Gabriel:
I believe responded to you before on this topic, but I am resending the information – in case I forgot. Please let me know if the resolution of these comments is ok for you. Sue From: I2nsf [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gabriel Lopez Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2016 6:56 AM To: Rafa Marin Lopez Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Comments/questions about draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases Dear all, please find some comments to the text Gabriel [#1] • Section 3.1.1 • Security gateways or VPNs concentrators could also be add to the list. [Sue: added to the list Gabriel [#2] • “For example, from an I2NSF perspective, there is no need to standardize on how firewall filters are created or applied.”. It is not clear why ones need to be standardized and others no. Sue [#2]: The following text is added to this sentence: “For example, from an I2NSF perspective, there is no need to standardize how every firewall's filtering is created or applied. Some features in a specific vendor's filtering may be unique to the vendor's product so it is not necessary to standardize these features. What is needed is a standardized interface to control and monitor the rule sets that NSFs use to treat packets traversing through. And standardizing interfaces will provide an impetuous for standardizing established security functions.” [Gabriel #3]: • Does it means I2NSF aims to standardize the interface to control firewalls filters rather than the own firewalls filters? (just to clarify) – [Sue:] My understanding is this the main goal of I2NSF. IMO, you will end up defining filters (in NETMOD, I2RS or I2NSF) that make up the very basic functions because it is necessary building block to create capability interface, inter-Cloud DDoS, and other I2NSF data models. (note – I did not add additional text). [Gabriel #3]: • Section 3.1.9. • In addition to Rafa’s comments, I suggest this section should introduce first the security functions where key distribution is required. For example: securing routing protocols? IPsec flow protection channels? AAA protocols? Then, to discuss about the different approaches: a protocol-independent key table? a protocol-based approach?. It seems authors are proposing some kind of solution, but this is a problem-use-case document. [Sue]: I’ve changed the 3.1.9 text enough that I would like you to look at the resulting document. I have tried to take out any solutions. We’ll need to iterate on this text. I will send a copy of the text to the list. [Gabriel #4] • Section 3.2.2 • “No standard technical characterization and/or APIs” and “No standard interface”. • Both texts talks about “standard interfaces”. Could they be merger? (just suggesting) [Sue]:Good point. I’ve changed the text to: Without a standard interface that provides clear technical characterization of the I2NSF services, the service provide faces many challenges: [Gabriel #5] • Section 3.1.7 and section 3.4 both talks about IDS/IPS/etc. profiles. Could they be combined or referenced? [Sue #5]: Due to different NSF products, I would like to keep these separated. Can you suggest a reference? [Gabriel #6]: • Should 3.3 be 3.2.4? and 3.4 be 3.2.5? and 3.5 be 3.2.6? [Sue #6]: On this topic, may we leave the format as is. The basic format has been argued over so I really do not want to restart the format discussion. Thanks for all the create comments. I will send the text version to the list once get to the Hotel in Seoul, Korea. I expect you will see it by about 9am CET. Just my two cents. Best regards, Gabi. El 3 oct 2016, a las 23:33, Rafa Marin Lopez <[email protected]> escribió: Dear all: I have reviewed draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases and I have a few comments/questions (my apologies if these have been already discussed in the past). ----------------------- Section 3.1.1 -Security Functions in a DMZ. You refer to authentication and authorization but also AAA. Is this not redundant? -At first sight, there is no example of NSFs with flow based protection. That is, those that participate in the establishment of a security association to protect data traffic. Section 3.1.10 - A general comment about this section is that the text seems to pay attention to routing. In our case, for example, we have an I-D to manage IPSec SAs based on SDNs (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-abad-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-00). I guess this use case we present in our I-D is somehow included in the text “Conceptually, there must be an interface defined for routing/signaling protocols…” but I am not sure. Could you clarify? - A suggestion I have is to revise this paragraph: “While there are many key management methods and key derivation functions (KDF), there is a lack of standard interface to provision and manage keys.” There is a lack not only to provision and manage keys but also to specify additional information (e.g. low level policies) or to fill certain information to manage, in the end, a security association. Additionally, I am not sure about the initial sentence "While there are many key management methods and key derivation functions (KDF)”… what do you mean with this? Perhaps a possible modification would say: —-> While there are many key management methods and cryptographic suites (e.g. encryption algorithms, key derivation functions, etc…), there is a lack of standard interface to provision and manage security associations. Regarding this paragraph: “The ability to utilize keys when routing protocols send or receive messages will be enhanced by having an abstract key table maintained by a security service. Conceptually, there must be an interface defined for routing/signaling protocols to make requests for automated key management when it is being used, to notify the protocols when keys become available in the key table.” In my opinion, it seems going into a solution space: “an abstract key table” and a mechanism to “pull” the keys, is this correct?. Why using this key table? Why using pull method so that the protocols know when the keys are available in the table?. Also, the text refers to routing protocols at the beginning. I would say that there must be an interface to configure security associations of any nature, no?. Section 4. In the use cases, there is no explicit text where key distribution is required. One may think that section 4.3.2 and, most probably, 4.3.3 may be related with key management (section 3.1.10). I mention this because our I-D focused on key management for IPSec SAs and VPNs is a term that may be associated to this. Section 7. When you mention AAA, are you referring to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2904 ? --------- Best Regards. ------------------------------------------------------- Rafael Marin Lopez, PhD Dept. Information and Communications Engineering (DIIC) Faculty of Computer Science-University of Murcia 30100 Murcia - Spain Telf: +34868888501 Fax: +34868884151 e-mail: [email protected] ------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf ----------------------------------------------------------- Gabriel López Millán Departamento de Ingeniería de la Información y las Comunicaciones University of Murcia Spain Tel: +34 868888504 Fax: +34 868884151 email: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?