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

Versions: 00 01 02

SMART                                                       M. McFadden
Internet-Draft                             internet policy advisors ltd
                                                               A. Mills
                                                          UWE - Bristol

Intended status: Informational                        September 9, 2020
Expires: March 9, 2021


     Textual Analysis Methodology for Security Considerations Sections
           draft-mcfadden-smart-rfc3552-textual-research-02.txt


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), 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 March 9, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document. Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
   respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
   document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in



McFadden, Mills       Expires September 9, 2020                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       RFC3552 Research Methodology        September 2020


   Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
   warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Abstract

   [RFC3552] provides guidance to authors in crafting RFC text on
   Security Considerations. The RFC is more than fifteen years old.
   With the threat landscape and security ecosystem significantly
   changed since the RFC was published, RFC3552 is a candidate for
   update. This draft proposes that, prior to drafting an update to
   RFC3552, an examination of recent, published Security Considerations
   sections be carried out as a baseline for how to improve RFC3552. It
   suggests a methodology for examining Security Considerations
   sections in published RFCs and the extraction of both quantitative
   and qualitative information that could inform a revision of the
   older guidance. It also reports on a recent experiment on textual
   analysis of sixteen years of RFC Security Consideration sections.

Table of Contents


   1. Introduction...................................................3
   2. Conventions used in this document..............................3
   3. Motivation.....................................................4
      3.1. Non-goals and scoping.....................................5
      3.2. Research Group............................................5
   4. Goals for Surveying Existing Security Considerations Sections..5
   5. Methodology....................................................5
      5.1. Methodology Overview......................................5
      5.2. Quantitative Methodology..................................6
      5.3. Qualitative Methodology...................................7
      5.4. Implications of the Size of n-set.........................7
   6. Experimental Activity..........................................8
      6.1. Experiment Methodology....................................8
      6.2. Stopword List.............................................8
      6.3. Resulting Characterization...............................10
      6.4. Indicative Results.......................................11
         6.4.1. Top Ten Word Counts in Four Sample Years............11
         6.4.2. Top Ten Word Counts Without RFC2119 Words in Four
         Sample Years...............................................12
         6.4.3. Normative RFC2119 Words in Security Considerations..12
   7. Security Considerations.......................................13
   8. IANA Considerations...........................................13
   9. References....................................................13
      9.1. Normative References.....................................13
      9.2. Informative References...................................13
   Appendix A. Document History.....................................14


McFadden, Mills         Expires March 9, 2021                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       RFC3552 Research Methodology        September 2020


   Appendix B. 75 Most Common Words in Security Considerations Sections
   .................................................................15

1. Introduction

   [RFC2223] requires that all RFCs have a Security Consideration
   section.  The motivation of the section is both to encourage RFC
   authors to consider security in protocol design and to inform
   readers of relevant security issues.  RFC3552 was published in July
   of 2003 to give guidance to RFC authors on how to write a good
   Security Considerations section.  It is structured in three parts: a
   tutorial and definitional section, then a series of guidelines, and
   finally a series of examples.

   It is possible to observe that the Internet security landscape has
   changed significantly since the publication of RFC3552. Rather than
   an immediate attempt to draft and discuss a revision to the older
   RFC, it may be prudent to learn from the experience of more than
   fifteen years of documents published since RFC3552 was approved for
   publication.

   It is possible that an examination of published Security
   Considerations sections of existing documents could give both
   quantitative and qualitative insight on how to proceed with a newer
   version of the Security Considerations guidelines. The motivation is
   to inform any discussion of a revision with quantitative and
   qualitative data gleaned from years of published RFCs.

   This document proposes a methodology for such research.

   This scope of this proposal is for the research itself. Discussion
   of relevant issues, document organization and revised content for a
   revision of RFC3552 is out of scope. Instead, the motivation is to
   guide a piece of research that would later form part of the
   foundation for a discussion of a revision to RFC3552.

2. Conventions used in this document

   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 [RFC2119].

   In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
   only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be
   interpreted as carrying significance described in RFC 2119.




