Re: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

2024-02-29 Thread pyllyukko 
Ehlo.

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 05:43:47PM +, Brent Kimberley via Kerberos wrote:
> Can anyone point me to some methods to benchmark and/or audit Kerberos v5?

A short while ago I submitted a PR[1] for the Lynis project that does
something like that. I also started documenting some of my own Kerberos
hardening stuff here[2].

Disclaimer: I'm quite new to Kerberos, so I might be off with some of
the hardenings, so all additional pointers/corrections are more than
welcome.

[1] https://github.com/CISOfy/lynis/pull/1456
[2] 
https://github.com/pyllyukko/harden.yml/wiki/Kerberos_hardening_and_maintenance

-- 
pyllyukko
email:   
PGP: https://keybase.io/pyllyukko
twitter: https://twitter.com/pyllyukko

Kerberos mailing list   [email protected]
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos

RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

2024-02-16 Thread Brent Kimberley via Kerberos 
Correction:
- Physical systems tend to wear out + fail spectacularly.
- Cyber systems tend to fail silently + inconveniently
- CPS systems tend to wear out + fail spectacularly + fail silently + 
inconveniently (case in point colonial pipeline)

The purpose of said tools is to evaluate & maintain asset health - over time. 
(PDCA)

-Original Message-
From: Brent Kimberley
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 12:49 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

The purpose of non-destructive testing is to validate form/fit/function - 
across the entire operational mission/ asset lifecycle/ whatever - contrasted 
with the STIG/CIS benchmark which throws the real problems "over the wall" to 
Ken H.

Using the outputs, the lifecycle manager constructs their budget for operations 
+ maintenance (OpEx) and replacement (CapEx).
Physical systems wear out.  (Weibull)
Cyber systems fail spectacularly.
CPS systems wear out + fail spectacularly. (Power-law?)

Why is this relevant?

Back in the 1940s, too many planes were falling out of the sky.  (Q.  How many 
planes are too many?) You call this philosophy a "surety system", "fly fix 
fly", "patch Tuesday", " FAA's approach to the Boeing 737 MAX" - whatever.
Regardless, by the 1950s, it was decided that action needed to be taken.  The 
status quo was unacceptable.  It was too expensive for operators.

The national safety council created something called the "Hierarchy of 
Controls."  It was immensely successful.  (Planes stopped falling out of the 
skies.)

You can call this approach "safety by design".  This approach and it's benefits 
are very well documented and might even be applicable to Navy C4ISR.

To tie a bow on this thread:
How can we make Kerberos safe?


-Original Message-
From: Brent Kimberley
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 12:19 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

At higher levels it falls under "Non Destructive testing".

-Original Message-
From: Brent Kimberley
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 12:12 PM
To: '[email protected]' ; '[email protected]' 

Subject: RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

This approach is taught in first year engineering.

-Original Message-
From: Brent Kimberley
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 12:10 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

Ken.
The term Frame of Reference is a Cyber Physical system (CPS) term.

For those who work in the cyber subset, the term is "interface".

Regardless of what you call it.

You take the system diagram and evaluate using each major interface or Frame of 
Reference.

The STIG or CIS benchmark is just one of the interfaces evaluated.


-

>Minor comment the CIS Benchmark appears to have been written from the
>system administrator's frame of reference - not the network frame of
>reference (FoR).  Typically, each frame of reference (FoR) needs to be
>audited.  Hence the need for automation.

I can only say this:

- I've been doing Kerberos for a few decades (but I'm certainly not the
  person with the most Kerberos experience on this list).
- I've done a ton of security accreditation work at my $DAYJOB, which
  also involves Kerberos.  As part of the accrediation work we (and
  others) do automated scanning that includes the Kerberos servers
  and this seems to satisfy the powers that be.  Some of the scanning
  seems to detect Kerberos but I am unclear how much it actually checks
  for other than "Kerberos is found".
- I've used the aforementioned CIS Benchmark.
- I really have no clue what you mean by "frame of reference" in this
  context, and this corresponds to no security accreditation or auditing
  requirements I have ever encountered so I cannot provide any
  suggestions; I'm really unclear what you are asking for.

