Subject: WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)

From: IESG Secretary <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:30:02 -0400

A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Security Area.  
The IESG has not made any determination as yet. The following draft 
charter was submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only.
Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list ([email-masked]) 
by October 9.

+++

Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)
======================================

Current Status: Proposed Working Group

Chair(s): 
TBD

Security Area Director(s):
Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>

Security Area Advisor:
Russ Housley <[email-masked]>

Mailing List: [email-masked]

Description of Working Group:

Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA) architectures have been implemented in
the industry to assess the "posture" of endpoint devices for the
purposes of monitoring compliance to an organization's posture policy
and optionally restricting access until the endpoint has been updated to
satisfy the posture requirements. An endpoint that does not comply with
posture policy may be vulnerable to a number of known threats that may
exist on the network. The intent of NEA is to facilitate corrective
actions
to address these known vulnerabilities before a host is exposed to 
potential attack.
Two deployment scenarios will be supported: advisory mode and mandatory
mode.
In advisory mode, an endpoint may be advised of the result of posture 
assessment
and any recommended remediation actions, but is provided normal network
access
regardless of the result. In mandatory mode, a non-compliant endpoint is
given
restricted access to the network sufficient for remediation purposes 
and any essential
services or denied access completely.

Posture refers to the hardware or software configuration of an
endpoint as it pertains to an organization's security policy. Posture
may include knowledge that software installed to protect the machine
(e.g. patch management software, anti-virus software, host firewall
software,
host intrusion protection software or any custom software) is enabled 
and up-to-date.
On network access and while connected, an endpoint supporting NEA 
protocols can be
queried for such posture information in either advisory or mandatory
modes.

Since NEA involves many different components from different vendors,
interoperation is highly desirable. The priority of the NEA working 
group is to
standardize protocols at the higher layers in the architectures:
the Posture Attribute protocol (PA) and the Posture Broker protocol (PB).
PA and PB will be designed to support a variety of lower layer protocols.
When used with standards for lower layers, these new protocols will allow
interoperability between an NEA Client from one vendor and an NEA 
Server from another.

Since there are already several non-standard protocols at these higher
layers, the NEA working group will consider these existing protocols
as candidates for standardization. A requirements document will be
written and used as a basis for evaluating the candidate protocols.
The working group may decide to standardize one od: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43)
	id 1GUOny-0008Cu-0d; Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:30:02 -0400
To: [email-masked]
From: IESG Secretary <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:30:02 -0400
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea) 
Reply-To: [email-masked]

A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Security Area.  
The IESG has not made any determination as yet. The following draft 
charter was submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only.
Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list ([email-masked]) 
by October 9.

+++

Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)
======================================

Current Status: Proposed Working Group

Chair(s): 
TBD

Security Area Director(s):
Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>

Security Area Advisor:
Russ Housley <[email-masked]>

Mailing List: [email-masked]

Description of Working Group:

Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA) architectures have been implemented in
the industry to assess the "posture" of endpoint devices for the
purposes of monitoring compliance to an organization's posture policy
and optionally restricting access until the endpoint has been updated to
satisfy the posture requirements. An endpoint that does not comply with
posture policy may be vulnerable to a number of known threats that may
exist on the network. The intent of NEA is to facilitate corrective
actions
to address these known vulnerabilities before a host is exposed to 
potential attack.
Two deployment scenarios will be supported: advisory mode and mandatory
mode.
In advisory mode, an endpoint may be advised of the result of posture 
assessment
and any recommended remediation actions, but is provided normal network
access
regardless of the result. In mandatory mode, a non-compliant endpoint is
given
restricted access to the network sufficient for remediation purposes 
and any essential
services or denied access completely.

Posture refers to the hardware or software configuration of an
endpoint as it pertains to an organization's security policy. Posture
may include knowledge that software installed to protect the machine
(e.g. patch management software, anti-virus software, host firewall
software,
host intrusion protection software or any custom software) is enabled 
and up-to-date.
On network access and while connected, an endpoint supporting NEA 
protocols can be
queried for such posture information in either advisory or mandatory
modes.

Since NEA involves many different components from different vendors,
interoperation is highly desirable. The priority of the NEA working 
group is to
standardize protocols at the higher layers in the architectures:
the Posture Attribute protocol (PA) and the Posture Broker protocol (PB).
PA and PB will be designed to support a variety of lower layer protocols.
When used with standards for lower layers, these new protocols will allow
interoperability between an NEA Client from one vendor and an NEA 
Server from another.

Since there are already several non-standard protocols at these higher
layers, the NEA working group will consider these existing protocols
as candidates for standardization. A requirements document will be
written and used as a basis for evaluating the candidate protocols.
The working group may decide to standardize one of the candidate
protocols, use one of them as a basis for a new or revised protocol,
or decide that a new protocol is needed.

The NEA Requirements document will include a problem statement,
definition of terms, requirements for the PA and PB protocols, and an
overall
security analysis. It will also include generic requirements for the
protocol
transporting PA, PB: the Posture Transport protocol (PT). PT protocols may
be
standardized in other WGs since these protocols may not be specific 
to NEA. The NEA WG
will identify one mandatory to implement PT protocol to ensure 
interoperability.

PA, the Posture Attribute protocol, consists of posture attributes
that are carried between a particular Posture Collector in a NEA
client and a particular Posture Validator in a NEA Server. The PA
protocol is carried inside the PB protocol. Certain posture attributes
will be standardized to ensure interoperability but vendor-specific
attributes will also be supported. Vendor-specific attributes must
be documented in an RFC.

