MILE Working Group T. Takahashi Internet-Draft NICT Intended status: Standards Track K. Landfield Expires: August 4, 2012 McAfee T. Millar USCERT Y. Kadobayashi NAIST Feb 1, 2012 IODEF-extension to support structured cybersecurity information draft-ietf-mile-sci-02.txt Abstract This document extends the Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF) defined in RFC 5070 [RFC5070] to facilitate enriched cybersecurity information exchange among cybersecurity entities by embedding structured information formatted by specifications, including CAPEC[TM] [CAPEC], CEE[TM] [CEE], CPE[TM] [CPE], CVE(R) [CVE], CVRF [CVRF], CVSS [CVSS], CWE[TM] [CWE], CWSS[TM] [CWSS], OCIL [OCIL], OVAL(R) [OVAL], and XCCDF [XCCDF]. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on August 4, 2012. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 1] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 2] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Extension Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. List of Supported Structured Cybersecurity Information Specifictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1.1. CAPEC 1.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1.2. CCE 5.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1.3. CCSS 1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1.4. CEE 0.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1.5. CPE 2.3 Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1.6. CPE 2.3 Dictionary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1.7. CVE 1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1.8. CVRF 1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1.9. CVSS 2.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1.10. CWE 5.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1.11. CWSS 0.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1.12. MAEC 2.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1.13. OCIL 2.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1.14. OVAL 5.10.1 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1.15. OVAL 5.10.1 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1.16. OVAL 5.10.1 Common . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1.17. XCCDF 1.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2. Extended Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2.1. XMLDATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.3. Extended Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.3.1. AttackPattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3.2. Platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.3.3. Vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.3.4. Scoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.3.5. Weakness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.3.6. EventReport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.3.7. Verifcation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.3.8. Remediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.1. Transport-Specific Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7. Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 8. Appendix I: XML Schema Definition for Extension . . . . . . . 24 9. Appendix II: XML Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 3] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 1. Introduction Cyber attacks are getting more sophisticated, and their numbers are increasing day by day. To cope with such situation, incident information needs to be reported, exchanged, and shared among organizations. IODEF is one of the tools enabling such exchange, and is already in use. To efficiently run cybersecurity operations, these exchanged information needs to be machine-readable. IODEF provides a structured means to describe the information, but it needs to embed various non-structured such information in order to convey detailed information. Further structure within IODEF increases IODEF documents' machine-readability and thus facilitates streamlining cybersecurity operations. On the other hand, there exist various other activities facilitating detailed and structured description of cybersecurity information, major of which includes CAPEC [CAPEC], CEE [CEE], CPE [CPE], CVE [CVE], CVRF [CVRF], CVSS [CVSS], CWE [CWE], CWSS [CWSS], OCIL [OCIL], OVAL [OVAL], and XCCDF [XCCDF]. Since such structured description facilitates cybersecurity operations, it would be beneficial to embed and convey these information inside IODEF document. To enable that, this document extends the IODEF to embed and convey various structured cybersecurity information, with which cybersecurity operations can be facilitated. Since IODEF defines a flexible and extensible format and supports a granular level of specificity, this document defines an extension to IODEF instead of defining a new report format. For clarity, and to eliminate duplication, only the additional structures necessary for describing the exchange of such structured information are provided. 2. Terminology The terminology used in this document follows the one defined in RFC 5070 [RFC5070]. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 3. Applicability To maintain cybersecurity, organization needs to exchange cybersecurity information, which includes the following information: Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 4] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 attack pattern, platform information, vulnerability and weakness, countermeasure instruction, computer event log, and the severity. IODEF provides a scheme to exchange such information among interested parties. However, the detailed common format to describe such information is not defined in the IODEF base document. On the other hand, to describe those information and to facilitate exchange, a structured format for that is already available. Major of them are CAPEC, CEE, CPE, CVE, CVRF, CVSS, CWE, CWSS, OCIL, OVAL, and XCCDF. By embedding them into the IODEF document, the document can convey more detailed contents to the receivers, and the document can be easily reused. Note