--Ken

-Original Message-
From: Brent Kimberley
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 3:24 PM
To: Christopher D. Clausen ; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

Minor comment the CIS Benchmark appears to have been written from the system 
administrator's frame of reference - not the network frame of reference (FoR).
Typically, each frame of reference (FoR) needs to be audited.  Hence the need 
for automation.

-Original Message-
From: Christopher D. Clausen 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 2:10 PM
To: Brent Kimberley ; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 
at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

I have used this as a guide, but I think MIT Kerb

RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

2024-02-15 Thread Brent Kimberley via Kerberos 
The purpose of non-destructive testing is to validate form/fit/function - 
across the entire operational mission/ asset lifecycle/ whatever - contrasted 
with the STIG/CIS benchmark which throws the real problems "over the wall" to 
Ken H.

Using the outputs, the lifecycle manager constructs their budget for operations 
+ maintenance (OpEx) and replacement (CapEx).
Physical systems wear out.  (Weibull)
Cyber systems fail spectacularly.
CPS systems wear out + fail spectacularly. (Power-law?)

Why is this relevant?

Back in the 1940s, too many planes were falling out of the sky.  (Q.  How many 
planes are too many?)
You call this philosophy a "surety system", "fly fix fly", "patch Tuesday", " 
FAA's approach to the Boeing 737 MAX" - whatever.
Regardless, by the 1950s, it was decided that action needed to be taken.  The 
status quo was unacceptable.  It was too expensive for operators.

The national safety council created something called the "Hierarchy of 
Controls."  It was immensely successful.  (Planes stopped falling out of the 
skies.)

You can call this approach "safety by design".  This approach and it's benefits 
are very well documented and might even be applicable to Navy C4ISR.

To tie a bow on this thread:
How can we make Kerberos safe?


-Original Message-
From: Brent Kimberley
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 12:19 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

At higher levels it falls under "Non Destructive testing".

-Original Message-
From: Brent Kimberley
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 12:12 PM
To: '[email protected]' ; '[email protected]' 

Subject: RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

This approach is taught in first year engineering.

-Original Message-
From: Brent Kimberley
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 12:10 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

Ken.
The term Frame of Reference is a Cyber Physical system (CPS) term.

For those who work in the cyber subset, the term is "interface".

Regardless of what you call it.

You take the system diagram and evaluate using each major interface or Frame of 
Reference.

The STIG or CIS benchmark is just one of the interfaces evaluated.


-

>Minor comment the CIS Benchmark appears to have been written from the
>system administrator's frame of reference - not the network frame of
>reference (FoR).  Typically, each frame of reference (FoR) needs to be
>audited.  Hence the need for automation.

I can only say this:

- I've been doing Kerberos for a few decades (but I'm certainly not the
  person with the most Kerberos experience on this list).
- I've done a ton of security accreditation work at my $DAYJOB, which
  also involves Kerberos.  As part of the accrediation work we (and
  others) do automated scanning that includes the Kerberos servers
  and this seems to satisfy the powers that be.  Some of the scanning
  seems to detect Kerberos but I am unclear how much it actually checks
  for other than "Kerberos is found".
- I've used the aforementioned CIS Benchmark.
- I really have no clue what you mean by "frame of reference" in this
  context, and this corresponds to no security accreditation or auditing
  requirements I have ever encountered so I cannot provide any
  suggestions; I'm really unclear what you are asking for.

--Ken

-----Original Message-
From: Brent Kimberley
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 3:24 PM
To: Christopher D. Clausen ; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

Minor comment the CIS Benchmark appears to have been written from the system 
administrator's frame of reference - not the network frame of reference (FoR).
Typically, each frame of reference (FoR) needs to be audited.  Hence the need 
for automation.