> <!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [ <!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml";> <!ENTITY RFC2904 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2904.xml";> <!ENTITY RFC4948 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4948.xml";> <!ENTITY RFC7297 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7277.xml";> <!ENTITY I-D.ietf-netmod-acl-model SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06.xml";> <!ENTITY I-D.ietf-opsawg-firewalls SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.draft-ietf-opsawg-firewalls-01.xml";> <!ENTITY I-D.hares-i2nsf-gap-analysis SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.hares-i2nsf-gap-analysis.xml";> <!ENTITY I-D.lopez-i2nsf-packet SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.lopez-i2nsf-packet.xml";> <!ENTITY I-D.pastor-i2nsf-merged-use-cases SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.pastor-i2nsf-merged-use-cases.xml";> <!ENTITY I-D.zarny-i2nsf-data-center-use-cases SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.zarny-i2nsf-data-center-use-cases.xml";> <!ENTITY I-D.qi-i2nsf-access-network-usecase SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.qi-i2nsf-access-network-usecase.xml";> <!ENTITY I-D.pastor-i2nsf-access-usecases SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.pastor-i2nsf-access-usecases.xml";> <!ENTITY I-D.jeong-i2nsf-sdn-security-services SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.draft-jeong-i2nsf-sdn-security-services-01.xml";> <!ENTITY I-D.zhou-i2nsf-capability-interface-monitoring SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.zhou-i2nsf-capability-interface-monitoring.xml";> ]> <?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?> <?rfc toc="yes" ?> <?rfc symrefs="yes" ?> <?rfc sortrefs="yes"?> <?rfc compact="yes" ?> <?rfc subcompact="no" ?> <?rfc iprnotified="no" ?> <?rfc strict="no" ?> <rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-03.txt" ipr="trust200902"> <front> <title abbrev="I2NSF Problem/Use Case">I2NSF Problem Statement and Use cases</title> <author fullname="Susan Hares" initials="S" surname="Hares"> <organization>Huawei</organization> <address> <postal> <street>7453 Hickory Hill</street> <city>Saline</city> <region>MI</region> <code>48176</code> <country>USA</country> </postal> <phone>+1-734-604-0332</phone> <email>[email protected]</email> </address> </author> <author fullname="Diego R. Lopex" initials="D" surname="Lopez"> <organization>Telefonica I+D</organization> <address> <postal> <street>Don Ramon de la Cruz, 82</street> <city>Madrid</city> <code>28006</code> <country>Spain</country> </postal> <email>[email protected]</email> </address> </author> <author fullname="Myo Zarny" initials="M" surname="Zarny"> <organization>Goldman Sachs</organization> <address> <postal> <street>30 Hudson Street</street> <city>Jersey City</city> <region>NJ</region> <code>07302</code> <country>USA</country> </postal> <email>[email protected]</email> </address> </author> <author fullname="Christian Jacquenet" initials="C." surname="Jacquenet"> <organization>France Telecom</organization> <address> <postal> <street></street> <city>Rennes</city> <region>35000</region> <code></code> <country>France</country> </postal> <email>[email protected]</email> </address> </author> <author fullname="Rakesh Kumar" initials="R" surname="Kumar"> <organization>Juniper Networks</organization> <address> <postal> <street>1133 Innovation Way</street> <city>Sunnyvale</city> <region>CA</region> <code>94089</code> <country>USA</country> </postal> <phone></phone> <email>[email protected]</email> </address> </author> <date year="2016" /> <area>Security Area</area> <workgroup>I2NSF</workgroup> <keyword>RFC</keyword> <keyword>Request for Comments</keyword> <keyword>I-D</keyword> <keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword> <keyword>I2NSF</keyword> <abstract> <t>This document describes the problem statement for Interface to Network Security Functions (I2NSF) as well as some companion use cases.</t> </abstract> </front> <middle> <section title="Introduction"> <t>This document describes the problem statement for Interface to Network Security Functions (I2NSF) as well as some I2NSF use cases. A summary of the state of the art in the industry and IETF which is relevant to I2NSF work is documented in <xref target="I-D.hares-i2nsf-gap-analysis"> </xref>.</t> <t>The growing challenges and complexity in maintaining a secure infrastructure, complying with regulatory requirements, and controlling costs are enticing enterprises into consuming network security functions hosted by service providers. The hosted security service is especially attractive to small and medium size enterprises who suffer from a lack of security experts to continuously monitor networks, acquire new skills and propose immediate mitigations to ever increasing sets of security attacks.</t> <t>According to <xref target="Gartner-2013"> </xref>, the demand for hosted (or cloud-based) security services is growing. Small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) are increasingly adopting cloud-based security services to replace on-premises security tools, while larger enterprises are deploying a mix of traditional and cloud-based security services.</t> <t>To meet the demand, more and more service providers are providing hosted security solutions to deliver cost-effective managed security services to enterprise customers. The hosted security services are primarily targeted at enterprises (especially small/medium ones), but could also be provided to any kind of mass-market customer. As a result, the Network Security Functions (NSFs) are provided and consumed in a large variety of environments. Users of NSFs may consume network security services hosted by one or more providers, which may be their own enterprise, service providers, or a combination of both. This document also briefly describes the following use cases summarized by <xref target="I-D.pastor-i2nsf-merged-use-cases"></xref>:</t> <t><list style="symbols"> <t><xref target="I-D.pastor-i2nsf-access-usecases"></xref> (I2NSF-Access),</t> <t><xref target="I-D.zarny-i2nsf-data-center-use-cases"></xref>(I2NSF-DC), and</t> <t><xref target="I-D.qi-i2nsf-access-network-usecase"></xref> (I2NSF-Mobile).</t> </list></t> </section> <section title="Terminology"> <t><list style="hanging"> <t hangText="ACL: ">Access Control List</t> <t hangText="B2B: ">Business-to-Business</t> <t hangText="Bespoke: ">Something made to fit a particular person, client or company.