----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Lonvick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 9:24 PM
Subject: [Syslog] Threat model requirements discussion


> Hi Folks,
>
> We need to back up a moment and formalize our thoughts on the threats that we
> are going to address to "secure" syslog messages.  We need to have this
> discussion to ensure that any mechanism we decide to provide will address the
> threats.  The summary of our discussion will likely be included in
> syslog-transport-(secure) to show our objective and how the mechanism
> meets it.
>
> >From the prior discussions, it looks like the primary threats to current
syslog
> messages are:
>
> - message observation
> - message tampering, injection, replay
> - message loss
>
> If these are the threats (please respond to the list if you don't agree),
> then we can deploy the following mechanisms to thwart them:
>    - message encryption at the transport layer will prevent observation
>    - transport layer encryption with a sufficient message authentication
>      check (mac) mechanism will allow a receiver to detect attemps of
>      tampering, injection and replay
>    - transport layer encryption will provide seqenced delivery of messages
>      in transit
>
> Is this sufficient for our needs?
>

I disagree.  I think this list of threats is excessive.

As I have said before, I regard integrity and message origin authentication as
the needs, with modification and spoofing as the threats.  I do not see
observation as a problem and although others have said it is, noone has given an
example of a syslog message that is so significant that it must be kept secret.
Doubtless someone will produce some but I doubt I will ever be convinced that it
is as important as the first two threats I mention.

The logical conclusion of your approach is that what we need is encryption,
encryption and encryption, and oh, we could throw in a little MAC here and
there.  I think this makes it too complex, too costly with the result that the
security that is needed, and could be provided more simply, will not happen.

Tom Petch

<snip>


_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog

Reply via email to