-Original Message-
From: Christopher D. Clausen 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 2:10 PM
To: Brent Kimberley ; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 
at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

I have used this as a guide, but I think MIT Kerberos version 1.10 is the 
latest available:
https://www.cisecurity.org/benchmark/mit_kerberos

Not sure if this is what you are looking for or not.

< Preferably something smaller and more focused than nmap or OpenSCAP. 😉





> > > > > >
> From: Brent Kimberley
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 12:44 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry
>
> Hi.
> Can anyone point me to some methods to benchmark and/or audit Kerberos v5?
>
> For exa

Re: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

2024-02-15 Thread Ken Hornstein via Kerberos 
>This approach is taught in first year engineering.

Geez dude, no need to drag me; I'll be the first one to admit that I'm old
and don't know everything!  Back in my day our curriculums didn't cover
any computer security topics at all.

But I stand by my original statements: I, personally, have not encountered
those terms before and I've feel it's fair to say I've done a large amount
of accreditation and audit work and some of it involves Kerberos.  And
even with your followup emails I'm still unclear what you are asking for.
Is this because I am old and don't know everything?  Certainly!  Maybe
it's like Zero Trust Security and I am already mostly doing it.  Maybe
it's something we have never been asked to do, so I've never done it
(because in the accreditation world you don't seem to get extra credit
for doing stuff that the accreditors do not ask for).

--Ken

Kerberos mailing list   [email protected]
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos

RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

2024-02-15 Thread Brent Kimberley via Kerberos 
At higher levels it falls under "Non Destructive testing".

-Original Message-
From: Brent Kimberley
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 12:12 PM
To: '[email protected]' ; '[email protected]' 

Subject: RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

This approach is taught in first year engineering.

-Original Message-
From: Brent Kimberley
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 12:10 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

Ken.
The term Frame of Reference is a Cyber Physical system (CPS) term.

For those who work in the cyber subset, the term is "interface".

Regardless of what you call it.

You take the system diagram and evaluate using each major interface or Frame of 
Reference.

The STIG or CIS benchmark is just one of the interfaces evaluated.


-

>Minor comment the CIS Benchmark appears to have been written from the
>system administrator's frame of reference - not the network frame of
>reference (FoR).  Typically, each frame of reference (FoR) needs to be
>audited.  Hence the need for automation.

I can only say this:

- I've been doing Kerberos for a few decades (but I'm certainly not the
  person with the most Kerberos experience on this list).
- I've done a ton of security accreditation work at my $DAYJOB, which
  also involves Kerberos.  As part of the accrediation work we (and
  others) do automated scanning that includes the Kerberos servers
  and this seems to satisfy the powers that be.  Some of the scanning
  seems to detect Kerberos but I am unclear how much it actually checks
  for other than "Kerberos is found".
- I've used the aforementioned CIS Benchmark.
- I really have no clue what you mean by "frame of reference" in this
  context, and this corresponds to no security accreditation or auditing
  requirements I have ever encountered so I cannot provide any
  suggestions; I'm really unclear what you are asking for.

--Ken

-Original Message-
From: Brent Kimberley
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 3:24 PM
To: Christopher D. Clausen ; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

Minor comment the CIS Benchmark appears to have been written from the system 
administrator's frame of reference - not the network frame of reference (FoR).
Typically, each frame of reference (FoR) needs to be audited.  Hence the need 
for automation.

-Original Message-
From: Christopher D. Clausen 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 2:10 PM
To: Brent Kimberley ; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 
at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

I have used this as a guide, but I think MIT Kerberos version 1.10 is the 
latest available:
https://www.cisecurity.org/benchmark/mit_kerberos

Not sure if this is what you are looking for or not.