that interactive communication is needed in some cases, and some of these structured information, e.g., OCIL information, solicits reply from recipients. These reply could be also embedded inside the IODEF document. These structured cybersecurity information facilitates cybersecurity operation at the receiver side. Since the information is machine- readable, the data can be processed by computers. That expedites the automation of cybersecurity operations For instance, an organization wishing to report a security incident wants to describe what vulnerability was exploited. Then the sender can simply use IODEF, where an CAPEC record is embedded instead of describing everything in free format text. Receiver can also identify the needed details of the attack pattern by looking up some of the xml [XML1.0] tags defined by CAPEC. Receiver can accumulate the attack pattern information (CAPEC record) in its database and could distribute it to the interested parties if needed, without needing human interventions. 4. Extension Definition This draft extends IODEF to embed structured cybersecurity information by introducing new classes, with which these information can be embedded inside IODEF document as element contents of AdditionalData and RecordItem classes. 4.1. List of Supported Structured Cybersecurity Information Specifictions This extension embeds structured cybersecurity information from external specifications. The initial list of supported specifications is listed below. Each entry has namespace [XMLNames], specification name, version, specification URI and applicable classes for each specification. Future assignments are to be managed by IANA Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 5] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 using the Expert Review [RFC5226] and Specification Required [RFC5226] allocation policies as further specified in Section 6. 4.1.1. CAPEC 1.6 Namespace: http://capec.mitre.org/observables Specification Name: Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification Version: 1.6 Specification URI: http://capec.mitre.org/ Applicable Classes: AttackPattern 4.1.2. CCE 5.0 Namespace: http://cce.mitre.org Specification Name: Common Configuration Enumeration Version: 5.0 Specification URI: http://cce.mitre.org/ Applicable Classes: Verification 4.1.3. CCSS 1.0 Namespace: N/A Specification Name: Common Configuration Scoring System Version: 1.0 Specification URI: TBD Applicable Classes: Scoring 4.1.4. CEE 0.6 Namespace: http://cee.mitre.org Specification Name: Common Event Expression Version: 0.6 Specification URI: http://cee.mitre.org/ Applicable Classes: EventReport 4.1.5. CPE 2.3 Language Namespace: http://cpe.mitre.org/language/2.0 Specification Name: Common Platform Enumeration Reference Version: 2.3 Specification URI: http://scap.nist.gov/specifications/cpe/ Applicable Classes: Platform Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 6] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 4.1.6. CPE 2.3 Dictionary Namespace: http://cpe.mitre.org/dictionary/2.0 Specification Name: Common Platform Enumeration Dictionary Version: 2.3 Specification URI: http://scap.nist.gov/specifications/cpe/ Applicable Classes: Platform 4.1.7. CVE 1.0 Namespace: http://cve.mitre.org/cve/downloads/1.0 Specification Name: Common Vulnerability and Exposures Version: 1.0 Specification URI: http://cve.mitre.org/ Applicable Classes: Vulnerability 4.1.8. CVRF 1.0 Namespace: http://www.icasi.org/CVRF/schema/cvrf/1.0 Specification Name: Common Vulnerability Reporting Format Version: 1.0 Specification URI: http://www.icasi.org/cvrf Applicable Classes: Vulnerability 4.1.9. CVSS 2.0 Namespace: http://scap.nist.gov/schema/cvss-v2/1.0 Specification Name: Common Vulnerability Scoring System Version: 2 Specification URI: http://www.first.org/cvss Applicable Classes: Scoring 4.1.10. CWE 5.0 Namespace: N/A Specification Name: Common Weakness Enumeration Version: 5.1 Specification URI: http://cwe.mitre.org/ Applicable Classes: Weakness 4.1.11. CWSS 0.8 Namespace: N/A Specification Name: Common Weakness Scoring System Version: 0.8 Specification URI: http://cwe.mitre.org/cwss/ Applicable Classes: Scoring Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 7] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 4.1.12. MAEC 2.0 Namespace: http://maec.mitre.org/XMLSchema/maec-core-2 Specification Name: Malware Attribute Enumeration and Characterization Version: 2.0 Specification URI: http://maec.mitre.org/ Applicable Classes: EventReport, AttackPattern 4.1.13. OCIL 2.0 Namespace: http://scap.nist.gov/schema/ocil/2.0 Specification Name: Open Checklist Interactive Language Version: 2.0 Specification URI: http://scap.nist.gov/specifications/ocil/ Applicable Classes: Verification 4.1.14. OVAL 5.10.1 Definitions Namespace: http://oval.mitre.org/XMLSchema/oval-definitions-5 Specification Name: Open Vulnerability and Assessment Language Version: 5.10.1 Specification URI: http://oval.mitre.org/ Applicable Classes: Verification 4.1.15. OVAL 5.10.1 Results Namespace: http://oval.mitre.org/XMLSchema/oval-results-5 Specification Name: Open Vulnerability and Assessment Language Version: 5.10.1 Specification URI: TBD Applicable Classes: Verification 4.1.16. OVAL 5.10.1 Common Namespace: http://oval.mitre.org/XMLSchema/oval-common-5 Specification Name: Open Vulnerability and Assessment Language Version: 5.10.1 Specification URI: TBD Applicable Classes: Verification 4.1.17. XCCDF 1.2 Namespace: http://checklists.nist.gov/xccdf/1.2 Specification Name: Extensible Configuration Checklist Description Format Version: 1.2 Specification URI: http://scap.nist.gov/specifications/xccdf/ Applicable Classes: Verification Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 8] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 4.2. Extended Data Types This extension inherits all of the data types defined in the IODEF model. One data type is added: XMLDATA. 