</t> <t hangText="Bespoke security management: ">Security management which is made to fit a particular customer.</t> <t hangText="DC: ">Data Center</t> <t hangText="FW: ">Firewall</t> <t hangText="IDS: ">Intrusion Detection System</t> <t hangText="IPS: ">Intrusion Protection System</t> <t hangText="I2NSF: ">interface to Network Security Functions.</t> <t hangText="NSF: ">Network Security Function. An NSF is a function that detects abnormal activity and blocks/mitigates the effect of such abnormal activity in order to preserve the availability of a network or a service. In addition, the NSF can help in supporting communication stream integrity and confidentiality.</t> <t hangText="Flow-based NSF: ">An NSF which inspects network flows according to a security policy. Flow-based security also means that packets are inspected in the order they are received, and without altering packets due to the inspection process (e.g., MAC rewrites, TTL decrement action, or NAT inspection or changes).</t> <t hangText="Virtual NSF: ">An NSF which is deployed as a distributed virtual resource.</t> <t hangText="VNFPool: ">Pool of Virtual Network Functions.</t> </list></t> </section> <section anchor="prob-space" title="Problem Space"> <t>The following sub-section describes the problems and challenges facing customers and security service providers when some or all of the security functions are no longer physically hosted by the customer's adminstrative domain.</t> <t>Security service providers can be internal or external to the company. For example, an internal IT Security group within a large enterprise could act as a security service provider for the enterprise. In contrast, an enterprise could outsource all security services to an external security service provider. In this document, the security service provider function whether it is internal or external, will be denoted as "service provider".</t> <t>The "Customer-Provider" relationship may be between any two parties. The parties can be in different firms or different domains of the same firm. Contractual agreements may be required in such contexts to formally document the customer's security requirements and the provider's guarantees to fulfill those requirements. Such agreements may detail protection levels, escalation procedures, alarms reporting, etc. There is currently no standard mechanism to capture those requirements.</t> <t>A service provider may be a customer of another service provider.</t> <section title="Challenges Facing Security Service Providers"> <section title="Diverse Types of Security Functions"> <t>There are many types of NSFs. NSFs by different vendors can have different features and have different interfaces. NSFs can be deployed in multiple locations in a given network, and perhaps have different roles.</t> <t>Below are a few examples of security functions and locations or contexts in which they are often deployed: <list style="hanging"> <t hangText="External Intrusion and Attack Protection: ">Examples of this function are firewall/ACL authentication, IPS, IDS, and endpoint protection.</t> <t hangText="Security Functions in a DMZ: ">Examples of this function are firewall/ACLs, IDS/IPS, one or all of AAA services NAT, forwarding proxies, and application filtering. These functions may be physically on-premise in a server provider's network at the DMZ spots or located in a "virtual" DMZ.</t> <t hangText="Internal Security Analysis and Reporting: ">Examples of this function are security logs, event correlation, and forensic analysis.</t> <t hangText="Internal Data and Content Protection: ">Examples of this function are encryption, authorization, and public/private key management for internal database.</t> <t hangText="Security gateways and VPN concentrators: ">Examples of these functions are; IP-sec gateways, Secure VPN concentrators that handle bridging secure VPNs, and Secure VPN controllers for data flows. </t> </list></t> <t>Given the diversity of security functions, the contexts in which these functions can be deployed, and the constant evolution of these functions, standardizing all aspects of security functions is challenging, and most probably not feasible. Fortunately, it is not necessary to standardize all aspects. For example, from an I2NSF perspective, there is no need to standardize how every firewall's filtering is created or applied. Some features in a specific vendor's filtering may be unique to the vendor's product so it is not necessary to standardize these features. </t> <t>What is needed is a standardized interface to control and monitor the rule sets that NSFs use to treat packets traversing through. And standardizing interfaces will provide an impetuous for standardizing established security functions.</t> <t>I2NSF may specify some filters, but these filters will be linked to specific common functionality developed by I2NSF in informational models or data models. </t> </section> <section title="Diverse Interfaces to Control and Monitor NSFs"> <t>To provide effective and competitive solutions and services, Security Service Providers may need to utilize multiple security functions from various vendors to enforce the security policies desired by their customers.</t> <t>Since no widely accepted industry standard security interface exists today, management of NSFs (device and policy provisioning, monitoring, etc.) tends to be bespoke security management offered by product vendors. As a result, automation of such services, if it exists at all, is also bespoke. Thus, even in the traditional way of deploying security features, there is a gap to coordinate among implementations from distinct vendors. This is the main reason why mono-vendor security functions are often deployed and enabled in a particular network segment.</t> <t>A challenge for monitoring is that an NSF cannot monitor what it cannot view. Therefore, enabling a security function (e.g., firewall <xref target="I-D.ietf-opsawg-firewalls"></xref>) does not mean that a network is protected. As such, it is necessary to have a mechanism to monitor and provide execution status of NSFs to security and compliance management tools. There exist various network security monitoring vendor-specific interfaces for forensics and troubleshooting.</t> </section> <section title="More Distributed NSFs and vNSFs"> <t>The security functions which are invoked to enforce a security policy can be located in different equipment and network locations.</t> <t>The European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) Network Function Virtualization (NFV) initiative creates new management challenges for security policies to be enforced by distributed, virtual, and network security functions (vNSF).</t> <t>A vNSF has higher risk of failure, migrating, and state changes as their hosting VMs are being created, moved, or decommissioned.