< Preferably something smaller and more focused than nmap or OpenSCAP. 😉




> > > > >
> From: Brent Kimberley
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 12:44 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry
>
> Hi.
> Can anyone point me to some methods to benchmark and/or audit Kerberos v5?
>
> For example, SSH:
> Manual
>Read the RFCs and specs.
>Semi-automatic.
>jtesta/ssh-audit: SSH server & client security 
> auditing (banner, key exchange, encryption, mac, compression, compatibility, 
> security, etc) (github.com)<https://github.com/jtesta/ssh-audit/>
> Automatic
>SSH Configuration Auditor
> (ssh-audit.com)<http://ht/
> tps%3A%2F%2Fwww.ssh-audit.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7CBrent.Kimberley%40Durh
> am.ca%7C8eddde16708448e6cdb008dc2d907d49%7C52d7c9c2d54941b69b1f9da198d
> c3f16%7C0%7C0%7C638435345797172606%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4
> wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&s
> data=ydwY2y5%2FxuZxJavbNQw877yOmuFuVo3DktJr%2FdFA05A%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> TLS example upon request.

THIS MESSAGE IS FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) ONLY AND MAY CONTAIN 
INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY, CONFIDENTIAL, AND/OR EXEMPT FROM 
DISCLOSURE UNDER ANY RELEVANT PRIVACY LEGISLATION. No rights to any privilege 
have been waived. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby 
notified that any review, re-transmission, dissemination, distribution, 
copying, conversion to hard copy, taking of action in reliance on or other use 
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended 
recipient and have received this message in error, please notify me by return 
e-mail and delete or destroy all copies of this message.


Kerberos mailing list   [email protected]
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos

RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

2024-02-15 Thread Brent Kimberley via Kerberos 
This approach is taught in first year engineering.

-Original Message-
From: Brent Kimberley
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 12:10 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

Ken.
The term Frame of Reference is a Cyber Physical system (CPS) term.

For those who work in the cyber subset, the term is "interface".

Regardless of what you call it.

You take the system diagram and evaluate using each major interface or Frame of 
Reference.

The STIG or CIS benchmark is just one of the interfaces evaluated.


-

>Minor comment the CIS Benchmark appears to have been written from the
>system administrator's frame of reference - not the network frame of
>reference (FoR).  Typically, each frame of reference (FoR) needs to be
>audited.  Hence the need for automation.

I can only say this:

- I've been doing Kerberos for a few decades (but I'm certainly not the
  person with the most Kerberos experience on this list).
- I've done a ton of security accreditation work at my $DAYJOB, which
  also involves Kerberos.  As part of the accrediation work we (and
  others) do automated scanning that includes the Kerberos servers
  and this seems to satisfy the powers that be.  Some of the scanning
  seems to detect Kerberos but I am unclear how much it actually checks
  for other than "Kerberos is found".
- I've used the aforementioned CIS Benchmark.
- I really have no clue what you mean by "frame of reference" in this
  context, and this corresponds to no security accreditation or auditing
  requirements I have ever encountered so I cannot provide any
  suggestions; I'm really unclear what you are asking for.

--Ken

-Original Message-
From: Brent Kimberley
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 3:24 PM
To: Christopher D. Clausen ; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

Minor comment the CIS Benchmark appears to have been written from the system 
administrator's frame of reference - not the network frame of reference (FoR).
Typically, each frame of reference (FoR) needs to be audited.  Hence the need 
for automation.

-Original Message-
From: Christopher D. Clausen 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 2:10 PM
To: Brent Kimberley ; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 
at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

I have used this as a guide, but I think MIT Kerberos version 1.10 is the 
latest available:
https://www.cisecurity.org/benchmark/mit_kerberos

Not sure if this is what you are looking for or not.

< Preferably something smaller and more focused than nmap or OpenSCAP. 😉



> > > >
> From: Brent Kimberley
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 12:44 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry
>
> Hi.
> Can anyone point me to some methods to benchmark and/or audit Kerberos v5?
>
> For example, SSH:
> Manual
>Read the RFCs and specs.
>Semi-automatic.
>jtesta/ssh-audit: SSH server & client security 
> auditing (banner, key exchange, encryption, mac, compression, compatibility, 
> security, etc) (github.com)<https://github.com/jtesta/ssh-audit/>
> Automatic
>SSH Configuration Auditor
> (ssh-audit.com)<http://ht/
> tps%3A%2F%2Fwww.ssh-audit.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7CBrent.Kimberley%40Durh
> am.ca%7C8eddde16708448e6cdb008dc2d907d49%7C52d7c9c2d54941b69b1f9da198d
> c3f16%7C0%7C0%7C638435345797172606%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4
> wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&s
> data=ydwY2y5%2FxuZxJavbNQw877yOmuFuVo3DktJr%2FdFA05A%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> TLS example upon request.

