--- 1/draft-ietf-opes-end-comm-03.txt 2006-02-05 00:55:56.000000000 +0100 +++ 2/draft-ietf-opes-end-comm-04.txt 2006-02-05 00:55:56.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,17 +1,17 @@ Network Working Group A. Barbir Internet-Draft Nortel Networks -Expires: April 3, 2004 October 4, 2003 +Expires: March 31, 2004 Oct. 2003 - OPES processor and end points communications - draft-ietf-opes-end-comm-03 + OPES entities and end points communication + draft-ietf-opes-end-comm-04 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. @@ -19,448 +19,548 @@ 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 April 3, 2004. + This Internet-Draft will expire on March 31, 2004. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This memo documents tracing and non-blocking requirements for Open Pluggable Edge Services (OPES). Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. OPES System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Requirements for OPES Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1 What is traceable in an OPES Flow? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3.2 Requirements for Information Related to Traceable Entities . . 6 + 3.2 Requirements for OPES System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3 Requirements for OPES processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.4 Requirements for callout servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 3.5 Protocol Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 4. Non-Blocking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 17 + 4. Requirements for OPES System Bypass (Non-blocking feature) . . 8 + 4.1 What can be bypassed in an OPES Flow? . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 4.2 Bypass requirements for OPES System . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 4.3 Bypass requirements for OPES processors . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 4.4 Bypass requirements for callout servers . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 5. Protocol Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 6. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 7.1 Tracing security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 7.2 Bypass security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 19 1. Introduction - The Open Pluggable Edge Services (OPES) architecture [8] enables + The Open Pluggable Edge Services (OPES) architecture [7] enables cooperative application services (OPES services) between a data provider, a data consumer, and zero or more OPES processors. The application services under consideration analyze and possibly transform application-level messages exchanged between the data provider and the data consumer. - This work specify the requirements for providing tracing - functionality for the OPES architecture [8]. Tracing functionality - enables a data provider application to detect inappropriate actions - that are performed by OPES entities. The work also develops - requirements that can be used to fulfill IAB Notification and - Non-Blocking requirements [2]. + This work specifies the requirements for providing tracing + functionality for the OPES architecture [7]. Tracing functionality + enables a data provider or a data consumer application to detect + inappropriate actions that are performed by OPES entities. The work + also develops requirements that can be used to fulfill IAB + Notification and Bypass (Non-Blocking) requirements [2]. - The architecture document requires [8] that tracing be supported + The architecture document requires [7] that tracing is supported in-band. This design goal limits the type of application protocols that OPES can support. The details of what a trace record can convey - is also dependent on the choice of the application level protocol. + are also dependent on the choice of the application level protocol. For these reasons, this work documents requirements for application - protocols that need to support OPES traces and non-blocking. However, - the architecture does not prevent implementers of developing - out-of-band protocols and techniques to address these limitation. + protocols that need to support OPES traces and non-blocking + mechanism. However, the architecture does not prevent implementers of + developing out-of-band protocols and techniques to address these + limitation. 2. OPES System This sections provides a definition of OPES System. This is needed in order to define what is traceable in an OPES Flow. - Definition: An OPES System is a set of all OPES entities authorized - by either the data provider or the data consumer application to - process a given application message. + Definition: An OPES System is a set of all OPES entities [7] + authorized by either the data provider or the data consumer + application to process a given application message. The nature of the authorization agreement determines if authority - delegation is transitive (meaning an authorized entities is - authorized to include other entities). Transitive authority - delegation is common in information systems. + delegation is transitive (meaning an authorized entity is authorized + to include other entities). If specific authority agreements allow for re-delegation, an OPES system can be formed by induction. In this case, an OPES system starts with entities directly authorized by a data provider (or a data consumer) application. The OPES system then includes any OPES entity authorized by an entity that is already in the OPES system. The