McFadden, Mills         Expires March 9, 2021                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       RFC3552 Research Methodology        September 2020


3. Motivation

   Since 1998, all RFCs have been required to have a Security
   Considerations section. The authors of RFC3552 observed that
   "historically, such sections have been relatively weak."  The
   motivation for RFC3552 was, in part, to improve the quality of
   Security Considerations sections.

   Today the Internet threat model, the landscape of attacks, and our
   understanding of how to craft protocols that are more robust and
   resilient has changed significantly. Experience in both protocol
   design and implementation has greatly improved our understanding of
   the security implications of choices made during protocol design.

   It is possible that a revision of RFC3552, reflecting the changes to
   the Internet and our understanding of the evolved security landscape
   and threat model, is appropriate. The IAB is currently examining and
   reassessing the Internet's threat model [1].

   The IAB has previously discussed a potential revision to RFC3552 in
   its report from the Strengthening the Internet (STRINT) Workshop. In
   section 2 of [RFC7687], the editors report that "...the IETF may be
   in a position to start to develop an update to BCP 72 [RFC3552],
   most likely as a new RFC enhancing that BCP and dealing with
   recommendations on how to mitigate PM and how to reflect that in
   IETF work."

   If a revision were to be contemplated, it would be useful to learn
   from the body of experience of crafting Security Considerations
   sections in recent years. That body of experience could inform the
   discussion of what makes up a good Security Considerations section
   by collecting real-world data from existing RFCs.  It would be
   possible to have a survey of the existing Security Considerations
   sections in published RFCs. The data collected from that survey
   could provide one source of information for discussion of how to
   improve upon RFC3552 in the current environment.

   For such a survey to be successful, an outline of some basic goals
   and a methodology would be required. This document provides those
   goals and methodology. The intent is that individuals or
   organizations could then carry out such a survey, publish the
   results and use that data to inform any discussion of a potential
   3552bis.

   This draft also documents the results of a recent experiment to
   conduct an automated survey of words in Security Considerations
   sections.


McFadden, Mills         Expires March 9, 2021                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       RFC3552 Research Methodology        September 2020


3.1. Non-goals and scoping

   This document specifically does not make suggestions for changes to
   RFC3552. It also does not identify changes to the Internet threat
   model or the general security landscape that has changed since that
   RFC has been published.

   The scope of this document is to provide a basic set of goals for
   research on existing Security Considerations sections and establish
   a methodology for conducting that research.

3.2. Research Group

   The research work suggested in this document was envisioned and
   intended to be carried out as a research activity of the proposed
   Stopping Malware and Researching Threats (SMART) research group in
   the IRTF. The work could also be conducted independently and
   submitted as an Independent Submission in the IETF.

4. Goals for Surveying Existing Security Considerations Sections

   A cursory examination of recent years' Security Considerations
   sections shows that authors publish a wide variety of these
   sections. This is natural since the RFC series has a diverse set of
   purposes and readership.

   However, even a cursory examination shows that published Security
   Considerations sections have some clear characteristics. Identifying
   useful characteristics and then surveying the existing base of
   published RFCs may provide a useful base of information for a later
   discussion of revising RFC3552.

   The goal of surveying existing Security Considerations sections is
   to provide quantitative and qualitative data, from existing,
   published RFCs, that can be used to inform a discussion of revising
   RFC3552.

5. Methodology

5.1. Methodology Overview

   The survey of existing Security Considerations sections would
   examine a subset of RFCs published since the publication of RFC3552.
   RFCs obsoleted by later publications, RFCs that are reports from IAB
   activities and IETF, IRTF, and IESG administrative RFC are omitted
   from consideration.



McFadden, Mills         Expires March 9, 2021                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       RFC3552 Research Methodology        September 2020


   The survey should select a specific timeframe, across which, all
   RFCs published in that period are examined.

   The examination proceeds in two parts: a quantitative examination of
   the Security Considerations sections and then a qualitative
   examination.

   As an example, the quantitative examination might survey and collect
   data on the source of the RFC (e.g. Security Area, Routing Area,
   Transport Area), whether the RFC extends the Security Considerations
   section of a previously published document, the wordcount of the
   section, and the existence of specific keywords.

   The qualitative analysis might group Security Considerations
   sections by particular characteristics - those characteristics being
   discovered, in part, during an initial examination of the published
   documents.