THIS MESSAGE IS FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) ONLY AND MAY CONTAIN 
INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY, CONFIDENTIAL, AND/OR EXEMPT FROM 
DISCLOSURE UNDER ANY RELEVANT PRIVACY LEGISLATION. No rights to any privilege 
have been waived. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby 
notified that any review, re-transmission, dissemination, distribution, 
copying, conversion to hard copy, taking of action in reliance on or other use 
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended 
recipient and have received this message in error, please notify me by return 
e-mail and delete or destroy all copies of this message.


Kerberos mailing list   [email protected]
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos

RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

2024-02-15 Thread Brent Kimberley via Kerberos 
Ken.
The term Frame of Reference is a Cyber Physical system (CPS) term.

For those who work in the cyber subset, the term is "interface".

Regardless of what you call it.

You take the system diagram and evaluate using each major interface or Frame of 
Reference.

The STIG or CIS benchmark is just one of the interfaces evaluated.


-

>Minor comment the CIS Benchmark appears to have been written from the
>system administrator's frame of reference - not the network frame of
>reference (FoR).  Typically, each frame of reference (FoR) needs to be
>audited.  Hence the need for automation.

I can only say this:

- I've been doing Kerberos for a few decades (but I'm certainly not the
  person with the most Kerberos experience on this list).
- I've done a ton of security accreditation work at my $DAYJOB, which
  also involves Kerberos.  As part of the accrediation work we (and
  others) do automated scanning that includes the Kerberos servers
  and this seems to satisfy the powers that be.  Some of the scanning
  seems to detect Kerberos but I am unclear how much it actually checks
  for other than "Kerberos is found".
- I've used the aforementioned CIS Benchmark.
- I really have no clue what you mean by "frame of reference" in this
  context, and this corresponds to no security accreditation or auditing
  requirements I have ever encountered so I cannot provide any
  suggestions; I'm really unclear what you are asking for.

--Ken

-Original Message-
From: Brent Kimberley
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 3:24 PM
To: Christopher D. Clausen ; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

Minor comment the CIS Benchmark appears to have been written from the system 
administrator's frame of reference - not the network frame of reference (FoR).
Typically, each frame of reference (FoR) needs to be audited.  Hence the need 
for automation.

-Original Message-
From: Christopher D. Clausen 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 2:10 PM
To: Brent Kimberley ; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 
at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

I have used this as a guide, but I think MIT Kerberos version 1.10 is the 
latest available:
https://www.cisecurity.org/benchmark/mit_kerberos

Not sure if this is what you are looking for or not.

< Preferably something smaller and more focused than nmap or OpenSCAP. 😉


> > >
> From: Brent Kimberley
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 12:44 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry
>
> Hi.
> Can anyone point me to some methods to benchmark and/or audit Kerberos v5?
>
> For example, SSH:
> Manual
>Read the RFCs and specs.
>Semi-automatic.
>jtesta/ssh-audit: SSH server & client security 
> auditing (banner, key exchange, encryption, mac, compression, compatibility, 
> security, etc) (github.com)<https://github.com/jtesta/ssh-audit/>
> Automatic
>SSH Configuration Auditor
> (ssh-audit.com)<http://ht/
> tps%3A%2F%2Fwww.ssh-audit.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7CBrent.Kimberley%40Durh
> am.ca%7C8eddde16708448e6cdb008dc2d907d49%7C52d7c9c2d54941b69b1f9da198d
> c3f16%7C0%7C0%7C638435345797172606%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4
> wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&s
> data=ydwY2y5%2FxuZxJavbNQw877yOmuFuVo3DktJr%2FdFA05A%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> TLS example upon request.