authority delegation is always viewed in the context of a given application message. An OPES System is defined on an application message basis. Having an authority to process a message does not imply being involved in message processing. Thus, some OPES system members may not participate in processing of a message. Similarly, some members may process the same message several times. - The above definition implies that there can be no more than one OPES - system processing a single message at a given time. This is based on - the assumption that there is a single data provider and a single data - consumer as far as a given application message is concerned. + The above definition implies that there can be no more than two OPES + systems [Client-side and server-side OPES systems can process the + same message at the same time] processing the same message at a given + time. This is based on the assumption that there is a single data + provider and a single data consumer as far as a given application + message is concerned. For example, consider a Content Delivery Network (CDN) delivering an image on behalf of a busy web site. OPES processors and services that the CDN uses to adapt and deliver the message comprise an OPES - system. In a more complex example, an OPES System would contain CDN + System. In a more complex example, an OPES System would contain CDN entries as well as 3rd-party OPES entities that CDN engages to perform adaptations (e.g., to adjust image quality). 3. Requirements for OPES Tracing In an OPES System tracing is defined as the inclusion of necessary - information within a message in an OPES Flow that identify the set of - transformations or adaptations that have been performed on it before - its delivery to an end point (for example, the data consumer - application). An OPES trace represents a snap shot of the tracing - information that have been added to a given application message. + information within a message in an OPES Flow that identify the + collection of transformations or adaptations that have been performed + on it before its delivery to an end point (for example, the data + consumer application). An OPES trace represents a snap shot of the + tracing information that have been added to a given application + message. A trace represents the collections of transformations on an + application message in the order that were performed. A traceable + entity can appear multiple times in a trace (every time it acts on a + message). In an OPES System tracing is performed on per message basis. Trace format is dependent on the application protocol that is being adapted - by OPES. A Data consumer application can use OPES trace to infer the - actions that have been performed by the OPES system. Actions are the - set of authorized OPES services that were performed by OPES entities - in an OPES System. + by OPES. A data consumer application can use OPES trace to infer the + actions that have been performed by the OPES System. Actions are the + set of OPES services that were performed by OPES entities in an OPES + System. - Providing tracing information, MUST take into account the following - considerations: + In an OPES System, the task of providing tracing information, can + depend on many factors. Some considerations are: o Providers may be hesitant to reveal information about their internal network infrastructure. o Within a service provider network, OPES processors may be configured to use non-routable, private IP addresses. - o A Data consumer applications would prefer to have a single point + o A data consumer applications would prefer to have a single point of contact regarding the trace information. + In an OPES System some OPES services are message-agnostic and operate + on message content or parts of a message. Such services do not + manipulate message headers. Other services can manipulate message + headers. OPES providers require some freedom in the way they deliver + tracing information to an end point. + 3.1 What is traceable in an OPES Flow? This section focuses on identifying traceable entities in an OPES Flow. Tracing information provides a data consumer application (or a data - provider application) with useful information without tracing the - exact OPES Processor or callout servers that adapted the data. For - example, some OPES services are message-agnostic and operate on - message content or parts of a message. Such services cannot - manipulate message headers. Hence, a data consumer application would - be interested in knowing that a translation service on the message - content was performed. It does not need to know the exact entity that - has performed the service. - - There are two distinct uses of OPES traces. First, a trace enables an - "end (content provider or consumer) to detect the presence of OPES - processors within an OPES System. Such "end" should be able to see a - trace entry, but does not need to be able to interpret it beyond - identification of the OPES System. + provider application) with information about OPES entities that + adapted the data. There are two distinct uses of OPES traces. First, + a trace enables an "end (content provider or consumer) to detect the + presence of OPES processors within an OPES System. Such "end" should + be able to see a trace entry, but does not need to be able to + interpret it beyond identification of the OPES System. Second, the OPES System administrator is expected to be able to - interpret the contents of an OPES trace. The trace can be provided by - an