5.2. Quantitative Methodology

   Once the set of RFCs (where the size of the set is said to be n-set)
   to be considered is established, the quantitative analysis proceeds
   as follows for each item in the set:

   o  recording the date of publication

   o  recording the source of the original draft

   o  recording the category of the RFC (e.g. Informational, etc.)

   o  recording the size of the Security Considerations section in
      words and paragraphs

   o  recording whether or not the section updates or extends the
      Security Considerations section of a previously published
      document

   o  record whether or not examples exist in the Security
      Considerations section

   o  record whether or not example code appears in the Security
      Considerations section

   o  extracting the text and creating a new text removing the 100 most
      common English words




McFadden, Mills         Expires March 9, 2021                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       RFC3552 Research Methodology        September 2020


   o  against the new text created in the step above, perform text
      analytics - for instance, create a count of the number of
      occurrences of expected keywords

   The result would be a series of metrics for n-set that establish
   certain characteristics of the Security Considerations sections of
   published RFCs. Once the quantitative data was gathered, further
   analysis of the data could be conducted (for instance, finding
   relationships between certain features of the RFCs).

5.3. Qualitative Methodology

   The documents could also be assigned qualitative characteristics as
   a result of the survey. For instance, based on characteristics of
   the document, the Security Considerations could be characterized as
   "extensive" or "limited."

   It is also clear that analysis of the Security Considerations could
   lead to other groupings.  For instance, an analysis of recent RFCs
   shows that those documents which focus on cipher suites have quite
   different security considerations sections compared to those that
   extend and existing protocol.  Identification of those
   characteristics might be possible during an initial survey. In
   another case, those characteristics might emerge during the survey
   execution.

5.4. Implications of the Size of n-set

   Since part of the execution of the survey has to be done via human
   intervention, the size of n-set has an effect on whether or not
   volunteers or organizations take on the effort. While it would be
   helpful to have as large a sample size as possible for the
   collection of data to support the analysis. It may be necessary to
   limit the size of n-set in practice.

   One way to do this is to limit the range of dates for the RFCs being
   analyzed. A cursory, initial examination of Security Considerations
   sections seems to indicate that, in recent years, a clear set of
   prototypical security considerations sections has emerged and that
   there are distinct type of sections. By limiting the RFCs for the
   set of considered document to a specific, recent timeframe the goal
   is to focus the analysis on recent practice in crafting Security
   Considerations sections and moving them through the document
   approval process.

   Another approach to solving the potential problem of the size of n-
   set is to incorporate a sampling regime for the selection of RFCs to


McFadden, Mills         Expires March 9, 2021                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       RFC3552 Research Methodology        September 2020


   be examined. This would be a meaningful approach in the event where
   the timeframe was extended, but where it was still desirable to
   reduce the size of n-set.

   This proposal suggests to use the timeframe limitation but not
   incorporate sampling.

6. Experimental Activity

   One of the authors has conducted an experiment that is consistent
   with many of the features of the methodology in Section 5 above.
   This experiment uses a pair of Python scripts to extract the
   Security Considerations sections from historic RFCs and then parse
   those sections to get word frequency information from those Security
   Considerations.

   The initial experiment was motivated by a desire to see if one could
   detect changes in Security Considerations section wording after
   significant security incidents in the public Internet.  In
   particular, the experiment was designed to detect changes in the
   frequency of words over time.

6.1. Experiment Methodology

   The RFC series was grouped into input files based on the year of
   publication of the RFC.

   Using HTML versions of the RFC series document as input, these were
   put through an open source parser.  The parser then identified the
   words "Security Consideration" or "Security" in header text. It then
   output that text to a temporary file in UTF-8 encoding until the
   parser encountered the next section.

   The parser removed non-textual material from the temporary files
   including hyphens, RFC references, anchor URLs, other sections
   references, standalone letters and other characters that were not
   words.

   It then built a frequency list for all words not in a designated
   list of words not to be counted.  This list is a variable and could
   be changed to include, or exclude, words from the designated list.