THIS MESSAGE IS FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) ONLY AND MAY CONTAIN 
INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY, CONFIDENTIAL, AND/OR EXEMPT FROM 
DISCLOSURE UNDER ANY RELEVANT PRIVACY LEGISLATION. No rights to any privilege 
have been waived. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby 
notified that any review, re-transmission, dissemination, distribution, 
copying, conversion to hard copy, taking of action in reliance on or other use 
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended 
recipient and have received this message in error, please notify me by return 
e-mail and delete or destroy all copies of this message.


Kerberos mailing list   [email protected]
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos

Re: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

2024-02-14 Thread Ken Hornstein via Kerberos 
>Minor comment the CIS Benchmark appears to have been written from the
>system administrator's frame of reference - not the network frame of
>reference (FoR).  Typically, each frame of reference (FoR) needs to be
>audited.  Hence the need for automation.

I can only say this:

- I've been doing Kerberos for a few decades (but I'm certainly not the
  person with the most Kerberos experience on this list).
- I've done a ton of security accreditation work at my $DAYJOB, which
  also involves Kerberos.  As part of the accrediation work we (and
  others) do automated scanning that includes the Kerberos servers
  and this seems to satisfy the powers that be.  Some of the scanning
  seems to detect Kerberos but I am unclear how much it actually checks
  for other than "Kerberos is found".
- I've used the aforementioned CIS Benchmark.
- I really have no clue what you mean by "frame of reference" in this
  context, and this corresponds to no security accreditation or auditing
  requirements I have ever encountered so I cannot provide any
  suggestions; I'm really unclear what you are asking for.

--Ken

Kerberos mailing list   [email protected]
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos

RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

2024-02-14 Thread Brent Kimberley via Kerberos 
Minor comment the CIS Benchmark appears to have been written from the system 
administrator's frame of reference - not the network frame of reference (FoR).
Typically, each frame of reference (FoR) needs to be audited.  Hence the need 
for automation.

-Original Message-
From: Christopher D. Clausen 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 2:10 PM
To: Brent Kimberley ; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 
at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

I have used this as a guide, but I think MIT Kerberos version 1.10 is the 
latest available:
https://www.cisecurity.org/benchmark/mit_kerberos

Not sure if this is what you are looking for or not.

< Preferably something smaller and more focused than nmap or OpenSCAP. 😉

> >
> From: Brent Kimberley
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 12:44 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry
>
> Hi.
> Can anyone point me to some methods to benchmark and/or audit Kerberos v5?
>
> For example, SSH:
> Manual
>Read the RFCs and specs.
>Semi-automatic.
>jtesta/ssh-audit: SSH server & client security 
> auditing (banner, key exchange, encryption, mac, compression, compatibility, 
> security, etc) (github.com)<https://github.com/jtesta/ssh-audit/>
> Automatic
>SSH Configuration Auditor
> (ssh-audit.com)<http://ht/
> tps%3A%2F%2Fwww.ssh-audit.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7CBrent.Kimberley%40Durh
> am.ca%7C8eddde16708448e6cdb008dc2d907d49%7C52d7c9c2d54941b69b1f9da198d
> c3f16%7C0%7C0%7C638435345797172606%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4
> wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&s
> data=ydwY2y5%2FxuZxJavbNQw877yOmuFuVo3DktJr%2FdFA05A%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> TLS example upon request.

THIS MESSAGE IS FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) ONLY AND MAY CONTAIN 
INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY, CONFIDENTIAL, AND/OR EXEMPT FROM 
DISCLOSURE UNDER ANY RELEVANT PRIVACY LEGISLATION. No rights to any privilege 
have been waived. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby 
notified that any review, re-transmission, dissemination, distribution, 
copying, conversion to hard copy, taking of action in reliance on or other use 
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended 
recipient and have received this message in error, please notify me by return 
e-mail and delete or destroy all copies of this message.