end (data consumer or provider) as an opaque string. The - administrator can use the trace information to identify the - participating OPES processor(s). The administrator can use the trace - to identify the applied adaptation services along with other - message-specific information. + interpret the contents of an OPES trace. The trace can be relayed to + the administrator by an end (data consumer or provider) without + interpretation, as opaque data (e.g., a TCP packet or an HTTP message + snapshot). The administrator can use the trace information to + identify the participating OPES entities. The administrator can use + the trace to identify the applied adaptation services along with + other message-specific information. Since the administrators of various OPES Systems can have various - ways of looking into tracing, they MAY require the choice of freedom - in what to put in trace records and how to format them. Trace records + ways of looking into tracing, they require the choice of freedom in + what to put in trace records and how to format them. Trace records should be easy to extend beyond basic OPES requirements. Trace management algorithms should treat trace records as opaque data to the extent possible. At the implementation level, for a given trace, an OPES entity involved in handling the corresponding application message is traceable or traced if information about it appears in that trace. OPES entities have different levels of traceability requirements. Specifically, - o An OPES system MUST add its entry to the trace. - o An OPES processor SHOULD add its entry to the trace. o An OPES service May add its entry to the trace. - o An OPES entity MAY manage trace information from entities that are - under its control. For example, an OPES processor may add or - remove callout service entries in order to manage the size of a - trace. + o An OPES entity MAY delegate addition of its trace entry to another + OPES entity. For example, an OPES System can have a dedicated OPES + processor for adding System entries; an OPES processor can use a + callout service to manage all OPES trace manipulations (since such + manipulations are OPES adaptations). - From an OPES context, a good tracing approach is similar to a trouble + In an OPES context, a good tracing approach is similar to a trouble ticket ready for submission to a known address. The address is printed on the ticket. The trace in itself is not necessarily a detailed description of what has happened. It is the responsibility of the operator to resolve the problems. -3.2 Requirements for Information Related to Traceable Entities +3.2 Requirements for OPES System - The following MUST requirements apply for information as related to - entities that are traceable in an OPES flow: + The following requirements apply for information as related to an + OPES System: - o Identification of the OPES System privacy policy at the time it - dealt with the message. + o An OPES system MUST add its identification to the trace. - o Identification of the party responsible for setting and enforcing - that policy. + o An OPES System MUST include information about its privacy policy. - o Information pointing to a technical contact. + o An OPES System MUST identify the party responsible for setting and + enforcing that policy. - o Information that identifies, to the technical contact, the OPES - processors involved in processing the message. + o An OPES System MUST include information pointing to a technical + contact. -3.3 Requirements for OPES processors + o An OPES System MUST include information that identifies, to the + technical contact, the OPES processors involved in processing the + message. - The requirements for OPES processors that are applicable to tracing - are: + In addressing the above requirements and in order to reduce the size + of the trace, an OPES System can provide a URL to the OPES System web + page that has links to privacy and other policies. - o Each OPES processor MUST be uniquely identified in an OPES System. +3.3 Requirements for OPES processors + + Tracing requirements for OPES processors are: o Each OPES processor MUST support tracing, policy can be used to turn tracing on and to determine its granularity. - o If tracing is turned on, then the OPES processor MUST add its - identification to the trace. + o If tracing is turned on, OPES processor SHOULD add its unique + identification to the trace. Here, uniqueness scope is the OPES + System containing the processor. o OPES processor SHOULD be able to trace it's own invocation and service(s) execution since it understands the application - protocol. To fulfill this: - - * An OPES processor MAY have a fixed configuration that enable it - to respond to tracing inquires. For example, entity X performs - service Y and so on. - - * An OPES processor MAY package tracing information related to - the entities that it control based on the policy of a given - OPES System. For example, the trace may state that service W - was performed. The OPES processor knows that service W is - composed of services X, Y and Z in a given order - - o An OPES processor SHOULD add to the trace identification of every - callout service that processed the application message. - - o An OPES processor MAY delegate trace management to a callout - service within the same OPES System. + protocol. 