4.2.1. XMLDATA An embedded XML data is represented by the XMLDATA data type. This type is defined as the extension to the iodef:ExtensionType [RFC5070], whose dtype attribute is set to "xml." 4.3. Extended Classes The IODEF Incident element [RFC5070] is summarized below. It is expressed in Unified Modeling Language (UML) syntax as used in the IODEF specification. The UML representation is for illustrative purposes only; elements are specified in XML as defined in Appendix A. Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 9] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 +--------------------+ | Incident | +--------------------+ | ENUM purpose |<>---------[IncidentID] | STRING ext-purpose |<>--{0..1}-[AlternativeID] | ENUM lang |<>--{0..1}-[RelatedActivity] | ENUM restriction |<>--{0..1}-[DetectTime] | |<>--{0..1}-[StartTime] | |<>--{0..1}-[EndTime] | |<>---------[ReportTime] | |<>--{0..*}-[Description] | |<>--{1..*}-[Assessment] | |<>--{0..*}-[Method] | | |<>--[AdditionalData] | | |<>--[AttackPattern] | | |<>--[Vulnerability] | | |<>--[Weakness] | |<>--{1..*}-[Contact] | |<>--{0..*}-[EventData] | | |<>--[Flow] | | | |<>--[System] | | | |<>--[AdditionalData] | | | |<>--[Platform] | | |<>--[Expectation] | | |<>--[Record] | | |<>--[RecordData] | | |<>--[RecordItem] | | |<>--[EventReport] | |<>--{0..1}-[History] | |<>--{0..*}-[AdditionalData] | | |<>--[Verification] | | |<>--[Remediation] +--------------------+ Figure 1: Incident class This extension defines the following seven elements. 4.3.1. AttackPattern An AttackPattern consists of an extension to the Incident.Method.AdditionalData element with a dtype of "xml". The extension describes attack patterns of incidents or events. It is recommended that Method class SHOULD contain one or more of the extension elements whenever available. An AttackPattern class is structured as follows. Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 10] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 +------------------------+ | AttackPattern | +------------------------+ | ENUM SpecificationID |<>--(0..*)-[ RawData ] | STRING AttackPatternID |<>--(0..*)-[ Reference ] | |<>--(0..*)-[ Platform ] +------------------------+ Figure 2: AttackPattern class This class has the following attributes. SpecificationID: REQUIRED. ENUM. The identifier of the specification specifying the format of the RawData element. The value should be chosen from the namespaces [XMLNames] listed in Section 4.1. Note that the lists in Section 4.1 will be developed further by IANA. In case a RawData or Reference element is provided along with this attribute, writers/senders MUST ensure that this value is consistent with the one provided by the element; if a reader/receiver detects an inconsistency, it SHOULD prefer this attribute's value, and SHOULD log the inconsistency so a human can correct the problem. AttackPatternID: OPTIONAL. STRING. An identifier of an attack pattern to be reported. This attribute SHOULD be used whenever such identifier is available, but could be omitted if no such one is available. In this case, either RawData or Reference elements, or both of them, MUST be provided. In case a RawData or Reference element is provided along with this attribute, writers/senders MUST ensure that this value is consistent with the one provided by the element; if a reader/receiver detects an inconsistency, it SHOULD prefer this attribute's value, and SHOULD log the inconsistency so a human can correct the problem. The AttackPattern class is composed of the following aggregate classes. RawData: Zero or more. XMLDATA. A complete document that is formatted according to the specification and its version identified by the value of the SpecificationID with the Section 4.1. Reference: Zero or more of iodef:Reference [RFC5070]. This element allows an IODEF document to include a link to a structured information instead of directly embedding it into a RawData element. Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 11] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 Platform: Zero or more. An identifier of software platform involved in the specific attack pattern, which is elaborated in Section 4.3.2. Some of the structured information embedded in the RawData element may include the identifier within it. In this case, this Platform element SHOULD NOT be used. If a reader/ receiver detects the identifiers in both RawData and Platform elements and their inconsistency, it SHOULD prefer the identifiers derived from the Platform element, and SHOULD log the inconsistency so a human can correct the problem. 4.3.2. Platform A Platform identifies a software platform. It is recommended that AttackPattern, Vulnerability, Weakness, and System classes contain this elements whenever available. A Platform element is structured as follows. +----------------------+ | Platform | +----------------------+ | ENUM SpecificationID |<>--(0..*)-[ RawData ] | STRING PlatformID |<>--(0..*)-[ Reference ] +----------------------+ Figure 3: Platform class This class has the following attributes. SpecificationID: REQUIRED. ENUM. The identifier of the specification specifying the format of the RawData element. The value should be chosen from the namespaces [XMLNames] listed in Section 4.1. Note that the lists in Section 4.1 will be developed further by IANA. In case a RawData or Reference element is provided along with this attribute, writers/senders MUST ensure that this value is consistent with the one provided by the element; if a reader/receiver detects an inconsistency, it SHOULD prefer this attribute's value, and SHOULD log the inconsistency so a human can correct the problem. PlatformID: OPTIONAL. STRING. An identifier of a platform to be reported. This attribute SHOULD be used whenever such identifier is available, but could be omitted if no such one is available. In this case, either RawData or Reference elements, or both of them, MUST be provided. In case a RawData or Reference element is provided along with this attribute, writers/senders MUST ensure that this value is consistent with the one provided by the element; if a reader/receiver detects an inconsistency, it SHOULD Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 12] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 prefer this attribute's value, and SHOULD log the inconsistency so a human can correct the problem. This class is composed of the following aggregate classes. RawData: Zero or more. XMLDATA. A complete document that is formatted according to the specification and its version identified by the value of the SpecificationID with the Section 4.1. Reference: Zero or more of iodef:Reference [RFC5070]. This element allows an IODEF document to include a link to a structured information instead of directly embedding it into a RawData element. Writers/senders MUST ensure the specification name and version identified by the SpecificationID are consistent with the contents of the ID; if a reader/receiver detects an inconsistency, it SHOULD prefer the specification name and version derived from the content, and SHOULD log the inconsistency so a human can correct the problem. 4.3.3. Vulnerability A Vulnerability consists of an extension to the Incident.Method.AdditionalData element with a dtype of "xml". The extension describes the (candidate) vulnerabilities of incidents or events. It is recommended that Method class SHOULD contain one or more of the extension elements whenever available. A Vulnerability element is structured as follows. +------------------------+ | Vulnerability | +------------------------+ | ENUM SpecificationID |<>--(0..*)-[ RawData ] | STRING VulnerabilityID |<>--(0..*)-[ Reference ] | |<>--(0..*)-[ Platform ] | |<>--(0..*)-[ Scoring ] +------------------------+ Figure 4: Vulnerability class This class has the following attributes. Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 13] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 SpecificationID: REQUIRED. ENUM. The identifier of the specification specifying the format of the RawData element. The value should be chosen from the namespaces [XMLNames] listed in Section 4.1. Note that the lists in Section 4.1 will be developed further by IANA. In case a RawData or Reference element is provided along with this attribute, writers/senders MUST ensure that this value is consistent with the one provided by the element; if a reader/receiver detects an inconsistency, it SHOULD prefer this attribute's value, and SHOULD log the inconsistency so a human can correct the problem. VulnerabilityID: OPTIONAL. STRING. An identifier of a vulnerability to be reported. This attribute SHOULD be used whenever such identifier is available, but could be omitted if no such one is available. In this case, either RawData or Reference elements, or both of them, MUST be provided. In case a RawData or Reference element is provided along with this attribute, writers/ senders MUST ensure that this value is consistent with the one provided by the element; if a reader/receiver detects an inconsistency, it SHOULD prefer this attribute's value, and SHOULD log the inconsistency so a human can correct the problem. This class is composed of the following aggregate classes. RawData: Zero or one. XMLDATA. A complete document that is formatted according to the specification and its version identified by the value of the SpecificationID with the Section 4.1. Reference: Zero or one of iodef:Reference [RFC5070]. This element allows an IODEF document to include a link to a structured information instead of directly embedding it into a RawData element. Platform: Zero or more. An identifier of software platform affected by the vulnerability, which is elaborated in Section 4.3.2. Some of the structured information embedded in the RawData element may include the identifier within it. In this case, this element SHOULD NOT be used. If a reader/receiver detects the identifiers in both RawData and Platform elements and their inconsistency, it SHOULD prefer the identifiers derived from the Platform element, and SHOULD log the inconsistency so a human can correct the problem. Scoring: Zero or more. An indicator of the severity of the vulnerability, such as CVSS and CCSS scores, which is elaborated in Section 4.3.4. Some of the structured information may include scores within it. In this case, the Scoring element SHOULD NOT be Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 14] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 used since the RawData element contains the scores. If a reader/ receiver detects scores in both RawData and Scoring elements and their inconsistency, it SHOULD prefer the scores derived from the RawData element, and SHOULD log the inconsistency so a human can correct the problem. 4.3.4. Scoring A Scoring class describes the scores of the severity in terms of security. It is recommended that Vulnerability and Weakness classes contain the elements whenever available. A Scoring class is structured as follows. +----------------------+ | Scoring | +----------------------+ | ENUM SpecificationID |<>---------[ ScoreSet ] +----------------------+ Figure 5: Scoring class This class has two attributes. SpecificationID: REQUIRED. ENUM. The identifier of the specification specifying the format of the RawData element. The value should be chosen from the namespaces [XMLNames] listed in Section 4.1. Note that the lists in Section 4.1 will be developed further by IANA. In case a RawData or Reference element is provided along with this attribute, writers/senders MUST ensure that this namespace is consistent with the one provided by the element; if a reader/receiver detects an inconsistency, it SHOULD prefer the value of this attribute, and SHOULD log the inconsistency so a human can correct the problem. This class is composed of an aggregate class. ScoreSet: One. XMLDATA. A complete document that is formatted according to the specification and its version identified by the value of the SpecificationID with the Section 4.1. This element includes a set of score information. Writers/senders MUST ensure the specification name and version identified by the SpecificationID are consistent with the contents of the Score; if a reader/receiver detects an inconsistency, it SHOULD prefer the specification name and version derived from the content, and SHOULD log the inconsistency so a human can correct the problem. Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 15] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 4.3.5. Weakness A Weakness consists of an extension to the Incident.Method.AdditionalData element with a dtype of "xml". The extension describes the weakness types of incidents or events. It is recommended that Method class SHOULD contain one or more of the extension elements whenever available. A Weakness element is structured as follows. +----------------------+ | Weakness | +----------------------+ | ENUM SpecificationID |<>--(0..*)-[ RawData ] | STRING WeaknessID |<>--(0..*)-[ Reference ] | |<>--(0..*)-[ Platform ] | |<>--(0..*)-[ Scoring ] +----------------------+ Figure 6: Weakness class This class has the following attributes. SpecificationID: REQUIRED. ENUM. The identifier of the specification specifying the format of the RawData element. The value should be chosen from the namespaces [XMLNames] listed in Section 4.1. Note that the lists in Section 4.1 will be developed further by IANA. In case a RawData or Reference element is provided along with this attribute, writers/senders MUST ensure that this value is consistent with the one provided by the element; if a reader/receiver detects an inconsistency, it SHOULD prefer this attribute's value, and SHOULD log the inconsistency so a human can correct the problem. WeaknessID: OPTIONAL. STRING. An identifier of a weakness to be reported. This attribute SHOULD be used whenever such identifier is available, but could be omitted if no such one is available. In this case, either RawData or Reference elements, or both of them, MUST be provided. In case a RawData or Reference element is provided along with this attribute, writers/senders MUST ensure that this value is consistent with the one provided by the element; if a reader/receiver detects an inconsistency, it SHOULD prefer this attribute's value, and SHOULD log the inconsistency so a human can correct the problem. This class is composed of the following aggregate classes. Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 16] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 RawData: Zero or more. XMLDATA. A complete document that is formatted according to the specification and its version identified by the value of the SpecificationID with the Section 4.1. Reference: Zero or one of iodef:Reference [RFC5070]. This element allows an IODEF document to include a link to a structured information instead of directly embedding it into a RawData element. Platform: Zero or more. An identifier of software platform affected by the weakness, which is elaborated in Section 4.3.2. Some of the structured information embedded in the RawData element may include the identifier within it. In this case, this element SHOULD NOT be used. If a reader/receiver detects the identifiers in both RawData and Platform elements and their inconsistency, it SHOULD prefer the identifiers derived from the Platform element, and SHOULD log the inconsistency so a human can correct the problem. Scoring: Zero or more. An indicator of the severity of the weakness, such as CWSS score, which is elaborated in Section 4.3.4. Some of the structured information may include scores within it. In this case, the Scoring element SHOULD NOT be used since the RawData element contains the scores. If a reader/ receiver detects scores in both RawData and Scoring elements and their inconsistency, it SHOULD prefer the scores derived from the RawData element, and SHOULD log the inconsistency so a human can correct the problem. 4.3.6. EventReport An EventReport consists of an extension to the Incident.EventData.Record.RecordData.RecordItem element with a dtype of "xml". The extension embeds structured event reports. It is recommended that RecordItem class SHOULD contain one or more of the extension elements whenever available. An EventReport element is structured as follows. +----------------------+ | EventReport | +----------------------+ | ENUM SpecificationID |<>--(0..*)-[ RawData ] | STRING EventID |<>--(0..*)-[ Reference ] +----------------------+ Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 17] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 Figure 7: EventReport class This class has the following attributes. SpecificationID: REQUIRED. ENUM. The identifier of the specification specifying the format of the RawData element. The value should be chosen from the namespaces [XMLNames] listed in Section 4.1. Note that the lists in Section 4.1 will be developed further by IANA. In case a RawData or Reference element is provided along with this attribute, writers/senders MUST ensure that this value is consistent with the one provided by the element; if a reader/receiver detects an inconsistency, it SHOULD prefer this attribute's value, and SHOULD log the inconsistency so a human can correct the problem. EventID: OPTIONAL. STRING. An identifier of an event to be reported. This attribute SHOULD be used whenever such identifier is available, but could be omitted if no such one is available. In this case, either RawData or Reference elements, or both of them, MUST be provided. In case a RawData or Reference element is provided along with this attribute, writers/senders MUST ensure that this value is consistent with the one provided by the element; if a reader/receiver detects an inconsistency, it SHOULD prefer this attribute's value, and SHOULD log the inconsistency so a human can correct the problem. This class is composed of three aggregate classes. RawData: Zero or one. XMLDATA. A complete document that is formatted according to the specification and its version identified by the value of the SpecificationID with the Section 4.1. Reference: Zero or one of iodef:Reference [RFC5070]. This element allows an IODEF document to include a link to a structured information instead of directly embedding it into a RawData element. This class MUST contain at least one of RawData or Reference elements. Writers/senders MUST ensure the specification name and version identified by the SpecificationID are consistent with the contents of the RawData; if a reader/receiver detects an inconsistency, it SHOULD prefer the specification name and version derived from the content, and SHOULD log the inconsistency so a human can correct the problem. Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 18] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 4.3.7. Verifcation A Verification consists of an extension to the Incident.AdditionalData element with a dtype of "xml". The extension elements describes incident on vefifying incidents. A Verification class is structured as follows. +----------------------+ | Verification | +----------------------+ | ENUM SpecificationID |<>--(0..*)-[ RawData ] | STRING VerificationID|<>--(0..*)-[ Reference ] +----------------------+ Figure 8: Verification class This class has the following attributes. SpecificationID: REQUIRED. ENUM. The identifier of the specification specifying the format of the RawData element. The value should be chosen from the namespaces [XMLNames] listed in Section 4.1. Note that the lists in Section 4.1 will be developed further by IANA. In case a RawData or Reference element is provided along with this attribute, writers/senders MUST ensure that this value is consistent with the one provided by the element; if a reader/receiver detects an inconsistency, it SHOULD prefer this attribute's value, and SHOULD log the inconsistency so a human can correct the problem. VerificationID: OPTIONAL. STRING. An identifier of an check item to be reported. This attribute SHOULD be used whenever such identifier is available, but could be omitted if no such one is available. In this case, either RawData or Reference elements, or both of them, MUST be provided. In case a RawData or Reference element is provided along with this attribute, writers/senders MUST ensure that this value is consistent with the one provided by the element; if a reader/receiver detects an inconsistency, it SHOULD prefer this attribute's value, and SHOULD log the inconsistency so a human can correct the problem. This class is composed of two aggregate classes. RawData: Zero or one. XMLDATA. A complete document that is formatted according to the specification and its version identified by the value of the SpecificationID with the Section 4.1. Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 19] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 Reference: Zero or one of iodef:Reference [RFC5070]. This element allows an IODEF document to include a link to a structured information instead of directly embedding it into a RawData element. This class MUST contain at least either of RawData and Reference elements. Writers/senders MUST ensure the specification name and version identified by the SpecificationID are consistent with the contents of the RawData; if a reader/receiver detects an inconsistency, it SHOULD prefer the specification name and version derived from the content, and SHOULD log the inconsistency so a human can correct the problem. 4.3.8. Remediation A Remediation consists of an extension to the Incident.AdditionalData element with a dtype of "xml". The extension elements describes incident remediation information including instructions. It is recommended that Incident class SHOULD contain one or more of this extension elements whenever available. A Remediation class is structured as follows. +----------------------+ | Remediation | +----------------------+ | ENUM SpecificationID |<>--(0..*)-[ RawData ] | String RemediationID |<>--(0..*)-[ Reference ] +----------------------+ Figure 9: Remediation class This class has the following attributes. SpecificationID: REQUIRED. ENUM. The identifier of the specification specifying the format of the RawData element. The value should be chosen from the namespaces [XMLNames] listed in Section 4.1. Note that the lists in Section 4.1 will be developed further by IANA. In case a RawData or Reference element is provided along with this attribute, writers/senders MUST ensure that this value is consistent with the one provided by the element; if a reader/receiver detects an inconsistency, it SHOULD prefer this attribute's value, and SHOULD log the inconsistency so a human can correct the problem. Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 20] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 RemediationID: OPTIONAL. STRING. An identifier of a remediation information to be reported. This attribute SHOULD be used whenever such identifier is available, but could be omitted if no such one is available. In this case, either RawData or Reference elements, or both of them, MUST be provided. In case a RawData or Reference element is provided along with this attribute, writers/ senders MUST ensure that this value is consistent with the one provided by the element; if a reader/receiver detects an inconsistency, it SHOULD prefer this attribute's value, and SHOULD log the inconsistency so a human can correct the problem. This class is composed of two aggregate classes. RawData: Zero or one. XMLDATA. A complete document that is formatted according to the specification and its version identified by the value of the SpecificationID with the Section 4.1. Reference: Zero or one of iodef:Reference [RFC5070]. This element allows an IODEF document to include a link to a structured information instead of directly embedding it into a RawData element. This class MUST contain at least either of RawData and Reference elements. Writers/senders MUST ensure the specification name and version identified by the SpecificationID are consistent with the contents of the RawData; if a reader/receiver detects an inconsistency, it SHOULD prefer the specification name and version derived from the content, and SHOULD log the inconsistency so a human can correct the problem. 