Kerberos mailing list   [email protected]
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos

RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

2024-02-14 Thread Brent Kimberley via Kerberos 
To the best of my knowledge" Krb5i provides integrity whereas Krb5p provides 
confidentiality, integrity, and replay protection.

"Walk tool" finding could map to a radar chart.

In other news, Matthew Palko plans to modernize authentication.
https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/windows-it-pro-blog/the-evolution-of-windows-authentication/ba-p/3926848


-Original Message-
From: Brent Kimberley
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 2:20 PM
To: Christopher D. Clausen ; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

Hi Christopher.

Yes.  You are correct.  Peer reviewed installation readiness documents like the 
CIS MIT benchmark are a good "first step."

I was asking pointers to the rest of the lifecycle suite - specifically "walk".

Crawl
=
Installation readiness documents
e.g., CIS MIT Kerberos Benchmark

Walk

Focused applications.

Application which can connect to a client or a server and emit:
Enabled ciphers.
Enabled MACs.
Enabled Kerberos modes (krb5, krb5i, krb5p)
etc.

Background: most sites appear to be misconfigured.

Run

A focused service.


-Original Message-
From: Christopher D. Clausen 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 2:10 PM
To: Brent Kimberley ; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 
at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

I have used this as a guide, but I think MIT Kerberos version 1.10 is the 
latest available:
https://www.cisecurity.org/benchmark/mit_kerberos

Not sure if this is what you are looking for or not.

< Preferably something smaller and more focused than nmap or OpenSCAP. 😉

> >
> From: Brent Kimberley
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 12:44 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry
>
> Hi.
> Can anyone point me to some methods to benchmark and/or audit Kerberos v5?
>
> For example, SSH:
> Manual
>Read the RFCs and specs.
>Semi-automatic.
>jtesta/ssh-audit: SSH server & client security 
> auditing (banner, key exchange, encryption, mac, compression, compatibility, 
> security, etc) (github.com)<https://github.com/jtesta/ssh-audit/>
> Automatic
>SSH Configuration Auditor
> (ssh-audit.com)<http://ht/
> tps%3A%2F%2Fwww.ssh-audit.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7CBrent.Kimberley%40Durh
> am.ca%7C8eddde16708448e6cdb008dc2d907d49%7C52d7c9c2d54941b69b1f9da198d
> c3f16%7C0%7C0%7C638435345797172606%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4
> wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&s
> data=ydwY2y5%2FxuZxJavbNQw877yOmuFuVo3DktJr%2FdFA05A%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> TLS example upon request.

THIS MESSAGE IS FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) ONLY AND MAY CONTAIN 
INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY, CONFIDENTIAL, AND/OR EXEMPT FROM 
DISCLOSURE UNDER ANY RELEVANT PRIVACY LEGISLATION. No rights to any privilege 
have been waived. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby 
notified that any review, re-transmission, dissemination, distribution, 
copying, conversion to hard copy, taking of action in reliance on or other use 
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended 
recipient and have received this message in error, please notify me by return 
e-mail and delete or destroy all copies of this message.


Kerberos mailing list   [email protected]
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos

RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

2024-02-14 Thread Brent Kimberley via Kerberos 
Hi Christopher.

Yes.  You are correct.  Peer reviewed installation readiness documents like the 
CIS MIT benchmark are a good "first step."

I was asking pointers to the rest of the lifecycle suite - specifically "walk".

Crawl
=
Installation readiness documents
e.g., CIS MIT Kerberos Benchmark

Walk

Focused applications.

Application which can connect to a client or a server and emit:
Enabled ciphers.
Enabled MACs.
Enabled Kerberos modes (krb5, krb5i, krb5p)
etc.

Background: most sites appear to be misconfigured.

Run

A focused service.