3.4 Requirements for callout servers In an OPES system, it is the task of an OPES processor to add trace records to application messages. However, in some cases, callout servers May add trace information to application messages. This should be done under the control of the OPES System provider. -3.5 Protocol Binding +4. Requirements for OPES System Bypass (Non-blocking feature) - The task of adding tracing information is application protocol - specific. Separate documents will address HTTP and other protocols. - This work documents what tracing information is required and some - common tracing elements. + IAB recommendation (3.3) [2] requires that the OPES architecture does + not prevent a data consumer application from retrieving non-OPES + version of content from a data provider application, provided that + the non-OPES content exists. IAB recommendation (3.3) suggests that + the Non-blocking feature (Bypass) be used to bypass faulty OPES + intermediaries (once they have been identified, by some method). -4. Non-Blocking + In addressing IAB consideration (3.3), one need to specify what + constitute non-OPES content. In some cases, the definition of + "non-OPES" content is provider-dependent and may include content + adapted by OPES. Examples include content that is adapted for Black + and White hand held devices or logging services. In other cases, the + availability of certain content can be a function of the internal + policy of a given organization that has contracted the services of an + OPES provider. For example, Company A has as contract with an OPES + provider to perform virus checking on all e-mail attachments. An + employee X of Company A can issue a non-blocking request for the + virus scanning service. However, the request could be ignored by the + OPES provider since it contradicts its agreement with Company A. - In [9] recommendation addresses the issue of non-blocking in an OPES - System. The recommendation is restated below for ease of reference. + The above examples illustrates that the availability of non-OPES + content can be a function of content providers (or consumers or both) + policy and deployment scenarios [1]. For this reason, this work does + not attempt to define what is an OPES content as opposed to non-OPES + content. The meaning of OPES versus non-OPES content is assumed to be + determined through various agreements between the OPES provider, data + provider and data consumer application. The agreement will also + determine what OPES services can be bypassed and in what order (if + applicable). - (3.3) Non-blocking: If there exists a non-OPES version of content - available from the content provider, the OPES architecture must - not prevent users from retrieving this non-OPES version from the - content provider. + In an OPES System a Bypass request is defined as the act of avoiding + the invocation of a service(s) that is identified by a URI within a + message in an OPES Flow before its delivery to an end point (for + example, the data consumer application). - The IAB recommendation implies that it is up to the content provider - to make non-OPES versions of a given content available. The actual - meaning of non-OPES version of the content depended on the agreement - between the OPES provider and the content provider. The agreement can - allow OPES to perform some services (such as logging services) and - prevent it from performing other services (such as data to audio - transformation). +4.1 What can be bypassed in an OPES Flow? - Whether an OPES System honor a non-blocking request from a data - consumer application (user) can also be a function of deployment. - Consider the case where Company A has as contract with an OPES - provider to perform virus checking on all e-mail attachments. An - employee X of Company A can issue a non-blocking request for the - virus scanning service. However, the request could be ignored by the - OPES provider since it contradicts its agreement with Company A. As - a second example, a user may issue a non-blocking request for adult - content, this request may be declined by the OPES provider simply - because it contradicts its internal policy or its agreement with the - end subscriber. + In this work, the focus is on developing a bypass feature that allow + a user to instruct the OPES System to bypass some or all of its + services. The collection of OPES services that can be bypassed is a + function of the agreement of the OPES provider with either (or both) + the content provider or the content consumer applications. In the + general case, a Bypass request is viewed as a bypass instruction that + contains a URI that identifies an OPES entity or a group of OPES + entities that perform a service (or services) to be bypassed. An + instruction may contain more than one such URI. A special wildcard + identifier can be used to represent all possible URIs (i.e., all + possible OPES services). - In some cases, a data consumer application will issue a non-blocking - request since it suspects that the OPES System is corrupting the - data. For example, an OPES entity has determined that a Virus is - present in an attachment, while the user is aware that some versions - of virus scanners will make that mistake. In this case, the user can - use the non-blocking technique (can be used in combination with the - tracing facility) to solve the problem. However, whether the OPES - System will honor the non-blocking request or not is still a function - of the deployment scenario, content availability and related +4.2 Bypass requirements for OPES System + + In an OPES System the Bypass feature is an end-to-end operation as + opposed to a hop-by-hop operation. Bypass requests