</t> </section> <section title="More Demand to Control NSFs Dynamically"> <t>In the advent of Software-Defined Networking (see <xref target="I-D.jeong-i2nsf-sdn-security-services"></xref>), more clients, applications or application controllers need to dynamically update their security policies that are enforced by NSFs. The Security Service Providers have to dynamically update their decision-making process (e.g., in terms of NSF resource allocation and invocation) upon receiving requests from their clients.</t> </section> <section title="Demand for Multi-Tenancy to Control and Monitor NSFs"> <t>Service providers may need several operational units to control and monitor the NSFs, especially when NSFs become distributed and virtualized.</t> </section> <section title="Lack of Characterization of NSFs and Capability Exchange"> <t>To offer effective security services, service providers need to activate various security functions in NSFs or vNSFs manufactured by multiple vendors. Even within one product category (e.g., firewall), security functions provided by different vendors can have different features and capabilities. For example, filters that can be designed and activated by a firewall may or may not support IPv6 depending on the firewall technology.</t> <t>The service provider's management system (or controller) needs a way to retrieve the capabilities of service functions by different vendors so that it could build an effective security solution. These service function capabilities can be documented in a static manner (e.g., a file) or via an interface which accesses a repository of security function capabilities which the NSF vendors dynamically update.</t> <t>A dynamic capability registration is useful for automation because security functions may be subject to software and hardware updates. These updates may have implications on the policies enforced by the NSFs.</t> <t>Today, there is no standard method for vendors to describe the capabilities of their security functions. Without a common technical framework to describe the capabilities of security functions, service providers cannot automate the process of selecting NSFs by different vendors to accommodate customer's requirements.</t> </section> <section title="Lack of Mechanism for NSFs to Utilize External Profiles"> <t>Many security functions depend on signature files or profiles to perform (e.g., IPS/IDS signatures, DOTS filters). Different policies might need different signatures or profiles. Today, the construction and use of black list databases can be a win-win strategy for all parties involved. There might be Open Source-provided signature/profiles (e.g., by Snort or others) in the future.</t> <t>There is a need to have a standard envelop (i.e., the format) to allow NSFs to use external profiles.</t> </section> <section title="Lack of Mechanisms to Accept External Alerts to Trigger Automatic Rule and Configuration Changes"> <t>NSF can ask the I2NSF security controller to alter a specific rules and/or configurations. For example, a DDoS alert could trigger a change to the routing system to send traffic to a traffic scrubbing service to mitigate the DDoS.</t> <t>The DDoS protection has the following two parts: a) the configuration of signaling of open threats and b) DDoS mitigation. DOTS controller manages the signaling part of DDoS. I2NSF controller(s) would manage the changing to the affected policies (e.g., forwarding and routing, filtering, etc.). By monitoring the network alerts from DDoS, I2NSF can feed an alerts analytics engine that could recognize attacks and the I2NSF can thus enforce the appropriate policies.</t> <t>DDoS mitigation is enhanced if the provider's network security controller can monitor, analyze, and investigate the abnormal events and provide information to the client or change the network configuration automatically.</t> <t><xref target="I-D.zhou-i2nsf-capability-interface-monitoring"></xref> provides details on how monitoring aspects of the flow-based Network Security Functions (NSFs) can use the I2NSF interfaces to receive traffic reports and enforce policy.</t> </section> <section title="Lack of Mechanism for Dynamic Key Distribution to NSFs"> <t>There is a need for a controller to distribute various keys to distributed NSFs. To distribute various keys, the keys must be created and managed. While there are many key management methods and cryptographic uites (e.g. encryptoni algorithms, key deriation functions, etc.) and other functions), there is a lack of standard interface to provision and manage security associations.</t> <t>The keys may be used for message authentication and integrity in order to protect data flows. In addition, keys may be used to secure the protocol and messages in the core routing infrastructure (<xref target="RFC4948"></xref>)</t> <t>As of now there is not much focus on an abstraction for keying information that describes the interface between protocols, operators, and automated key management.</t> <t>An example of a solution, may provide some insight into why the lack of a mechanism is a problem. If you had an abstract key table maintained by security services, you could use these keys for routing and seurity devices. </t> <t> What does this take?</t> <t>Conceptually, there must be an interface defined for routing/signaling protocols to make requests for automated key management when it is being used, to notify the protocols when keys become available in the key table. One potential use of such an interface is to manage IPSec security associations on SDN networks.</t> <t>An abstract key service will work under the following conditions: <list style="numbers"> <t>I2NSF needs to design the key table abstraction, the interface between key management protocols and routing/other protocols, and possibly security protocols at other layers.</t> <t>For each routing/other protocol, I2NSF needs to define the mapping between how the protocol represents key material and the protocol-independent key table abstraction. (If protocols share common mechanisms for authentication (e.g., TCP Authentication Option), then the same mapping may be reused.)</t> <t>Automated Key management must support both symmetric keys and group keys via the service provided by items 1 and 2.</t> </list></t> </section> </section> <section title="Challenges Facing Customers"> <t>When customers invoke hosted security services, their security policies may be enforced by a collection of security functions hosted in different domains. Customers may not have the security skills to express sufficiently precise requirements or security policies. Usually, these customers express the expectations of their security requirements or the intent of their security policies. These expectations can be considered customer level security expectations. Customers may also desire to express guidelines for security management. Examples of such guidelines include: <list style="symbols"> <t>Which critical communications are to be preserved during critical events (DOTS),</t> <t>Which hosts are to continue service even during severe security attacks (DOTS),</t> <t>Reporting of attacks to CERT (MILE),</t> <t>Managing network connectivity of systems out of compliance (SACM),</t> </list></t> <section title="NSFs from Heterogeneous Administrative Domains"> <t>Many medium and large enterprises have deployed various on-premises security functions which they want to continue to deploy. These enterprises want to combine local security functions with remote hosted security functions to achieve more efficient and immediate counter-measures to both Internet-originated attacks and enterprise network-originated attacks.