5. Security Considerations This document specifies a format for encoding a particular class of security incidents appropriate for exchange across organizations. As merely a data representation, it does not directly introduce security issues. However, it is guaranteed that parties exchanging instances of this specification will have certain concerns. For this reason, the underlying message format and transport protocol used MUST ensure the appropriate degree of confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity for the specific environment. Organizations that exchange data using this document are URGED to develop operating procedures that document the following areas of concern. Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 21] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 5.1. Transport-Specific Concerns The underlying messaging format and protocol used to exchange instances of the IODEF MUST provide appropriate guarantees of confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity. The use of a standardized security protocol is encouraged. The Real-time Inter- network Defense (RID) protocol [RFC6045] and its associated transport binding [RFC6046] provide such security. The critical security concerns are that these structured information may be falsified or they may become corrupt during transit. In areas where transmission security or secrecy is questionable, the application of a digital signature and/or message encryption on each report will counteract both of these concerns. We expect that each exchanging organization will determine the need, and mechanism, for transport protection. 6. IANA Considerations This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemata[XMLschemaPart1][XMLschemaPart2] conforming to a registry mechanism described in [RFC3688]. Registration request for the IODEF structured cybersecurity information extension namespace: URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iodef-sci-1.0 Registrant Contact: Refer here to the authors' addresses section of the document. XML: None Registration request for the IODEF structured cybersecurity information extension XML schema: URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:iodef-sci-1.0 Registrant Contact: Refer here to the authors' addresses section of the document. XML: Refer here to the XML Schema in the appendix of the document. This memo creates the following registry for IANA to manage: Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 22] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 Name of the registry: "IODEF Structured Cyber Security Information Specifications" Namespace details: A registry entry for a Structured Cyber Security Information Specification (SCI specification) consists of: Namespace: A URI [RFC3986] that is the XML namespace name used by the registered SCI specification. Specification Name: A string containing the spelled-out name of the SCI specification in human-readable form. Specification URI: A list of one or more of the URIs [RFC3986] from which the registered specification can be obtained. The registered specification MUST be readily and publicly available from that URI. Applicable Classes: A list of one or more of the Extended Classes specified in Section 4.3 of this document. The registered SCI specification MUST only be used with the Extended Classes in the registry entry. Information that must be provided to assign a new value: The above list of information. Fields to record in the registry: Namespace/Specification Name/ Version/Applicable Classes. Initial registry contents: See sections from Section 4.1.1 through Section 4.1.17 above. Allocation Policy: Expert Review [RFC5226] and Specification Required [RFC5226]. The Designated Expert is expected to consult with the mile (Managed Incident Lightweight Exchange) working group or its successor if any such WG exists (e.g., via email to the working group's mailing list). The Designated Expert is expected to retrieve the SCI specification from the provided URI in order to check the public availability of the specification and verify the correctness of the URI. An important responsibility of the Designated Expert is to ensure that the registered Applicable Classes are appropriate for the registered SCI specification. Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 23] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 7. Acknowledgment We would like to acknowledge Mr. David Black from EMC, who kindly provided generous support, especially on the IANA registry issues. We also would like to thank Paul Cichonski from NIST, Robert Martin from MITRE, Kathleen Moriarty from EMC, Lagadec Philippe from NATO, Shuhei Yamaguchi from NICT, Anthony Rutkowski from Yaana Technology, and Brian Trammel from CERT/NetSA for their sincere discussion and feedback on this document. 8. Appendix I: XML Schema Definition for Extension The XML Schema describing the elements defined in the Extension Definition section is given here. Each of the examples in Section 9 should be verified to validate against this schema by automated tools. Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 24] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 25] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 26] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 27] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 9. Appendix II: XML Examples This section provides an example of an incident encoded in the IODEF. This do not necessarily represent the only way to encode a particular incident. Below is an example of a CSIRT reporting an attack. 189493 2001-09-13T23:19:24+00:00 Incident report in company xx Structured information on attack pattern, exploited vulnerability, and weakness ..... Link to Capec-14 http://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/14.html ... 9.3 NETWORK MEDIUM NONE COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE http://nvd.nist.gov 2012-01-11T09:55:00.000-05:00 ..... Example.com CSIRT example-com contact@csirt.example.com
192.0.2.200
57
192.0.2.16/28
80
2001-09-13T18:11:21+02:00 a Web-server event record Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 30] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 .....
2001-09-14T08:19:01+00:00 Notification sent to constituency-contact@192.0.2.200 ..... ..... Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 31] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012
10. References 10.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005. [RFC5070] Danyliw, R., Meijer, J., and Y. Demchenko, "The Incident Object Description Exchange Format", RFC 5070, December 2007. [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. [RFC6045] Moriarty, K., "Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID)", RFC 6045, November 2010. [RFC6046] Moriarty, K. and B. Trammell, "Transport of Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID) Messages", RFC 6046, November 2010. [XML1.0] Bray, T., Maler, E., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., and F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth Edition)", W3C Recommendation, November 2008. [XMLschemaPart1] Thompson, H., Beech, D., Maloney, M., and N. Mendelsohn, "XML Schema Part 1: Structures Second Edition", W3C Recommendation, October 2004. [XMLschemaPart2] Biron, P. and A. Malhotra, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes Second Edition", W3C Recommendation, October 2004. [XMLNames] Bray, T., Hollander, D., Layman, A., Tobin, R., and H. Thomson, ""Namespaces in XML (Third Edition)", Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 32] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 W3C Recommendation, December 2009. [CAPEC] The MITRE Corporation, "Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (CAPEC)". [CCE] The MITRE Corporation, "Common Configuration Enumeration (CCE)". [CCSS] Scarfone, K. and P. Mell, "The Common Configuration Scoring System (CCSS)", NIST Interagency Report 7502, December 2010. [CEE] The MITRE Corporation, "Common Event Expression (CEE)". [CPE] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Common Platform Enumeration", June 2011. [CVE] The MITRE Corporation, "Common Vulnerability and Exposures (CVE)". [CVRF] ICASI, "Common Vulnerability Reporting Framework (CVRF)". [CVSS] Peter Mell, Karen Scarfone, and Sasha Romanosky, "The Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) and Its Applicability to Federal Agency Systems". [CWE] The MITRE Corporation, "Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)". [CWSS] The MITRE Corporation, "Common Weakness Scoring System (CWSS)". [OCIL] David Waltermire and Karen Scarfone and Maria Casipe, "The Open Checklist Interactive Language (OCIL) Version 2.0", April 2011. [OVAL] The MITRE Corporation, "Open Vulnerability and Assessment Language (OVAL)". [XCCDF] David Waltermire and Charles Schmidt and Karen Scarfone and Neal Ziring, "Specification for the Extensible Configuration Checklist Description Format (XCCDF) version 1.2 (DRAFT)", July 2011. 10.2. Informative References [RFC3339] Klyne, G., Ed. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps", RFC 3339, July 2002. Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 33] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 [RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July 2003. [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, January 2004. [RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322, October 2008. [RFC6116] Bradner, S., Conroy, L., and K. Fujiwara, "The E.164 to Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)", RFC 6116, March 2011. [SCAP] Waltermire, D., Quinn, S., Scarfone, K., and A. Halbardier, "The Technical Specification for the Security Content Automation Protocol (SCAP): SCAP Version 1.2", NIST Special Publication 800-126 Revision 2, September 2011. Authors' Addresses Takeshi Takahashi National Institute of Information and Communications Technology 4-2-1 Nukui-Kitamachi Koganei 184-8795 Tokyo Japan Phone: +80 423 27 5862 Email: takeshi_takahashi@nict.go.jp Kent Landfield McAfee, Inc 5000 Headquarters Drive Plano, TX 75024 USA Email: Kent_Landfield@McAfee.com Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 34] Internet-Draft IODEF-ext-sci Feb 2012 Thomas Millar US Department of Homeland Security, NPPD/CS&C/NCSD/US-CERT 245 Murray Lane SW, Building 410, MS #732 Washington, DC 20598 USA Phone: +1 888 282 0870 Email: thomas.millar@us-cert.gov Youki Kadobayashi Nara Institute of Science and Technology 8916-5 Takayama, Ikoma 630-0192 Nara Japan Email: youki-k@is.aist-nara.ac.jp Takahashi, et al. Expires August 4, 2012 [Page 35]