are generally + client centric and go in the opposite direction of tracing requests. + Bypass can be performed out of band or in-band. This work requires + that the Bypass feature be performed in-band as an extension to an + application specific protocol. Non-OPES entities should be able to + safely ignore these extensions. The work does not prevent OPES + Systems from developing their own out of band protocols. + + The following requirements apply for Bypass feature as related to an + OPES System: + + o An OPES system MUST support a Bypass feature. This means that the + OPES System bypasses an entity whose URI is identified by an OPES + end (usually data consumer application). + + o An OPES System MUST treat a Bypass request as an end-to-end + operation. This applies to the whole system. + + o An OPES System MUST include information about its bypass policy. + + o An OPES System MUST identify the party responsible for setting and + enforcing the bypass policy. + + o An OPES System MUST include information that identifies, to a + technical contact, the OPES processors involved in processing the + bypass request. + + In addressing the above requirements an OPES System can provide a URL + to the OPES System web page that has links to Bypass and other policies. - Like tracing, Non-blocking operates on per application message bases. - Non-Blocking is an end-end operation as opposed to a hop-by-hop - operation. Non-blocking requests are generally client centric and go - in the opposite direction of tracing requests. Non-blocking can be - performed out of band or in-band. This work requires non-blocking to - be performed in-band as an extension to an application specific - protocol. Non-OPES entities should be able to safely ignore the - extensions. The work does not prevent OPES Systems from developing - their own out of band protocols. + In order to facilitate the debugging (or data consumer user + experience) of the bypass feature in an OPES System, it would be + beneficial if non-bypassed entities include information related to + why they ignored the bypass instruction. It is important to note that + in some cases the tracing facility itself may be broken and the whole + OPES System (or part) may need to be bypassed through the issue of a + bypass instruction. - Non-blocking format is dependent on the application protocol that is - being adapted by OPES. For a given application protocol, in an OPES - System there can be services that operate on application message - headers and those that just operate on content. This mix of service - requires that an OPES processor that is calling the service(s) to - handle the non-blocking request. In some cases, the first OPES - processor that will get the non-blocking request may not be the first - OPES processor that will know whether a non-OPES version of the - content is available or not. +4.3 Bypass requirements for OPES processors - In an OPES System, the OPES provider is expected to configure at - least one OPES processor to process a non-blocking header based on - content availability and related policies. In this case the OPES - processor is expected to determine the set of services that will be - bypassed (or those services that will be performed) or whether the - request should be forwarded directly to the data provider application - (origin content provider). + For a given application protocol, in an OPES System there can be + services that operate on application message headers and those that + just operate on content. This mix of service requires that an OPES + processor that is calling the service(s) to handle the bypass + request. In some cases, the first OPES processor that will get the + bypass request may not be the first OPES processor that will know + whether a non-OPES version of the content is available or not. - Although, IAB recommendation (3.3) has intended for non-blocking - approach to be used as a vehicle to bypass faulty OPES - intermediaries. However, this work recognizes that the same technique - can be used to enable a data consumer application to select the set - of services that it would like to be bypassed for a given application - message. For this reason, a non-blocking request is viewed as a - bypass instruction that contains a URI that identifies an OPES entity - or a group of OPES entities that perform a service (or services) to - be bypassed. An instruction may contain more than one such URI. A - special wildcard identifier can be used to represent all possible - URIs (i.e., all possible OPES services). This version of the work - requires that all non-blocking instructions to use the wildcard - approach. + Bypass requirements for OPES processors are: - For example, an application level protocol (such as HTTP) can be - extended to include the following OPES non-blocking related header: + o There MUST be at least one OPES processor in an OPES System that + knows how to interpret and process a bypass request. This + requirement applies to all bypass instructions, including those + that identify known-to-recipient entities. - OPES-Bypass: * + o OPES processors that do not know how to process a bypass request + MUST forward the request to the next application hop provided that + the next hop speaks application protocol with OPES bypass support. - The following requirements apply for non-blocking feature: + o The recipient of a bypass instruction with a URI that does not + identify any known-to-recipient OPES entity MUST treat that URI as + a wildcard identifier (meaning bypass