</t> <t>Some enterprises may only need the hosted security services for their remote branch offices where minimal security infrastructures/capabilities exist. The security solution will consist of deploying NSFs on customer networks and on service provider networks.</t> </section> <section title="Today's Control Requests are Vendor Specific"> <t>Customers may consume NSFs by multiple service providers. Customers need to express their security requirements, guidelines, and expectations to the service providers. In turn, the service providers must translate this customer information into customer security policies and associated configuration tasks for the set of security functions in their network. Without a standard technical standard interface that provides a clear technical characterization, the service provider faces many challenges:<list style="hanging"> <t hangText="No standard technical characterization and/or APIs :">Even for the most common security services there is no standard technical characterization or APIs. Most security services are accessible only through disparate, proprietary interfaces (e.g., portals or APIs) in whatever format vendors choose to offer. The service provider must have the customer's input to manage these widely varying interfaces.</t> <t hangText="No standard interface: ">Without standard interfaces it is complex for customers to update security policies or integrate the security functions in their enterprise with the security services provided by the security service providers. This complexity is induced by the diversity of the configuration models, policy models, and supported management interfaces. Without a standard interface, new innovative security products find a large barrier to entry into the market.</t> <t hangText="Managing by scripts de-jour: ">The current practices rely upon the use of scripts that generate other scripts which automatically run to upload or download configuration changes, log information and other things. These scripts have to be adjusted each time an implementation from a different vendor technology is enabled on a provider side.</t> <t hangText="Lack of immediate feedback: ">Customers may also require a mechanism to easily update/modify their security requirements with immediate effect in the underlying involved NSFs.</t> <t hangText="Lack of explicit invocation request: ">While security agreements are in place, security functions may be solicited without requiring an explicit invocation means. Nevertheless, some explicit invocation means may be required to interact with a service function.</t> </list></t> <t>To see how standard interfaces could help achieve faster implementation time cycles, let us consider a customer who would like to dynamically allow an encrypted flow with specific port, src/dst addresses or protocol type through the firewall/IPS to enable an encrypted video conferencing call only during the time of the call. With no commonly accepted interface in place, the customer would have to learn about the particular provider's firewall/IPS interface and send the request in the provider's required format.</t> <t><figure> <artwork><![CDATA[ +------------+ | security | | MGT system | +----||------+ || proprietary || or I2NSF standard Picture: || Port 10 +--------+ --------| FW/IPS |------------- Encrypted +--------+ Video Flow Figure 1: Example of non-standard vs. standard interface ]]></artwork> </figure></t> <t>In contrast, if a firewall/IPS interface standard exists, the customer would be able to send the request, without having to do the extensive preliminary legwork. A standard interface also helps service providers since they could now offer the same firewall/IPS interface to represent firewall/IPS services for utilizing products from many vendors. The result is that the service provider has now abstracted the firewall/IPS services. The standard interface also helps the firewall/IPS vendors to focus on their core security functions or extended features rather than the standard building blocks of a management interface.</t> </section> <section title="Difficulty to Monitor the Execution of Desired Policies"> <t>How a policy is translated into technology-specific actions is hidden from the customers. However, customers still need ways to monitor the delivered security service that results from the execution of their desired security requirements, guidelines and expectations.</t> <t>Today, there is no standard way for customers to get security service assurance of their specified security policies properly enforced by the security functions in the provider domain. The customer also lacks the ability to perform "what-if" scenarios to assess the efficiency of the delivered security service.</t> </section> </section> <section title="Difficulty to Validate Policies across Multiple Domains"> <t>One key aspect of a hosted security service with security functions located at different premises is the ability to express, monitor and verify security policies that combine several distributed security functions. It is crucial to an effective service to be able to take these actions via a standard interface. This standard interface becomes more crucial to the hosted security service when NSFs are instantiated in Virtual Machines which are sometimes widely distributed in the network and sometimes are combined together in one device to perform a set of tasks for delivering a service.</t> <t>Without standard interfaces and security policy data models, the enforcement of a customer-driven security policy remains challenging because of the inherent complexity created by combining the invocation of several vendor-specific security functions into a multi-vendor, heterogeneous environment. Each vendor-specific function may require specific configuration procedures and operational tasks.</t> <t>Ensuring the consistent enforcement of the policies at various domains is also challenging. Standard data models are likely to contribute to addressing that issue.