6.2. Stopword List

   The following list of words were used as the designated list of
   words not to be counted:



McFadden, Mills         Expires March 9, 2021                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       RFC3552 Research Methodology        September 2020


     . Also

     . Could

     . Would

     . However

     . One

     . See

     . Use

     . Therefore

     . Discussed

     . New

     . March

     . Type

     . Even

     . Following

     . Without

     . Bradner

     . Using

     . Described

     . Might

     . Thus

     . Two

     . Since

     . Different

     . Number


McFadden, Mills         Expires March 9, 2021                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft       RFC3552 Research Methodology        September 2020


     . Via

     . Mechanism

     . Used

     . Tl

     . Header

     . Field

     . Name

     . Sent

6.3. Resulting Characterization

   The result of this experiment is a pair of files for each year
   starting in 2003. The two files for each year are:

     . A word frequency file sorted by the number of times a
        particular word appears in the Security Considerations section
        of RFCs published in that year; and,

     . An RFC Count file that counts how many times each RFC was
        mentioned within the Security Considerations sections.

   The idea behind the second file was to see if there was a trend or
   change in the RFCs cited and what this might suggest or say in
   regards to the content of these sections. For example in 2004 the
   highest referenced RFC was [RFC3410] Applicability Statements for
   SNMP in 2009 it was [RFC4301] Security Architecture for IP though
   [RFC3410] was also referenced a high number of times.

   As [RFC4301] came out in 2005 we would not expect it to be
   referenced in 2004, but the reference count in 2009 could indicate
   that there were a number of RFCs which likely simply referred to the
   Security Considerations Section of this RFC in a line similar to
   "this extends the security consideration of <insert RFC here>." This
   could then be used to help narrow down qualitative focus on this
   highly referenced RFCs and to also see if in some cases lip service
   is all that is occurring within other Security Considerations
   Sections.

   Another result, included with the word frequency file, is a list of
   words similar to the word "security" based on context analysis. This


McFadden, Mills         Expires March 9, 2021                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft       RFC3552 Research Methodology        September 2020


   is another indicator that can be used to look at how the language of
   the RFC series is changing. For example looking at 2004 the most
   similar words are:

     . Used, ipsec, mode, authentication, implementation, message,
        may, watcher, method and block.

   In 2009:

     . Message, attacker, syslog, used, attack, information,
        transport, gruu, may and case.

   Yet another result was a file that provides comparative data for
   word counts in the Security Considerations and Privacy
   Considerations sections of published RFCs. The result provides a
   look at whether the length of those sections might have changed over
   time.

   A final result was a Frequency count over the entire period examined
   for Internet Standards, BCPs, and Proposed Standards. This result
   gives indication of whether or not the average length of these
   sections has changed - either over time, or in response to specific
   security incidents on the public Internet.

6.4. Indicative Results

   This draft is focused on proposing a methodology and not on the
   experiment being reported on here.  However, there are some
   indicative results that may be of use as a future methodology is
   considered. It is worth observing that the original motivation for
   the experiment - to see if Security Considerations sections changed
   in the face of security-related events on the public Internet -
   showed that no significant re-wording took place over the timeframe
   studied.

6.4.1. Top Ten Word Counts in Four Sample Years

   Choosing four sample years - 2019 2014 2009 and 2004 as examples,
   the experiment found the following most frequent words in Security
   Considerations sections (the lists are in most frequent to tenth
   most frequent).

     . 2019 - security, server, data, message, may, network, attack,
        information, client, xmpp-grid

     . 2014 - security, information, attack, message, may, used,
        server, data, authentication, network


McFadden, Mills         Expires March 9, 2021                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft       RFC3552 Research Methodology        September 2020


     . 2009 - security, may, message, address, attack, used, packet,
        protocol, network, information

     . 2004 - security, may, key, authentication, object, used,
        information, message, attack, access

6.4.2. Top Ten Word Counts Without RFC2119 Words in Four Sample Years

   Taking the same data and removing the normative words that are
   defined in RFC2119 leads to slightly different results.