-Original Message-
From: Christopher D. Clausen 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 2:10 PM
To: Brent Kimberley ; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 
at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

I have used this as a guide, but I think MIT Kerberos version 1.10 is the 
latest available:
https://www.cisecurity.org/benchmark/mit_kerberos

Not sure if this is what you are looking for or not.

< Preferably something smaller and more focused than nmap or OpenSCAP. 😉

> >
> From: Brent Kimberley
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 12:44 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry
>
> Hi.
> Can anyone point me to some methods to benchmark and/or audit Kerberos v5?
>
> For example, SSH:
> Manual
>Read the RFCs and specs.
>Semi-automatic.
>jtesta/ssh-audit: SSH server & client security 
> auditing (banner, key exchange, encryption, mac, compression, compatibility, 
> security, etc) (github.com)<https://github.com/jtesta/ssh-audit/>
> Automatic
>SSH Configuration Auditor
> (ssh-audit.com)<http://ht/
> tps%3A%2F%2Fwww.ssh-audit.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7CBrent.Kimberley%40Durh
> am.ca%7C8eddde16708448e6cdb008dc2d907d49%7C52d7c9c2d54941b69b1f9da198d
> c3f16%7C0%7C0%7C638435345797172606%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4
> wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&s
> data=ydwY2y5%2FxuZxJavbNQw877yOmuFuVo3DktJr%2FdFA05A%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> TLS example upon request.

THIS MESSAGE IS FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) ONLY AND MAY CONTAIN 
INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY, CONFIDENTIAL, AND/OR EXEMPT FROM 
DISCLOSURE UNDER ANY RELEVANT PRIVACY LEGISLATION. No rights to any privilege 
have been waived. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby 
notified that any review, re-transmission, dissemination, distribution, 
copying, conversion to hard copy, taking of action in reliance on or other use 
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended 
recipient and have received this message in error, please notify me by return 
e-mail and delete or destroy all copies of this message.


Kerberos mailing list   [email protected]
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos

Re: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

2024-02-14 Thread Christopher D. Clausen 
I have used this as a guide, but I think MIT Kerberos version 1.10 is 
the latest available:

https://www.cisecurity.org/benchmark/mit_kerberos

Not sure if this is what you are looking for or not.

<
Preferably something smaller and more focused than nmap or OpenSCAP. 😉

From: Brent Kimberley
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 12:44 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

Hi.
Can anyone point me to some methods to benchmark and/or audit Kerberos v5?

For example, SSH:
Manual
   Read the RFCs and specs.
   Semi-automatic.
   jtesta/ssh-audit: SSH server & client security 
auditing (banner, key exchange, encryption, mac, compression, compatibility, security, 
etc) (github.com)
Automatic
   SSH Configuration Auditor 
(ssh-audit.com)


TLS example upon request.



Kerberos mailing list   [email protected]
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos

RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

2024-02-14 Thread Brent Kimberley via Kerberos 
Preferably something smaller and more focused than nmap or OpenSCAP. 😉

From: Brent Kimberley
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 12:44 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

Hi.
Can anyone point me to some methods to benchmark and/or audit Kerberos v5?

For example, SSH:
   Manual
  Read the RFCs and specs.
  Semi-automatic.
  jtesta/ssh-audit: SSH server & client security 
auditing (banner, key exchange, encryption, mac, compression, compatibility, 
security, etc) (github.com)
   Automatic
  SSH Configuration Auditor 
(ssh-audit.com)


TLS example upon request.

THIS MESSAGE IS FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) ONLY AND MAY CONTAIN 
INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY, CONFIDENTIAL, AND/OR EXEMPT FROM 
DISCLOSURE UNDER ANY RELEVANT PRIVACY LEGISLATION. No rights to any privilege 
have been waived. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby 
notified that any review, re-transmission, dissemination, distribution, 
copying, conversion to hard copy, taking of action in reliance on or other use 
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended 
recipient and have received this message in error, please notify me by return 
e-mail and delete or destroy all copies of this message.

Kerberos mailing list   [email protected]
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos