlines high-level requirements for the
   integration of flexible Mandatory Access Control (MAC) functionality
   into NFSv4.2.  It describes the level of protections that should be
   provided over protocol components and the basic structure of the
   proposed system.  It also gives a brief explanation of what kinds of
   protections MAC systems offer.

Requirements Language

   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 RFC 2119 [1].

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 September 30, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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



Haynes                 Expires September 30, 2012               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                ReqLabledNFS                    March 2012


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

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.
































Haynes                 Expires September 30, 2012               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                ReqLabledNFS                    March 2012


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Portability & Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  Performance & Scalability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.3.  Security Services  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.4.  Label Encoding, Label Format Specifiers, and Labeling
           Authorities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.5.  Modes of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.5.1.  Full Mode  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.5.2.  Guest Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.6.  Labeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.6.1.  Client Labeling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.6.2.  Server Labeling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.7.  Policy Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       3.7.1.  Full Mode  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       3.7.2.  Guest Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     3.8.  Namespace Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     3.9.  Upgrading Existing Server  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   4.  Use Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.1.  Full MAC labeling support for remotely mounted
           filesystems  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.2.  MAC labeling of virtual machine images stored on the
           network  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.3.  International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) . . . . . 12
     4.4.  Legal Hold/eDiscovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.5.  Simple security label storage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     4.6.  Diskless Linux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     4.7.  Multi-Level Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       4.7.1.  Full Mode - MAC functional Client and Server . . . . . 14
       4.7.2.  MAC functional Client  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       4.7.3.  MAC functional Server  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   Appendix B.  RFC Editor Notes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17









Haynes                 Expires September 30, 2012               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                ReqLabledNFS                    March 2012


1.  Introduction

   Mandatory Access Control (MAC) systems have been mainstreamed in
   modern operating systems such as Linux (R), FreeBSD (R), Solaris
   (TM), and Windows Vista (R).  MAC systems bind security attributes to
   subjects (processes) and objects within a system.  These attributes
   are used with other information in the system to make access control
   decisions.

   Access control models such as Unix permissions or Access Control
   Lists are commonly referred to as Discretionary Access Control (DAC)
   models.  These systems base their access decisions on user identity
   and resource ownership.  In contrast MAC models base their access
   control decisions on the label on the subject (usually a process) and
   the object it wishes to access.  These labels may contain user
   identity information but usually contain additional information.  In
   DAC systems users are free to specify the access rules for resources
   that they own.  MAC models base their security decisions on a system
   wide policy established by an administrator or organization which the
   users do not have the ability to override.  DAC systems offer no real
   protection against malicious or flawed software due to each program
   running with the full permissions of the user executing it.
   Inversely MAC models can confine malicious or flawed software and
   usually act at a finer granularity than their DAC counterparts.

   People desire to use NFSv4 with these systems.  A mechanism is
   required to provide security attribute information to NFSv4 clients
   and servers.  This mechanism has the following requirements:

   (1)  Clients must be able to convey to the server the security
        attribute of the subject making the access request.  The server
        may provide a mechanism to enforce MAC policy based on the
        requesting subject's security attribute.

   (2)  Server must be able to store and retrieve the security attribute
        of exported files as requested by the client.

   (3)  Server must provide a mechanism for notifying clients of
        attribute changes of files on the server.

   (4)  Clients and Servers must be able to negotiate Label Formats and
        provide a mechanism to translate between them as needed.


2.  Definitions






Haynes                 Expires September 30, 2012               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                ReqLabledNFS                    March 2012


   Label Format Specifier (LFS):  is an identifier used by the client to
      establish the syntactic format of the security label and the
      semantic meaning of its components.  These specifiers exist in a
      registry associated with documents describing the format and
      semantics of the label.

   Label Format Registry:  is the IANA registry containing all
      registered LFS along with references to the documents that
      describe the syntactic format and semantics of the security label.

   Policy Identifier (PI):  is an optional part of the definition of a
      Label Format Specifier which allows for clients and server to
      identify specific security policies.

   Object:  is a passive resource within the system that we wish to be
      protected.  Objects can be entities such as files, directories,
      pipes, sockets, and many other system resources relevant to the
      protection of the system state.

   Subject:  A subject is an active entity usually a process which is
      requesting access to an object.

   Multi-Level Security (MLS):  is a traditional model where objects are
      given a sensitivity level (Unclassified, Secret, Top Secret, etc)
      and a category set [Section 46.6. Multi-Level Security (MLS) of Deployment Guide: Deployment, configuration and administration of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5, Edition 6"">8].