     . 2019 - security, server, data, message, network, attack,
        information, client, xmpp-grid, document

     . 2014 - security, information, message, used, server, data,
        authentication, network, attacker

     . 2009 - security, message, address, attack, used, packet,
        protocol, network, information, object

     . 2004 - security, key, authentication, object, used,
        information, message, attack, access, user

6.4.3. Normative RFC2119 Words in Security Considerations

   The word MAY always appears more often than any other RFC2119 word
   in Security Considerations sections. The word MUST most often
   appears after MAY and is often in the top 15 words sorted by
   frequency.

   However, the word SHOULD hardly ever appears in the top 100 most
   frequent words for any year of published RFCs.

   Most Frequent Words in Proposed Standards Security Considerations

   Over the entire period 2003-2019, the most frequent non-normative
   words in Security Considerations sections was:

     . Security, message, attack, server, information, key,
        authentication, network, protocol, client

   A list of the 75 most commonly, non-normative words is provided in
   Appendix B.






McFadden, Mills         Expires March 9, 2021                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft       RFC3552 Research Methodology        September 2020


7. Security Considerations

   This document describes goals and a methodology for surveying the
   existing body of Security Considerations in published RFCs. It does
   not create, extend or modify any protocols. Its intent is to provide
   a foundation for a data-driven discussion of the guidelines for
   writing a Security Considerations section in an RFC.

8. IANA Considerations

   Upon publication, this document has no required actions for IANA.

9. References

9.1. Normative References

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

   [RFC2223] Postel J. and Reynolds J., ISI, "Instructions to RFC
             Authors", RFC2223, October 1997.

   [RFC3552] Rescorla E. and Korver B.(Editors), "Guidelines for
             Writing RFC Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72,
             RFC3552, July 2003.

   [RFC7687] Farrell S., Wenning R., Bos B., Blanchet M. and Tschofenig
             H., "Report from the Strengthening the Internet (STRINT)
             Workshop, RFC 7687, December 2015

9.2. Informative References

   [1]   Model-t -- Discussions of changes in Internet deployment
         patterns and their impact on the Internet threat model,
         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/model-t

   [2]   Acknowledgments

   This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.










McFadden, Mills         Expires March 9, 2021                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft       RFC3552 Research Methodology        September 2020


Appendix A.                 Document History

   -00

   Initial Internet Draft

   -01

   Section 6 and Appendix B are added. Significant editing of Section 3
   on Motivation and Section 5 on Methodology. Several typos fixed.

   -02

   This draft was presented at the combined RIPE MAT and IRTF MAPRG
   meeting held on August 8,2020. Many of the comments during that
   session focused on the fact that words like privacy and surveillance
   did not appear in the lists of most commonly used words. After
   presentation, a quick check indicates that those words, after the
   publication of [RFC7258] do not appear int eh Security
   Considerations sections of those documents.

   The MAPRG presentation of this draft is available at the following
   URL:

   https://trac.ietf.org/trac/irtf/wiki/map
























McFadden, Mills         Expires March 9, 2021                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft       RFC3552 Research Methodology        September 2020


Appendix B.                 75 Most Common Words in Security Considerations Sections

   Over the entire period 2003-2019, the 75 most frequent words in
   Security Considerations sections was (in order by frequency):

   security, message, attack, data, used, may, authentication, key,
   access, protocol, information, must, address, transport, process,
   model, client, server, network, ipfix, tl, user, traffic, packet,
   object, operation, control, service, ipp, example, document,
   implementation, measurement, collecting, secure, header, attacker,
   identity, value, job, need, support, snmp, provide, printer, uri,
   certificate, authenticated, possible, name, content, source,
   connection, field, set, system, dtls, cause, sensitive, domain,
   provides, configuration, router, privacy, protection, peer, nacm,
   layer, ip, device, exporting, within, request, large, and signature.


































McFadden, Mills         Expires March 9, 2021                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft       RFC3552 Research Methodology        September 2020


Authors' Addresses

   Mark McFadden
   Internet policy advisors ltd
   Madison Wisconsin US

   Email: mark@internetpolicyadvisors.com

   Alan Mills
   University of the West of England, Bristol
   Bristol BS16 1QY United Kingdom

   Email: Alan2.Mills@live.uwe.ac.uk




































McFadden, Mills         Expires March 9, 2021                 [Page 16]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/