Re: [OPSAWG] [Mud] putting quarantined IoT devices behind a captive portal
Montgomery, Douglas (Fed) wrote: > Most of the devices I think of as actual IoT devices have no direct > UI/shell. Your only interaction with them after initial > “install/configure” is through their cloud web service interface. That's true for many devices, but not all. Even light bulbs have output interfaces :-) > Having said that I think your model is fine. Good. > I would suggest detecting device reboot would be one signal to clear > quarantine state. Since MUD “misbehavior” is mostly instantaneously > detectable (1 packet), I am not that concerned that the device might > reboot for others reasons and still be infected. Device reboot probably needs an attestation to be believed. > One might keep a counter and a time stamp of quarantine clears and if > you a device had N MUD violations after quarantine clears in X time, > lock it down in quarantine or completely take it off line. Reasonable, but in the space of quality of implementation, I think. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
Re: [OPSAWG] [Mud] putting quarantined IoT devices behind a captive portal
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 4:13 PM M. Ranganathan wrote:
> The current draft https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-capport-api/
>
Wrong reference, I meant
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richardson-shg-mud-quarantined-access/
(sorry for extra email load).
Assumes that the "quarantined device" can access a subset of the ACE's
> allowed to the "unquarantined" device.
> However, I can think of a scenario where this does not have to be the
> case. I'd propose to generalize this.
>
> i.e. There are two sets of ACL's - one for normal operation and one for
> quarantined access. (i.e. quarantine access is not necessarily a subset of
> regular access).
>
> Use case:
>
> Under normal circumstances, the device does not need SSH access (port 22
> is not open). However, if the device is misbehaving some external agent (or
> human maybe) logs in and investigates the issue. The fix could involve
> copying new firmware.
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> Another thing that is missing currently is how to "clear" the quarantine
> state at the enforcement point. This would need an API defintion of we want
> to make that portable.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ranga
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 2:39 PM Michael Richardson
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Eliot Lear wrote:
>> > I’m not quite certain how it would work. Can you show a flow that
>> will
>> > work for an IoT device (e.g., headless and no display)?
>>
>> Device gets quarantined, and the MUD-controller moves it into an isolated
>> "VLAN". I put air/scare quotes around VLAN, because it's a "MAC-address
>> VLAN", not an 802.1Q thing. It's really just a layer-2 ACL.
>>
>> {We have no way to force the mishaving device into tagging it's packets,
>> nor
>> can we force it onto some other ESSID. We can't do a "port-based" VLAN,
>> because wifi has no ports, and we don't really know how many unmanaged
>> switches might be on the port anyway.
>> One might map this onto a IEEE 802.1Q VLAN across a backbone}
>>
>> Instead of just dropping all traffic for a device in this category,
>> all traffic (other than excepted traffic if you implement
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richardson-shg-mud-quarantined-access/
>> )
>> would go into a captive portal system.
>>
>> Such a system would, according to
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-capport-architecture/
>> receive a message when it initiates connections which are not allowed.
>> (While the capport WG contemplated an ICMP unreachable message with a
>> URI in it at one point, that is not the current design)
>>
>> Actually, I have no idea from reviewing the documentation what the
>> appropriate "you might be captive" ICMP is now.. THERE IS ONE RIGHT?
>>
>> Once the IoT device gets such a message, it can use the API
>> described at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-capport-api/
>> to retrieve a JSON object telling it that it is captive. At which point,
>> it
>> can flash a LED, or attempt a firmware upgrade, or maybe just reboot if a
>> timer goes off. (%)
>>
>> This requires that the IoT device get the captive portal API end point,
>> which
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis/ can
>> deliver
>> via DHCPv4/v6 or RA.
>>
>>
>> >> On 9 Jul 2019, at 16:41, Michael Richardson > >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Signed PGP part
>> >>
>> >> Between editing drafts yesterday, I got to thinking about
>> CAPPORT. I
>> >> have been working on what to do when an IoT device violates it's
>> MUD
>> >> profile. There are a bunch of issues around this.