3.  Requirements

   The following initial requirements have been gathered from users,
   developers, and from previous development efforts in this area such
   as DTOS [9] and NSA's experimental NFSv3 enhancements [10].

3.1.  Portability & Interoperability

   LNFS must be designed with portability in mind, to facilitate
   implementations on any operating system that supports mandatory
   access controls.

   LNFS must be designed and developed to facilitate interoperability
   between different LNFS implementations.

   LNFS modifications to standard NFSv4.2 implementations must not
   adversely impact any existing interoperability of those
   implementations.






Haynes                 Expires September 30, 2012               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                ReqLabledNFS                    March 2012


3.2.  Performance & Scalability

   Security mechanisms often impact on system performance.  LNFS should
   be designed and implemented in a way which avoids significant
   performance impact where possible.

   As NFSv4.2 is designed for large-scale distributed networking, LNFS
   should also be capable of scaling in a similar manner to underlying
   implementations where possible.

   LNFS should be respond in a robust manner to system and network
   outages associated with typical enterprise and Internet environments.
   At the very least, LNFS should always operate in a fail-safe manner,
   so that service disruptions do not cause or facilitate security
   vulnerabilities.

3.3.  Security Services

   LNFS should ensure that the following security services are provided
   for all NFSv4.2 messaging.  These services may be provided by lower
   layers even if NFS has to be aware of and leverage them:

   o  Authentication

   o  Integrity

   o  Privacy

   Mechanisms and algorithms used in the provision of security services
   must be configurable, so that appropriate levels of protection may be
   flexibly specified per mandatory security policy.

   Strong mutual authentication will be required between the server and
   the client for Full Mode operation Section 3.5.1.

   MAC security labels and any related security state must always be
   protected by these security services when transferred over the
   network; as must the binding of labels and state to associated
   objects and subjects.

   LNFS should support authentication on a context granularity so that
   different contexts running on a client can use different
   cryptographic keys and facilities.

3.4.  Label Encoding, Label Format Specifiers, and Labeling Authorities

   Encoding of MAC labels and attributes passed over the network must be
   specified in a complete and unambiguous manner while maintaining the



Haynes                 Expires September 30, 2012               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                ReqLabledNFS                    March 2012


   flexibility of MAC implementations.  To accomplish this the labels
   should consist of an opaque component bound with a Label Format
   Specifier (LFS).  The opaque component consists of the label which
   will be interpreted by the MAC model on the other end while the LFS
   provides a mechanism for identifying the structure and semantics of
   the label's components.

   MAC models base access decisions on security attributes bound to
   subjects and objects.  With a given MAC model, all systems have
   semantically coherent labeling - a security label must always mean
   exactly the same thing on every system.  While this may not be
   necessary for simple MAC models it is recommended that most label
   formats assigned an LFS incorporate this concept into their label
   format.

   LNFS must provide a means for servers and clients to identify their
   LFS for the purposes of authorization, security service selection,
   and security label interpretation.

   A negotiation scheme should be provided, allowing systems from
   different label formats to agree on how they will interpret or
   translate each others labels.  Multiple concurrent agreements may be
   current between a server and a client.

   All security labels and related security state transferred across the
   network must be tagged with a valid LFS.

   If the LFS of a system changes, it should renegotiate agreements to
   reflect these changes.

   If a system receives any security label or security state tagged with
   an LFS it does not recognize or cannot interpret, it must reject that
   label or state.

   NFSv4.2 includes features which may cause a client to cross an LFS
   boundary when accessing what appears to be a single file system.  If
   LFS negotiation is supported by the client and the server, the server
   should negotiate a new, concurrent agreement with the client, acting
   on behalf of the externally located source of the files.

   LNFS should define an initial negotiation scheme with the primary
   aims of simplicity and completeness.  This is to facilitate practical
   deployment of systems without being weighed down by complex and over-
   generalized global schemes.  Future extensibility should also be
   taken into consideration.






Haynes                 Expires September 30, 2012               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                ReqLabledNFS                    March 2012


3.5.  Modes of Operation

   LNFS must cater for two potentially concurrent operating modes,
   depending on the state of MAC functionality:

3.5.1.  Full Mode

   Both the server and the client have MAC functionality enabled, and
   full LNFS functionality is extended over the network between both
   client and server.