all applicable services). - o An OPES System MUST support the non-blocking feature for requests - of non-OPES content for a given application message. + o OPES processor SHOULD be able to bypass it's own invocation and + service(s) execution since it understands the application + protocol. - o An OPES System MUST treat the non-blocking feature as an - end-to-end operation. +4.4 Bypass requirements for callout servers - * This means that there MUST be at least one OPES processor in an - OPES System that knows how to interpret and process the - non-blocking feature. + In an OPES system, it is the task of an OPES processor to process + bypass requests. However, in some cases, callout servers May be + involved in processing Bypass requests. This should be done under the + control of the OPES System provider. - * The recipient MUST forward the bypass instructions to the next - application hop provided that the next hop speaks application - protocol with OPES bypass support. +5. Protocol Binding - * This requirement applies to all bypass instructions, including - those that identify known-to-recipient entities. + The task of encoding tracing and bypass features is application + protocol specific. Separate documents will address HTTP and other + protocols. - o Application-specific bindings MUST map the above non-blocking - mechanism to their application protocol. +6. IANA considerations - End users may not be able to know if their non-blocking request was - honored or not by the OPES System. In this case, it would be - beneficial if tracing can provide additional information regarding - whether a non-blocking request was honored or not. For this reason, - the following requirement also apply to the tracing facility: + This specification contains no IANA considerations. Application + bindings MAY contain application-specific IANA considerations. - o An OPES System SHOULD assist the data consumer application in - determining if a non-blocking request was performed by the system. +7. Security Considerations - Assistance is viewed as the addition of information about services - that were skipped and those that could not be bypassed. + The security considerations for OPES are documented in [6]. This + document is a requirement document for tracing and Bypass feature. + The requirements that are stated in this document can be used to + extend an application level protocol to support these features. As + such, the work has security precautions. -5. IANA considerations +7.1 Tracing security considerations - This work does not require any IANA consideration since any actions - will be addressed in [6]. + The tracing facility for OPES architecture is implemented as a + protocol extension. Inadequate implementations of the tracing + facility may defeat safeguards built into the OPES architecture. The + tracing facility by itself can become a target of malicious attacks + or used to lunch attacks on an OPES System. -6. Security Considerations + Threats caused by or against the tracing facility can be viewed as + threats at the application level in an OPES Flow. In this case, the + threats can affect the data consumer and the data provider + application. - The security considerations for OPES are documented in [7]. This - document is a requirement document for tracing and non-blocking and - as such does not develop any new protocols that require security - considerations. + Since tracing information is a protocol extension, these traces can + be injected in the data flow by non-OPES entities. In this case, + there are risks that non-OPES entities can be compromised in a + fashion that threat the overall integrity and effectiveness of an + OPES System. For example, a non-OPES proxy can add fake tracing + information into a trace. This can be done in the form of wrong, or + unwanted, or non existent services. A non-OPES entity can inject + large size traces that may cause buffer overflow in a data consumer + application. The same threats can arise from compromised OPES + entities. An attacker can control an OPES entity and inject wrong, or + very large trace information that can overwhelm an end or the next + OPES entity in an OPES flow. Similar threats can result from bad + implementations of the tracing facility in trusted OPES entities. + + Compromised tracing information can be used to launch attacks on an + OPES System that give the impression that unwanted content + transformation was performed on the data. This can be achieved by + inserting wrong entity (such OPES processor) identifiers. A + compromised trace can affect the overall message integrity structure. + This can affect entities that use message header information to + perform services such as accounting, load balancing, or + reference-based services. + + Compromised trace information can be used to launch DoS attacks that + can overwhelm a data consumer application or an OPES entity in an + OPES Flow. Inserting wrong tracing information can complicates the + debugging tasks performed by system administrator during trouble + shooting of OPES System behavior. + + Specific protocol binding documents ought to take these security + threats into consideration. It is recommended that protocol bindings + provide safe features into their specifications. Such features may + include a place holder in the message header that indicates the size + of the trace. Other holders can include the option of signing the + trace information as a proof of authenticity. + + As a precaution, OPES entities ought to be capable of