</t> </section> <section title="Lack of Standard Interface to Inject Feedback to NSF"> <t>Today, many security functions, such as IPS, IDS, DDoS and Antivirus, depend heavily on the associated profiles. They can perform more effective protection if they have the up-to-date profiles. As more sophisticated threats arise, enterprises, vendors, and service providers have to rely on each other to achieve optimal protection. Cyper Threat Alliance (CA, http://cyberthreatalliance.org/) is one of those initiatives that aim at combining efforts conducted by multiple organizations.</t> <t>Today there is no standard interface to exchange security profiles between organizations.</t> </section> <section title="Lack of Standard Interface for Capability Negotiation"> <t>There could be situations when the selected NSFs cannot perform the policies requested by the Security Controller, due to resource constraints. The customer and security service provider should negotiate the appropriate resource constraints before the security service begins. However, unexpected events somethings happen and the NSF may exhaust those negotiated resources. At this point, the NSF should inform the security controller that the alloted resources have been exhausted. To support the automatic control in the SDN-era, it is necessary to have a set of messages for proper notification (and a response to that notification) between the Security Controller and the NSFs.</t> </section> </section> <section title="Use Cases"> <t>Standard interfaces for monitoring and controlling the behavior of NSFs are essential building blocks for Security Service Providers and enterprises to automate the use of different NSFs from multiple vendors by their security management entities. I2NSF may be invoked by any (authorized) client. Examples of authorized clients are upstream applications (controllers), orchestration systems, and security portals.</t> <section title="Basic Framework"> <t>Users request security services through specific clients (e.g., a customer application, the NSP BSS/OSS or management platform) and the appropriate NSP network entity will invoke the (v)NSFs according to the user service request. This network entity is denoted as the security controller in this document. The interaction between the entities discussed above (client, security controller, NSF) is shown in Figure 2:</t> <t><figure> <artwork><![CDATA[ +----------+ +-------+ | | +-------+ | | Interface 1 |Security | Interface 2 | NSF(s)| |Client <-------------> <------------------> | | | |Controller| | | +-------+ | | +-------+ +----------+ Figure 2: Interaction between Entities ]]></artwork> </figure></t> <t>Interface 1 is used for receiving security requirements from client and translating them into commands that NSFs can understand and execute. The security controller also passes back NSF security reports (e.g., statistics) to the client which the control has gathered from NSFs. Interface 2 is used for interacting with NSFs according to commands (e.g. enact policy and distribuge), and collecting status information about NSFs.</t> <t>Client devices or applications can require the security controller to add, delete or update rules in the security service function for their specific traffic.</t> <t>When users want to get the executing status of a security service, they can request NSF status from the client. The security controller will collect NSF information through Interface 2, consolidate them, and give feedback to client through Interface 1. This interface can be used to collect not only individual service information, but also aggregated data suitable for tasks like infrastructure security assessment.</t> <t>Customers may require validating NSF availability, provenance, and correct execution. This validation process, especially relevant for vNSFs, includes at least: <list style="hanging"> <t hangText="Integrity of the NSF: ">by ensuring that the NSF is not compromised;</t> <t hangText="Isolation: ">by ensuring the execution of the NSF is self-contained for privacy requirements in multi-tenancy scenarios.</t> <t hangText="Provenance of NSF: ">Customers may need to be provided with strict guarantees about the origin of the NSF, its status (e.g. available, idle, down, and others), and feedback mechanisms so that a customer may be able to check that a given NSF or set of NSFs properly conform to the the customer's requirements and subsequent configuration tasks. </t> </list></t> <t>In order to achieve this, the security controller may collect security measurements and share them with an independent and trusted third party (via interface 1) in order to allow for attestation of NSF functions using the third party added information.</t> </section> <section title="Access Networks"> <t>This scenario describes use cases for users (e.g. enterprise user, network administrator, and residential user) that request and manage security services hosted in the network service provider (NSP) infrastructure. Given that NSP customers are essentially users of their access networks, the scenario is essentially associated with their characteristics, as well as with the use of vNSFs.</t> <t>The Virtual CPE described in [NFVUC] use cases #5 and #7 requires a model of access virtualization that includes mobile and residential access where the operator may offload security services from the customer local environment (e.g., device or terminal) to its own infrastructure.</t> <t>These use cases define the interaction between the operator and the vNSFs through automated interfaces, typically by means of B2B communications.</t> <t><figure> <artwork><![CDATA[ Customer + Access + PoP/Datacenter | | +--------+ | ,-----+--. |Network | | ,' | `-|Operator| +-------------+ | /+----+ | |Mgmt Sys| | Residential |-+------/-+vCPE+----+ +--------+ +-------------+ | / +----+ | \ | : | / | \ | | +----------+ | ; +----+ | +----+ | |Enterprise|---+---+----+ vPE+--+----+ NSF| | +----------+ | : +----+ | +----+ | | : | / | +--------+ | : +----+ | / ; | Mobile |-+-----\--+vEPC+----+ / +--------+ | \ +----+ | ,-' | `--. | _.-' | `----+----'' + + Figure 3: NSF and actors ]]></artwork> </figure></t> <t>Different access clients may have different service requests: <list style="hanging"> <t hangText="Residential: "> service requests for parental control, content management, and threat management. </t> <t> Parental control requests may include identity based filters for web content or usage. Content management may include identifying and blocking malicious activities from web contents, mail, or files downloaded. Threat management may include identifying and blocking botnets or malware.