   An example of an operation in full mode is as follows.  On the
   initial lookup, the client requests access to an object on the
   server.  It sends its process security context over to the server.
   The server checks all relevant local policies to determine if that
   process context from that client is allowed to access the resource.
   Once this has succeeded the object with its associated security
   information is released to the client.  Once the client receives the
   object it determines if its local policy allows the process running
   on the client access to the object.

   On subsequent operations where the client already has a handle for
   the file, the order of enforcement is reversed.  Since the client
   already has the security context it may make an access decision
   against its local policy first.  This enables the client to avoid
   sending requests to the server that it knows will fail regardless of
   the server's policy.  If the client passes the local policy check
   then it sends the request to the server where the client's process
   context is used to determine if the server will release that resource
   to the client.  If both checks pass, the client is given the resource
   and everything succeeds.

   In the event that the client does not trust the server, it may opt to
   use an alternate labeling mechanism regardless of the server's
   ability to return security information.

3.5.2.  Guest Mode

   Only one of the server or client has MAC functionality enabled.

   In the case of the server only having MAC functionality enabled, the
   server locally enforces its policy, and may selectively provide
   standard NFS services to clients based on their authentication
   credentials and/or associated network attributes (e.g.  IP address,
   network interface) according to security policy.  The level of trust
   and access extended to a client in this mode is configuration-
   specific.




Haynes                 Expires September 30, 2012               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                ReqLabledNFS                    March 2012


   In the case of the client only having MAC functionality enabled, the
   client must operate as a standard NFSv4.2 client, and should
   selectively provide processes access to servers based upon the
   security attributes of the local process, and network attributes of
   the server, according to policy.  The client may also override
   default labeling of the remote file system based upon these security
   attributes, or other labeling methods such as mount point labeling.

   In other words, Guest Mode is standard NFSv4.2 over the wire, with
   the MAC-aware system mapping the MAC-unaware system's processes or
   objects to security labels based on other characteristics in order to
   preserve its local MAC guarantees.

3.6.  Labeling

   Implementations must validate security labels supplied over the
   network to ensure that they are within a set of labels permitted from
   a specific peer, and if not, reject them.  Note that a system may
   permit a different set of labels to be accepted from each peer.

3.6.1.  Client Labeling

   At the client, labeling semantics for NFS mounted file systems must
   remain consistent with those for locally mounted file systems.  In
   particular, user-level labeling operations local to the client must
   be enacted locally via existing APIs, to ensure compatibility and
   consistency for applications and libraries.

   Note that this does not imply any specific mechanism for conveying
   labels over the network.

   When an object is newly created by the client, it will calculate the
   label for the object based on its local policy.  Once that is done it
   will send the request to the server which has the ability to deny the
   creation of the object with that label based on the server's policy.
   In creating the file the server must ensure that the label is bound
   to the object before the object becomes visible to the rest of the
   system.  This ensures that any access control or further labeling
   decisions are correct for the object.

3.6.2.  Server Labeling

   The server must provide the capability for clients to retrieve
   security labels on all exported file system objects where possible.
   This includes cases where only in-core and/or read-only security
   labels are available at the server for any of its exported file
   systems.




Haynes                 Expires September 30, 2012               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                ReqLabledNFS                    March 2012


   The server must honor the ability for a client to specify the label
   of an object on creation.  If the server is MAC enabled it may choose
   to reject the label specified by the client due to restrictions in
   the server policy.  The server should not attempt to find a suitable
   label for an object in event of different labeling rules on its end.
   The server is allowed to translate the label but should not change
   the semantic meaning of the label.

3.7.  Policy Enforcement

3.7.1.  Full Mode

   The server must enforce its local security policy over all exported
   objects, for operations which originate both locally and remotely.

   Requests from authenticated clients must be processed using security
   labels and credentials supplied by the client as if they originated
   locally.

   As with labeling, the system must also take into account any other
   volatile client security state, such as a change in process security
   context via dynamic transition.  Access decisions should also be made
   based upon the current client security label accessing the object,
   rather than the security label which opened it, if different.

   The client must apply its own policy to remotely located objects,
   using security labels for the objects obtained from the server.  It
   must be possible to configure the maximum length of time a client may
   cache state regarding remote labels before re-validating that state
   with the server.

   The server must recall delegation of an object if the object's
   security label changes.

   A mechanism must exist to allow the client to obtain access, and
   labeling decisions from the server for locally cached and delegated
   objects, so that it may apply the server's policy to these objects.
   If the server's policy changes, the client must flush all object
   state back to the server.  The server must ensure that any flushed
   state received is consistent with current policy before committing it
   to stable storage.

   Any local security state associated with cached or delegated objects
   must also be flushed back to the server when any other state of the
   objects is required to be flushed back.






Haynes                 Expires September 30, 2012              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                ReqLabledNFS                    March 2012


3.7.2.  Guest Mode

   If the server is MAC aware and the client is not, the server must not
   accept security labels provided by the client, and only enforce its
   local policy to exported objects.  In the event that the client is
   MAC aware while the server is not then the client may deny access or
   fall back on other methods for providing security labeling.

3.8.  Namespace Access

   The server should provide a means to authorize selective access to
   the exported file system namespace based upon client credentials and
   according to security policy.

   This is a common requirement of MLS-enabled systems, which often need
   to present selective views of namespaces based upon the clearances of
   the subjects.

3.9.  Upgrading Existing Server

   Note that under the MAC model, all objects must have labels.
   Therefore, if an existing server is upgraded to include LNFS support,
   then it is the responsibility of the security system to define the
   behavior for existing objects.  For example, if the security system
   is LFS 0, which means the server just stores and returns labels, then
   existing files should return labels which are set to an empty value.


4.  Use Cases

   MAC labeling is meant to allow NFSv4.2 to be deployed in site
   configurable security schemes.  The LFS and opaque data scheme allows
   for flexibility to meet these different implementations.  In this
   section, we provide some examples of how NFSv4.2 could be deployed to
   meet existing needs.  This is not an exhaustive listing.

4.1.  Full MAC labeling support for remotely mounted filesystems

   In this case, we assume a local networked environment where the
   servers and clients are under common administrative control.  All
   systems in this network have the same MAC implementation and
   semantically identical MAC security labels for objects (i.e. labels
   mean the same thing on different systems, even if the policies on
   each system may differ to some extent).  Clients will be able to
   apply fine-grained MAC policy to objects accessed via NFS mounts, and
   thus improve the overall consistency of MAC policy application within
   this environment.




Haynes                 Expires September 30, 2012              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                ReqLabledNFS                    March 2012


   An example of this case would be where user home directories are
   remotely mounted, and fine-grained MAC policy is implemented to
   protect, for example, private user data from being read by malicious
   web scripts running in the user's browser.  With Labeled NFS, fine-
   grained MAC labeling of the user's files will allow the local MAC
   policy to be implemented and provide the desired protection.

4.2.  MAC labeling of virtual machine images stored on the network

   Virtualization is now a commonly implemented feature of modern
   operating systems, and there is a need to ensure that MAC security
   policy is able to to protect virtualized resources.  A common
   implementation scheme involves storing virtualized guest filesystems
   on a networked server, which are then mounted remotely by guests upon
   instantiation.  In this case, there is a need to ensure that the
   local guest kernel is able to access fine-grained MAC labels on the
   remotely mounted filesystem so that its MAC security policy can be
   applied.

4.3.  International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)

   The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) is put forth by
   the United States Department of State, Directorate of Defense and
   Trade Controls.  ITAR places strict requirements on the export and
   thus access of defense articles and defense services.  Organizations
   that manage projects with articles and services deemed as within the
   scope of ITAR must ensure the regulations are met.  The regulations
   require an assurance that ITAR information is accessed on a need-to-
   know basis, thus requiring strict, centrally managed access controls
   on items labeled as ITAR.  Additionally, organizations must be able
   to prove that the controls were adequately maintained and that
   foreign nationals were not permitted access to these defense articles
   or service.  ITAR control applicability may be dynamic; information
   may become subject to ITAR after creation (e.g., when the defense
   implications of technology are recognized).

4.4.  Legal Hold/eDiscovery

   Increased cases of legal holds on electronic sources of information
   (ESI) have resulted in organizations taking a pro-active approach to
   reduce the scope and thus costs associated with these activities.
   ESI Data Maps are increasing in use and require support in operating
   systems to strictly manage access controls in the case of a legal
   hold.  The sizeable quantity of information involved in a legal
   discovery request may preclude making a copy of the information to a
   separate system that manages the legal hold on the copies; this
   results in a need to enforce the legal hold on the original
   information.



Haynes                 Expires September 30, 2012              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                ReqLabledNFS                    March 2012


   Organizations are taking steps to map out the sources of information
   that are most likely to be placed under a legal hold, these efforts
   result in ESI Data Maps.  ESI Data Maps specify the Electronic Source
   of Information and the requirements for sensitivity and criticality.
   In the case of a legal hold, the ESI data map and labels can be used
   to ensure the legal hold is properly enforced on the predetermined
   set of information.  An ESI data map narrows the scope of a legal
   hold to the predetermined ESI.  The information must then be
   protected at a level of security of which the weight and
   admissibility of that evidence may be proved in a court of law.
   Current systems use application level controls and do not adequately
   meet the requirements.  Labels may be used in advance when an ESI
   data map exercise is conducted with controls being applied at the
   time of a hold or labels may be applied to data sets during an
   eDiscovery exercise to ensure the data protections are adequate
   during the legal hold period.