verifying that + the inserted traces are performed by legal OPES entities. This can be + done as part of the authorization and authentication face. Policy can + be used to indicate what trace information can be expected from a + peer entity. Other application level related security concerns can be + found in [6]. + +7.2 Bypass security considerations + + The bypass facility for OPES architecture is implemented as a + protocol extension. Inadequate implementations of the bypass facility + may defeat safeguards built into the OPES architecture. The bypass + facility by itself can become a target of malicious attacks or used + to lunch attacks on an OPES System. + + Threats caused by or against the bypass facility can be viewed as + threats at the application level in an OPES Flow. In this case, the + threats can affect the data consumer and the data provider + application. + + There are risks for the OPES System by non-OPES entities, whereby, + these entities can insert bypass instructions into the OPES Flow. The + threat can come from compromised non-OPES entities. The threat might + affect the overall integrity and effectiveness of an OPES System. For + example, a non-OPES proxy can add bypass instruction to bypass + legitimate OPES entities. The attack might result in overwhelming the + original content provider servers, since the attack essentially + bypass any load balancing techniques. In addition, such an attack is + also equivalent to a DoS attack, whereby, a legitimate data consumer + application may not be able to access some content from a content + provider or its OPES version. + + Since an OPES Flow may include non-OPES entities, it is susceptible + to man-in-the-middle attacks, whereby an intruder may inject bypass + instructions into the data path. These attacks may affect content + availability or disturb load balancing techniques in the network. + + The above threats can also arise by compromised OPES entities. An + intruder can compromise an OPES entities and then use + man-in-the-middle techniques to disturb content availability to a + data consumer application or overload a content provider server + (essentially, some form of a DoS attack). + + Attackers can use the bypass instruction to affect the overall + integrity of the OPES System. The ability to illegally introduce + bypass instructions into a data flow may effect the accounting of the + OPES System. It may also affect the quality of content that is + delivered to the data consumer applications. Similar threats can + arise from bad implementations of the bypass facility. + + Specific protocol binding documents ought to take these security + threats into consideration. It is recommended that protocol bindings + provide safe features into their specifications. Such features may + include a place holder in the message header that indicates who + originated the bypass request. Other holders can include the option + of signing the bypass request as a proof of identity. Other + application level related security concerns can be found in [6]. Normative References [1] A. Barbir et al., "OPES Use Cases and Deployment Scenarios", Internet-Draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ draft-ietf-opes-scenarios-01.txt, August 2002. +Informative References + [2] Floyd, S. and L. Daigle, "IAB Architectural and Policy Considerations for Open Pluggable Edge Services", RFC 3238, January 2002. [3] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H., Masinter, L., Leach, P. and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. [4] A. Barbir et al., "Policy, Authorization and Enforcement Requirements of OPES", Internet-Draft http://www.ietf.org/ internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opes-authorization-02.txt, February 2003. - [5] Rousskov, A., "OPES Callout Protocol Core", Internet-Draft - http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ - draft-ietf-opes-ocp-core-01.txt, August 2003. - - [6] Rousskov, A., "HTTP adaptation with OPES", Internet-Draft TBD, + [5] Rousskov, A., "HTTP adaptation with OPES", Internet-Draft TBD, September 2003. - [7] A. Barbir et al., "Security Threats and Risks for Open Pluggable + [6] A. Barbir et al., "Security Threats and Risks for Open Pluggable Edge Services", Internet-Draft http://www.ietf.org/ internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opes-threats-02.txt, February 2003. - [8] A. Barbir et al., "An Architecture for Open Pluggable Edge + [7] A. Barbir et al., "An Architecture for Open Pluggable Edge Services (OPES)", Internet-Draft http://www.ietf.org/ internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opes-architecture-04, December 2002. - [9] A. Barbir et al., "OPES Treatment of IAB Considerations", + [8] A. Barbir et al., "OPES Treatment of IAB Considerations", Internet-Draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ - draft-ietf-opes-iab-01.txt, February 2004. - -Informative References - - [10] Westerinen, A., Schnizlein, J., Strassner, J., Scherling, M., - Quinn, B., Herzog, S., Huynh, A., Carlson, M., Perry, J. and S. - Waldbusser, "Terminology for Policy-Based Management", RFC - 3198, November 2001. - - [11] L. Cranor, et. al, "The Platform for Privacy Preferences 1.0 - (P3P1.0) Specification", W3C Recommendation 16 http:// - www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-P3P-20020416/ , April 2002. + draft-ietf-opes-iab-02.txt, February 2004. Author's Address Abbie Barbir Nortel Networks 3500 Carling Avenue Nepean, Ontario K2H 8E9 Canada Phone: +1 613 763 5229