</t> <t hangText="Enterprise: ">service requests for enterprise flow security policies and managed security services </t> <t> Flow security policies include access (or isolation) to data from various internal groups, access (or isolation) from varous web sites or social media applications, and encryption on data transferred between corporates sites (main office, enterprise branch offices, and remote campuses). Managed security services may include detection and mitigation of external and internal threats. External threats can include application or phishing attacks, malware, botnet, DDoS, and others. Internal threats (aka lateral threats) can include detecting programs moving from one enterprise site to another without permission. </t> <t hangText="Service Provider: "> Service requests for policies that protect service providers networks against various threats (including DDoS, botnets and malware). Such policies are meant to securely and reliably deliver contents (e.g., data, voice, video) to various customers, including residential, mobile and corporate customers. These security policies are also enforced to guarantee isolation between multiple tenants, regardless of the nature of the corresponding connectivity services. </t> <t hangText="Mobile: "> service requests from interfaces which monitor and ensure user quality of experience, content management, parental controls, and external threat management. </t> <t> Content management for the mobile device includes identifying and blocking malicious activities from web contents, mail, files. Threat management for infrastructure includes detecting and removing malicious programs such as Botnet, DDoS, and Malware.</t> </list></t> <t>Some access customers may not care about which NSFs are utilized to achieve the services they requested. In this case, provider network orchestration systems can internally select the NSFs (or vNSFs) to enforce the policies requested by the clients. Other access customers, especially some enterprise customers, may want to get their dedicated NSFs (most likely vNSFs) for direct control purposes. In this case, here are the steps to associate vNSFs to specific customers:</t> <t><list style="hanging"> <t hangText="vNSF Deployment: ">The deployment process consists in instantiating a NSF on a Virtualization Infrastructure (NFVI), within the NSP administrative domain(s) or with other external domain(s). This is a required step before a customer can subscribe to a security service supported in the vNSF.</t> <t hangText="vNSF Customer Provisioning: ">Once a vNSF is deployed, any customer can subscribe to it. The provisioning lifecycle includes the following: <list style="symbols"> <t>Customer enrollment and cancellation of the subscription to a vNSF;</t> <t>Configuration of the vNSF, based on specific configurations, or derived from common security policies defined by the NSP.</t> <t>Retrieve and list the vNSF functionalities, extracted from a manifest or a descriptor. The NSP management systems can demand this information to offer detailed information through the commercial channels to the customer.</t> </list></t> </list></t> </section> <section title="Cloud Data Center Scenario"> <t>In a data center, network security mechanisms such as firewalls may need to be dynamically added or removed for a number of reasons. These changes may be explicitly requested by the user, or triggered by a pre-agreed upon Service Level Agreement (SLA) between the user and the provider of the service. For example, the service provider may be required to add more firewall capacity within a set timeframe whenever the bandwidth utilization hits a certain threshold for a specified period. This capacity expansion could result in adding new instances of firewalls on existing machines or provisioning a completely new firewall instance in a different machine.</t> <t>The on-demand, dynamic nature of security service delivery essentially encourages that the network security "devices" be in software or virtual form factors, rather than in a physical appliance form. This requirement is a provider-side concern. Users of the firewall service are agnostic (as they should) as to whether or not the firewall service is run on a VM or any other form factor. Indeed, they may not even be aware that their traffic traverses firewalls.</t> <t>Furthermore, new firewall instances need to be placed in the "right zone" (domain). The issue applies not only to multi-tenant environments where getting the tenant in the right domain is of paramount importance, but also in environments owned and operated by a single organization with its own service segregation policies. For example, an enterprise may mandate that firewalls serving Internet traffic and Business-to-Business (B2B) traffic be separated. Another example is that IPS/IDS services for investment banking and non-banking traffic may be separated for regulatory reasons.</t> <section title="On-Demand Virtual Firewall Deployment"> <t>A service provider-operated cloud data center could serve tens of thousands of clients. Clients' compute servers are typically hosted on virtual machines (VMs), which could be deployed across different server racks located in different parts of the data center. It is often not technically and/or financially feasible to deploy dedicated physical firewalls to suit each client's security policy requirements, which can be numerous. What is needed is the ability to dynamically deploy virtual firewalls for each client's set of servers based on established security policies and underlying network topologies.</t> <t><figure> <artwork><![CDATA[ ---+-----------------------------+----- | | +---+ +-+-+ |vFW| |vFW| +---+ +-+-+ | Client #1 | Client #2 ---+-------+--- ---+-------+--- +-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+ |vM | |vM | |vM | |vM | +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ Figure 4: NSF in Data Centers ]]></artwork> </figure></t> </section> <section title="Firewall Policy Deployment Automation"> <t>Firewall rule setting is often a time consuming, complex and error-prone process even within a single organization/enterprise framework. It becomes far more complex in provider-owned cloud networks that serve myriads of customers.</t> <t>Firewall rules today are highly tied with ports and addresses that identify traffic. This makes it very difficult for clients of cloud data centers to construct rules for their own traffic as the clients only see the virtual networks and the virtual addresses. The customer-visible virtual networks and addresses may be different from the actual packets traversing the FWs.</t> <t>Even though most vendors support similar firewall features, the actual rule configuration keywords are different from vendors to vendors, making it difficult for automation. Automation works best when it can leverage a common set of standards that will work across NSFs by multiple vendors. Without automation, it is virtually impossible for clients to dynamically specify their desired rules for their traffic.