   Note that this use case requires multi-attribute labels, as both
   information sensitivity (e.g., to disclosure) and information
   criticality (e.g., to continued business operations) need to be
   captured.

4.5.  Simple security label storage

   In this case, a mixed and loosely administered network is assumed,
   where nodes may be running a variety of operating systems with
   different security mechanisms and security policies.  It is desired
   that network file servers be simply capable of storing and retrieving
   MAC security labels for clients which use such labels.  The Labeled
   NFS protocol would be implemented here solely to enable transport of
   MAC security labels across the network.  It should be noted that in
   such an environment, overall security cannot be as strongly enforced
   as in case (a), and that this scheme is aimed at allowing MAC-capable
   clients to function with local MAC security policy enabled rather
   than perhaps disabling it entirely.

4.6.  Diskless Linux

   A number of popular operating system distributions depend on a
   mandatory access control (MAC) model to implement a kernel-enforced
   security policy.  Typically, such models assign particular roles to
   individual processes, which limit or permit performing certain
   operations on a set of files, directories, sockets, or other objects.
   While the enforcing of the policy is typically a matter for the
   diskless NFS client itself, the filesystem objects in such models
   will typically carry MAC labels that are used to define policy on
   access.  These policies may, for instance, describe privilege
   transitions that cannot be replicated using standard NFS ACL based



Haynes                 Expires September 30, 2012              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                ReqLabledNFS                    March 2012


   models.

   For instance on a SYSV compatible system, if the 'init' process
   spawns a process that attempts to start the 'NetworkManager'
   executable, there may be a policy that sets up a role transition if
   the 'init' process and 'NetworkManager' file labels match a
   particular rule.  Without this role transition, the process may find
   itself having insufficient privileges to perform its primary job of
   configuring network interfaces.

   In setups of this type, a lot of the policy targets (such as sockets
   or privileged system calls) are entirely local to the client.  The
   use of RPCSEC_GSSv3 for enforcing compliance at the server level is
   therefore of limited value.  The ability to permanently label files
   and have those labels read back by the client is, however, crucial to
   the ability to enforce that policy.

4.7.  Multi-Level Security

   In a MLS system objects are generally assigned a sensitivity level
   and a set of compartments.  The sensitivity levels within the system
   are given an order ranging from lowest to highest classification
   level.  Read access to an object is allowed when the sensitivity
   level of the subject "dominates" the object it wants to access.  This
   means that the sensitivity level of the subject is higher than that
   of the object it wishes to access and that its set of compartments is
   a super-set of the compartments on the object.

   The rest of the section will just use sensitivity levels.  In general
   the example is a client that wishes to list the contents of a
   directory.  The system defines the sensitivity levels as Unclassified
   (U), Secret (S), and Top Secret (TS).  The directory to be searched
   is labeled Top Secret which means access to read the directory will
   only be granted if the subject making the request is also labeled Top
   Secret.

4.7.1.  Full Mode - MAC functional Client and Server

   In the first part of this example a process on the client is running
   at the Secret level.  The process issues a readdir system call which
   enters the kernel.  Before translating the readdir system call into a
   request to the NFSv4.2 server the host operating system will consult
   the MAC module to see if the operation is allowed.  Since the process
   is operating at Secret and the directory to be accessed is labeled
   Top Secret the MAC module will deny the request and an error code is
   returned to user space.

   Consider a second case where instead of running at Secret the process



Haynes                 Expires September 30, 2012              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                ReqLabledNFS                    March 2012


   is running at Top Secret.  In this case the sensitivity of the
   process is equal to or greater than that of the directory so the MAC
   module will allow the request.  Now the readdir is translated into
   the necessary NFSv4.2 call to the server.  For the RPC request the
   client is using the proper credential to assert to the server that
   the process is running at Top Secret.

   When the server receives the request it extracts the security label
   from the RPC session and retrieves the label on the directory.  The
   server then checks with its MAC module if a Top Secret process is
   allowed to read the contents of the Top Secret directory.  Since this
   is allowed by the policy then the server will return the appropriate
   information back to the client.

