Hi Dave, 

What about: 

"The entity which owns the server should indicate the required offset to 
synchronize with a global time source."

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Dave O'Reilly [mailto:r...@daveor.com]
> Envoyé : samedi 7 avril 2018 16:31
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
> Cc : int-area@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [Int-area] Re draft-daveor-cgn-logging-02/RFC6302
> 
> Hi Mohamed,
> 
> I dont agree with this bit:
> 
> > Adjusting the log records to synchronize with a global time source is the
> responsibility of the entity which owns the server.
> 
> I think that both in principle and in practice this
> synchronisation/correction would be carried out by law enforcement as part of
> their investigation. There might, I suppose, be an expectation that a server
> operator would indicate if there was a difference between the times in their
> logs and a standard time reference but in any case the law enforcement
> officer is going to have to go through the logs and calibrate the times in
> the context of whatever matter they are investigating.
> 
> The log data plus analysis/calibration would form part of the justification
> for issuing a subpoena for CGN records (depending on jurisdiction), and the
> law enforcement officer would have to be able to stand over the grounds for
> accessing the logs if the request is challenged. If the information being
> requested is heavily dependent on the accuracy of the times stated in the
> request, as might be the case if CGN was in use, one could reasonably expect
> to be asked to justify that the times indicated are accurate (with reference
> to some sort of time standard) - at which point the law enforcement officer,
> forensic analyst, or whoever gathered the evidence would need to be able to
> explain how they concluded that the times in the subpoena were the correct
> ones. This would presumably include any offset calibration that was carried
> out, or at least the results of an investigation to confirm that such a
> calibration was not required.
> 
> Also, if a server operator adjusted the times in logs before providing them
> as evidence, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the
> authenticity/integrity of the evidence could be challenged because the log
> data has been altered since it was recorded.
> 
> Regards,
> daveor
> 
> > On 6 Apr 2018, at 08:03, <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>
> <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Dave,
> >
> > Glad to see that we are in agreement.
> >
> > I don't think that those sections are needed for the reasons explained in
> my previous message.
> >
> > One way to avoid misinterpreting your draft as conflicting with existing
> RFCs is to tweak section 7.4, e.g.:
> >
> > OLD:
> >
> >   There are many reasons why it is may not be possible to record logs
> >   with reference to a centralised time source (e.g.  NTP).  This could
> >   include scenarios should as security sensitive networks, or internal
> >   production networks.  Times MAY OPTIONALLY be recorded with reference
> >   to a centralised time source (e.g.  NTP) but this is not necessary.
> >   As long as times are recorded consistently, it should be possible to
> >   measure the offset from a reference time source if required for the
> >   purposes of quering records at another source.  This is common
> >   practice in digital forensics.
> >
> > NEW:
> >
> >   There are many reasons why it may not be possible for servers to record
> logs
> >   with reference to a global time source.  This could
> >   include scenarios such as security sensitive networks, or internal
> >   production networks. As long as times are recorded consistently, it
> should be possible to
> >   measure the offset from a traceable global time source (if required) for
> the
> >   purposes of querying records at another source. Adjusting the log records
> to
> >   synchronize with a global time source is the responsibility of the entity
> >   which owns the server.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> >> -----Message d'origine-----
> >> De : Dave O'Reilly [mailto:r...@daveor.com]
> >> Envoyé : jeudi 5 avril 2018 16:29
> >> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
> >> Cc : int-area@ietf.org
> >> Objet : Re: [Int-area] Re draft-daveor-cgn-logging-02/RFC6302
> >>
> >> Hi Mohamed,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your mail.
> >>
> >> I agree with you.
> >>
> >> The only reason I put these sections in here was because the IESG conflict
> >> review indicated a conflict between this document and the other two RFCs
> >> mentioned (Ref: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-daveor-
> cgn-
> >> logging/). In an effort to reconcile the feedback received with the
> content
> >> of draft-daveor-cgn-logging, I added these sections.
> >>
> >> Perfectly happy to remove them if that is the way the consensus emerges.
> >>
> >> daveor
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 5 Apr 2018, at 15:24, <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>
> >> <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Dave,
> >>>
> >>> I have a comment about the proposed update to RFC 6269 (the same comment
> >> applies for RFC6302, though).
> >>>
> >>> Actually, the proposed NEW text will require an extra effort to align
> >> timestamps among the server which maintains the logs, the authorities that
> >> relay an abuse claim, and the provider who manages the CGN. That extra
> effort
> >> has to be done by the entity managing the log server.
> >>>
> >>> From that standpoint, the proposed NEW text is no more than another
> example
> >> of "Accurate time-keeping"...which IMHO does not justify an update to the
> >> 6269.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Med
> >>>
> >>>> -----Message d'origine-----
> >>>> De : Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Dave
> >> O'Reilly
> >>>> Envoyé : mercredi 4 avril 2018 22:26
> >>>> À : int-area@ietf.org
> >>>> Objet : Re: [Int-area] Re draft-daveor-cgn-logging-02/RFC6302
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear all,
> >>>>
> >>>> Further to my email below, I have revised draft-daveor-cgn-logging and
> >>>> revision -03 is now available. I have restructured the content into the
> >> form
> >>>> of recommendations.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here’s the link: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-daveor-cgn-logging-03
> >>>>
> >>>> I have also included, at sections 7.6 and 7.7, proposed amendments to
> >> RFC6302
> >>>> and RFC6269 respectively.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> daveor
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 20 Mar 2018, at 13:45, Dave O'Reilly <r...@daveor.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dear all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> further to presenting at IETF-101 yesterday I wanted to send a follow
> up
> >>>> email to see if there is interest in working on a new best current
> >> practice
> >>>> for logging at internet-facing servers.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I hope I adequately presented the reasons why I think there needs to be
> >>>> some revision of the recommendations of RFC6302 and that there is some
> >>>> additional points to be considered in draft-daveor-cgn-logging-02.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The current version of the document (draft-daveor-cgn-logging-02)
> >> contains
> >>>> recommendations, but it is not really in the form of a BCP. If there is
> >>>> interest, I would like to suggest, in the first instance at least, that
> I
> >>>> prepare a new version of the document, structured in the form of a BCP
> >> with a
> >>>> set of recommendations for discussion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Any feedback would be appreciated.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks and best regards,
> >>>>> daveor
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Int-area mailing list
> >>>>> Int-area@ietf.org
> >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Int-area mailing list
> >>>> Int-area@ietf.org
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
> >

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

Reply via email to