</t> <t>Another feature that aids automation of firewalls that must be covered in automation is dynamic key management. </t> </section> <section title="Client-Specific Security Policy in Cloud VPNs"> <t>Clients of service provider-operated cloud data centers need not only to secure Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) but also virtual security functions that apply the clients' security policies. The security policies may govern communication within the clients' own virtual networks as well as communication with external networks. For example, VPN service providers may need to provide firewall and other security services to their VPN clients. Today, it is generally not possible for clients to dynamically view (let alone change) what, where and how security policies are implemented on their provider-operated clouds. Indeed, no standards-based framework exists to allow clients to retrieve/manage security policies in a consistent manner across different providers.</t> <t>As described above, the dynamic key mechanisms are critical for the securing the VPN and the distribution of policies. </t> </section> <section title="Internal Network Monitoring"> <t>There are many types of internal traffic monitors that may be managed by a security controller. This includes a new class of services referred to as Data Loss Prevention (DLP), or Reputation Protection Services (RPS). Depending on the class of event, alerts may go to internal administrators, or external services.</t> </section> </section> <section title="I2NSF Preventing Distributed DoS in Overlay Networks"> <t>In the internet where everything is connected, preventing unwanted traffic that may cause Denial of Service (DoS) attack or distributed DoS (DDoS) has become a challenge. One place where DDoS can be challenging to prevent or mitigate is in overlay networks. Many networks such as Internet of Things (IoT) networks, Information-Centric Networks (ICN), Content Delivery Networks (CDN), and cloud networks use overlay networks within their paths (or links). The underlay networks that support overlay networks can be attacked by DDoS, thereby saturating access links or links within the network. DoS or DDoS attacks on the access links may also cause the overlay nodes' CPUs or links to be saturated by DoS or DDoS traffic which will prevent these links from being used by legitimate overlay traffic. Overlay security solutions do not address underlay security threats so there is a need for a distributed solution to prevent DDoS attacks from spreading throughout overlay and underlay networks. Such solution may for example rely upon the dynamic, highly-reactive, enforcement of security filtering policies network-wise. </t> <t>Similar to traditional networks placing a firewall or Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) on the wire to enforce traffic rules, the interface to network security functions (I2NSF) can be used by overlay networks to request underlay networks enforce certain flow-based security rules. Using this mechanism, the overlay network can coordinate with the underlay network to remove unwanted traffic including DoS and DDoS in the underlay network.</t> <t><figure> <artwork><![CDATA[ +-------------------------------------------+ | Application controlloer | | (e.g video conference service controller | | from centralized control or orchestration | +---+----------------------------+----------+ | consumer facing | | interface (A) | +----+----------------+ +---------------------+ | network operator | | network operator | | security controller +--| | security controller +--| | (underlay network) | | | overlay network | | +----+----------------+ | +------+--------------+ | | vendor facing | | vendor facing | | interface (C) | | interface (C) | | +----+---+ | +-------+-+ | | vendor | | | vendor | | | system | | | system | | +--------+ | +---------+ | | | NSF facing inteface | NSF Facing interface | (capabilty)(B) | (capability) (B) ---+-------------+----- ---+------------+--------- | | | | +--+---+ +-+---+ +---+--+ +--+----+ | NSF |-------| NSF | | NSF |------| NSF | +------+ +-----+ +------+ +-------+ vendor a vendor b vendor B Vendor C Figure 5: I2NSF Preventing DDoS Attacks in Overlay Networks. ]]></artwork> </figure> </t> </section> </section> <section title="Management Considerations"> <t>Management of NSFs usually include the following: <list style="symbols"> <t>Lifecycle managment and resource management of NSFs,</t> <t>Device configuration, such as address configuration, device internal attributes configuration, etc.;</t> <t>Signaling, and</t> <t>Policy rule provisioning.</t> </list> I2NSF will only focus on the policy provisioning part of NSF management.</t> </section> <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations"> <t>No IANA considerations exist for this document.</t> </section> <section title="Security Considerations"> <t>Having a secure access to control and monitor NSFs is crucial for hosted security services. An I2NSF security controller raises new security threats. It needs to be resilient to attacks and quickly recover from attacks. Therefore, proper secure communication channels have to be carefully specified for carrying controlling and monitoring traffic between the NSFs and their management entity (or entities). </t> <t> In addition, the Flow security policies specified by customers can conflict with providers' internal security policies which may allow unauthorized traffic or unauthorized changes to flow polices (e.g. customers changing flow policies that do not belong to them). Therefore, it is crucial to have proper AAA <xref target="RFC2904"></xref> to authorize access to the network and access to the I2NSF management stream. </t> </section> <section title="Contributors"> <t>I2NSF is a group effort. The following people actively contributed to the initial use case text: Xiaojun Zhuang (China Mobile), Sumandra Majee (F5), Ed Lopez (Fortinet), and Robert Moskowitz (Huawei).</t> </section> <section title="Contributing Authors"> <t>I2NSF has had a number of contributing authors. The following are contributing authors: <list style="symbols"> <t>Linda Dunbar (Huawei), </t> <t>Antonio Pastur (Telefonica I+D),</t> <t>Mohamed Boucadair (France Telecom),</t> <t>Michael Georgiades (Prime Tel),</t> <t>Minpeng Qi (China Mobile),</t> <t>Shaibal Chakrabarty (US Ignite),</t> <t>Nic Leymann (Deutsche Telekom), </t> <t>Anil Lohiya (Juniper), </t> <t> David Qi (Bloomberg), and </t> <t>Xiaobo Long. </t> </list></t> </section> </middle> <back> <references title="Normative References"> &RFC2119; </references> <references title="Informative References"> &RFC2904; &RFC4948; &RFC7297; &I-D.ietf-netmod-acl-model; &I-D.ietf-opsawg-firewalls; &I-D.jeong-i2nsf-sdn-security-services; &I-D.hares-i2nsf-gap-analysis; &I-D.lopez-i2nsf-packet; &I-D.pastor-i2nsf-access-usecases; &I-D.pastor-i2nsf-merged-use-cases; &I-D.qi-i2nsf-access-network-usecase; &I-D.zarny-i2nsf-data-center-use-cases; &I-D.zhou-i2nsf-capability-interface-monitoring; <reference anchor="Gartner-2013"> <front> <title>Gartner: Cloud-based security as a service set to take off</title> <author fullname="E. Messmer" initials="E." surname="Messmer"> <organization>Network World</organization> </author> <date day="31" month="October" year="2013" /> </front> </reference> </references> </back> </rfc>
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