>> >>
>> >> Yesterday, it occured to me that when such a device is quarantined
>> (I
>> >> really think it should be "quaranteed", but that's not a word) that
>> >> the capport controls and APIs should be available to the device to
>> >> learn what went on.
>> >>
>> >> This is not new, I think that this as been the approach of most
>> >> enterprise NEA systems upon encountering "infection". This has, I
>> >> assume, involved forced HTTP proxies to inform human. But, if we
>> have
>> >> APIs, we can inform device as well.
>> >>
>> >> Is this on anyone's radar?
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software
>> Works
>> >> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
>> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mud mailing list
>> m...@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mud
>>
>
>
> --
> M. Ranganathan
>
>
--
M. Ranganathan
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
Re: [OPSAWG] [Mud] putting quarantined IoT devices behind a captive portal
The current draft https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-capport-api/
Assumes that the "quarantined device" can access a subset of the ACE's
allowed to the "unquarantined" device.
However, I can think of a scenario where this does not have to be the case.
I'd propose to generalize this.
i.e. There are two sets of ACL's - one for normal operation and one for
quarantined access. (i.e. quarantine access is not necessarily a subset of
regular access).
Use case:
Under normal circumstances, the device does not need SSH access (port 22 is
not open). However, if the device is misbehaving some external agent (or
human maybe) logs in and investigates the issue. The fix could involve
copying new firmware.
Does this make sense?
Another thing that is missing currently is how to "clear" the quarantine
state at the enforcement point. This would need an API defintion of we want
to make that portable.
Regards,
Ranga
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 2:39 PM Michael Richardson
wrote:
>
> Eliot Lear wrote:
> > I’m not quite certain how it would work. Can you show a flow that
> will
> > work for an IoT device (e.g., headless and no display)?
>
> Device gets quarantined, and the MUD-controller moves it into an isolated
> "VLAN". I put air/scare quotes around VLAN, because it's a "MAC-address
> VLAN", not an 802.1Q thing. It's really just a layer-2 ACL.
>
> {We have no way to force the mishaving device into tagging it's packets,
> nor
> can we force it onto some other ESSID. We can't do a "port-based" VLAN,
> because wifi has no ports, and we don't really know how many unmanaged
> switches might be on the port anyway.
> One might map this onto a IEEE 802.1Q VLAN across a backbone}
>
> Instead of just dropping all traffic for a device in this category,
> all traffic (other than excepted traffic if you implement
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richardson-shg-mud-quarantined-access/
> )
> would go into a captive portal system.
>
> Such a system would, according to
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-capport-architecture/
> receive a message when it initiates connections which are not allowed.
> (While the capport WG contemplated an ICMP unreachable message with a
> URI in it at one point, that is not the current design)
>
> Actually, I have no idea from reviewing the documentation what the
> appropriate "you might be captive" ICMP is now.. THERE IS ONE RIGHT?
>
> Once the IoT device gets such a message, it can use the API
> described at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-capport-api/
> to retrieve a JSON object telling it that it is captive. At which point, it
> can flash a LED, or attempt a firmware upgrade, or maybe just reboot if a
> timer goes off. (%)
>
> This requires that the IoT device get the captive portal API end point,
> which
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis/ can
> deliver
> via DHCPv4/v6 or RA.
>
>
> >> On 9 Jul 2019, at 16:41, Michael Richardson
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Signed PGP part
> >>
> >> Between editing drafts yesterday, I got to thinking about CAPPORT.
> I
> >> have been working on what to do when an IoT device violates it's MUD
> >> profile. There are a bunch of issues around this.
> >>
> >> Yesterday, it occured to me that when such a device is quarantined
> (I
> >> really think it should be "quaranteed", but that's not a word) that
> >> the capport controls and APIs should be available to the device to
> >> learn what went on.
> >>
> >> This is not new, I think that this as been the approach of most
> >> enterprise NEA systems upon encountering "infection". This has, I
> >> assume, involved forced HTTP proxies to inform human. But, if we
> have
> >> APIs, we can inform device as well.
> >>
> >> Is this on anyone's radar?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software
> Works
> >> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
> --
> Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>
> --
> Mud mailing list
> m...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mud
>
--
M. Ranganathan
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