   In this example the policy on the client and server were both the
   same.  In the event that they were running different policies a
   translation of the labels might be needed.  In this case it could be
   possible for a check to pass on the client and fail on the server.
   The server may consider additional information when making its policy
   decisions.  For example the server could determine that a certain
   subnet is only cleared for data up to Secret classification.  If that
   constraint was in place for the example above the client would still
   succeed, but the server would fail since the client is asserting a
   label that it is not able to use (Top Secret on a Secret network).

4.7.2.  MAC functional Client

   With a client that is MAC functional and a server which is not, this
   example is identical to the first part of the previous example.  A
   process on the client labeled Secret wishes to access a Top Secret
   directory.  As in the previous example, this is denied since Secret
   does not dominate Top Secret.  If the process were operating at Top
   Secret it would pass the local access control check and the NFSv4.2
   operation would proceed as in a normal NFSv4.2 environment.

4.7.3.  MAC functional Server

   With a MAC functional server and a client which is not, the client
   behaves as if it were in a normal NFSv4.2 environment.  Since the
   process on the client does not provide a security attribute the
   server must define a mechanism for labeling all requests from a
   client.  Assume that the server is using the same criteria used in
   the first example.  The server sees the request as coming from a
   subnet that is a Secret network.  The server determines that all
   clients on that subnet will have their requests labeled with Secret.
   Since the directory on the server is labeled Top Secret and Secret
   does not dominate Top Secret the server would fail the request with
   NFS4ERR_ACCESS.



Haynes                 Expires September 30, 2012              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                ReqLabledNFS                    March 2012


5.  Security Considerations

   When either the client or server is operating in guest mode it is
   important to realize that one side is not enforcing MAC protections.
   Alternate methods are being used to handle the lack of MAC support
   and care should be taken to identify and mitigate threats from
   possible tampering outside of these methods.


6.  IANA Considerations

   It is requested that IANA creates a registry of Label Formats to
   describe the syntactic format and semantics of the security label.


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [1]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
         Levels", March 1997.

   [2]   Eisler, M., Chiu, A., and L. Ling, "RPCSEC_GSS Protocol
         Specification", RFC 2203, September 1997.

   [3]   Haynes, T. and N. Williams, "Remote Procedure Call (RPC)
         Security Version 3", draft-williams-rpcsecgssv3 (work in
         progress), 2011.

   [4]   Quigley, D. and J. Lu, "Registry Specification for MAC Security
         Label Formats", draft-quigley-label-format-registry (work in
         progress), 2011.

   [5]   Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
         Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008.

   [6]   Eisler, M., "XDR: External Data Representation Standard",
         RFC 4506, May 2006.

   [7]   Shepler, S., Eisler, M., and D. Noveck, "Network File System
         (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1 Protocol", RFC 5661,
         January 2010.

7.2.  Informative References

   [8]   "Section 46.6. Multi-Level Security (MLS) of Deployment Guide:
         Deployment, configuration and administration of Red Hat
         Enterprise Linux 5, Edition 6", 2011.



Haynes                 Expires September 30, 2012              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                ReqLabledNFS                    March 2012


   [9]   Smalley, S., "The Distributed Trusted Operating System (DTOS)
         Home Page",
         <http://www.cs.utah.edu/flux/fluke/html/dtos/HTML/dtos.html>.

   [10]  Carter, J., "Implementing SELinux Support for NFS",
         <http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/papers/nfsv3-abs.cfm>.


Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   David Quigley was the early energy in motivating the entire LNFS
   effort.

   James Morris, Jarrett Lu, and Stephen Smalley all were key
   contributers to both early versions of this document and to many
   conference calls.

   Kathleen Moriarty provided the use cases for ITAR and Legal Hold/
   eDiscovery.

   Dan Walsh provided use cases for Secure Virtualization, Sandboxing,
   and NFS homedir labeling to handle process separation.

   Trond Myklebust provided use cases for secure diskless NFS clients.


Appendix B.  RFC Editor Notes

   [RFC Editor: please remove this section prior to publishing this
   document as an RFC]

   [RFC Editor: prior to publishing this document as an RFC, please
   replace all occurrences of RFCTBD10 with RFCxxxx where xxxx is the
   RFC number of this document]


Author's Address

   Thomas Haynes (editor)
   NetApp
   9110 E 66th St
   Tulsa, OK  74133
   USA

   Phone: +1 918 307 1415
   Email: thomas@netapp.com





Haynes                 Expires September 30, 2012              [Page 17]


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