The PB (Posture Broker) protocol aggregates posture attributes
from one or more Posture Collectors in an NEA client and sends them to
the NEA server for assessment by one or more Posture Validators.

The PT (Posture Transport) protocol (or stack of protocols) is 
suitable for carrying
the PB protocol at the time of network connection, or shortly after.

The NEA working group will not specify protocols other than PA and PB at
this
time. The expectation is that an existing protocol can be used for the PT.

One commonly discussed issue with NEA systems is how to handle
compromised endpoints, whose reports of their own posture may not be
accurate. Detecting or handling such endpoints is out of scope of
the NEA WG. Work on PA will focus on attributes useful for assessing
posture of those endpoints reporting accurate information. However,
the protocols developed by the NEA WG must be designed to accommodate
emerging technologies for identifying and dealing with lying endpoints.

Note that NEA is not chartered to standardize protocols for remediation.
NEA is intended to be used with new or existing tools that can be used in
the absence of NEA. There is an open issue with respect to NEA
applicability
in deployment scenarios where the endpoint is owned by a party that 
is different
from the organization providing network access.

Further work in the NEA WG will be considered via the standard
rechartering
process after the completion of these milestones.

Milestones:

June 2006:
* Submit first version of NEA Requirements I-D

July 2006:
* Agree on charter and milestones at IETF 66

October 2006:
* Submit first draft of NEA Requirements I-D

November 2006:
* At IETF 67, discuss issues with NEA Requirements I-D
* Agree on solutions to issues with NEA Requirements I-D

December 2006:
* Deadline for submission of candidate specs for PA and PB
* Submit first version of NEA Evaluation I-D

January 2007:
* WG Last Call on NEA Evaluation I-D

February 2007:
* Submit NEA Requirements I-D and Evaluation I-D to IESG as Info RFC
* Submit first draft of PA and PB specs for review

March 2007:
* Discuss unresolved issues with PA and PB specs at IETF 68
* Agree on solutions to unresolved issues with PA and PB specs

April 2007:
* Submit revised draft of PA and PB specs

June 2007
* WG Last Call on PA and PB specs

July 2007
* Resolve outstanding WGLC comments on PA and PB specs at IETF 69

August 2007:
* Submit PA and PB specs to IESG for publication as Proposed

September 2007:
* Decide how to address MTI PT, recharter if needed

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

f the candidate
protocols, use one of them as a basis for a new or revised protocol,
or decide that a new protocol is needed.

The NEA Requirements document will include a problem statement,
definition of terms, requirements for the PA and PB protocols, and an
overall
security analysis. It will also include generic requirements for the
protocol
transporting PA, PB: the Posture Transport protocol (PT). PT protocols may
be
standardized in other WGs since these protocols may not be specific 
to NEA. The NEA WG
will identify one mandatory to implement PT protocol to ensure 
interoperability.

PA, the Posture Attribute protocol, consists of posture attributes
that are carried between a particular Posture Collector in a NEA
client and a particular Posture Validator in a NEA Server. The PA
protocol is carried inside the PB protocol. Certain posture attributes
will be standardized to ensure interoperability but vendor-specific
attributes will also be supported. Vendor-specific attributes must
be documented in an RFC.

The PB (Posture Broker) protocol aggregates posture attributes
from one or more Posture Collectors in an NEA client and sends them to
the NEA server for assessment by one or more Posture Validators.

The PT (Posture Transport) protocol (or stack of protocols) is 
suitable for carrying
the PB protocol at the time of network connection, or shortly after.

The NEA working group will not specify protocols other than PA and PB at
this
time. The expectation is that an existing protocol can be used for the PT.

One commonly discussed issue with NEA systems is how to handle
compromised endpoints, whose reports of their own posture may not be
accurate. Detecting or handling such endpoints is out of scope of
the NEA WG. Work on PA will focus on attributes useful for assessing
posture of those endpoints reporting accurate information. However,
the protocols developed by the NEA WG must be designed to accommodate
emerging technologies for identifying and dealing with lying endpoints.

Note that NEA is not chartered to standardize protocols for remediation.
NEA is intended to be used with new or existing tools that can be used in
the absence of NEA. There is an open issue with respect to NEA
applicability
in deployment scenarios where the endpoint is owned by a party that 
is different
from the organization providing network access.

Further work in the NEA WG will be considered via the standard
rechartering
process after the completion of these milestones.

Milestones:

June 2006:
* Submit first version of NEA Requirements I-D

July 2006:
* Agree on charter and milestones at IETF 66

October 2006:
* Submit first draft of NEA Requirements I-D

November 2006:
* At IETF 67, discuss issues with NEA Requirements I-D
* Agree on solutions to issues with NEA Requirements I-D

December 2006:
* Deadline for submission of candidate specs for PA and PB
* Submit first version of NEA Evaluation I-D

January 2007:
* WG Last Call on NEA Evaluation I-D

February 2007:
* Submit NEA Requirements I-D and Evaluation I-D to IESG as Info RFC
* Submit first draft of PA and PB specs for review

March 2007:
* Discuss unresolved issues with PA and PB specs at IETF 68
* Agree on solutions to unresolved issues with PA and PB specs

April 2007:
* Submit revised draft of PA and PB specs

June 2007
* WG Last Call on PA and PB specs

July 2007
* Resolve outstanding WGLC comments on PA and PB specs at IETF 69

August 2007:
* Submit PA and PB specs to IESG for publication as Proposed

September 2007:
* Decide how to address MTI PT, recharter if needed

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce