RE: Security Gateways

[Bill Strahm <bill@strahm.net>]

Ok,

I believe I have to disagree with you David.  The IESG WILL approve specs
that do not offically include encryption.  An example might be RFC 2801
The Internet Open Trading Protocol - IOTP Version 1.0.

From this documents own security section comes the statement
5.3 Data Privacy

   Privacy of information is provided by sending IOTP Messages between
   the various Trading Roles using a secure channel such as [SSL/TLS].
   Use of a secure channel within IOTP is optional.

The security section also talks about why you might or might not want to
use digital signatures for performing Online transactions.

It boils down to allowing vendors to create products that customers wish
to buy.  If it turns out that custommers ARE NOT willing to pay a single
dime for security, why are you going to burden a vendors implementation
with security requirements that do not provide value to the customer.  If
customers value security, you will see a quick rise in the sale of secure
storage products.

I think it is perfectly acceptable to point to a security implementation
(IPsec, TLS, or roll our own in a seperate document), but to require it
for protocol correctness I do not think is needed for any reason.

Bill

On Wed, 1 Aug 2001 Black_David@emc.com wrote:

> Bob,
> 
> You've made a good case for "optional to use", but not
> "optional to implement".  The basic reason is that there
> is no way to ensure that vendors and/or users will
> restrict the use of an implementation that does not
> include security to situations where "paths of a
> storage environment are physically secured and have 
> no requirement for additional security mechanisms".
> Hence security needs to be present so that it
> can be used when FCIP is deployed in an environment
> that requires security.  Further, the IETF has no
> interest in specification of protocols that are
> *solely* for use in the sort of closed environment
> that you describe, and the IPS WG charter contains
> explicit words to that effect.
> 
> Therefore, the basic FCIP security mechanisms MUST be
> implemented, but usage MAY be negotiated.  At the moment,
> "basic security mechanisms" means authentication and
> cryptographic integrity.  Confidentiality can currently
> be optional to implement, but I think it's a very good
> idea to specify the basic confidentiality mechanism
> (*if* confidentiality of any form is implemented, *then*
> <XXX> MUST be implemented).  The design and specification
> of any negotiation mechanism must resist man-in-the-middle
> attacks on negotiation that would result in turning off
> security where that was not the intended outcome - such
> an approach can include restrictions on implementation
> behavior (e.g., if "no authentication" is not acceptable,
> do not offer or accept it during negotiation).
> 
> If the FCIP draft is sent to the IESG without requiring
> implementation of the basic security mechanisms, it will
> be returned to the WG with instructions to correct
> that shortcoming, along with some choice words from the
> ADs wondering how the WG chairs could have overlooked
> something like this.  As a result, an FCIP draft that
> does not require implementation of the basic security
> mechanisms will not be Last Called in the WG until that
> requirement is added.
> 
> Sorry to be blunt, but there is no flexibility on whether
> the basic security mechanisms are mandatory to implement;
> they will be mandatory to implement, period.
> 
> Thanks,
> --David
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Senior Technologist
> EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> +1 (508) 435-1000 x75140     FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
> black_david@emc.com       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert Snively [mailto:rsnively@brocade.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 12:08 PM
> > To: 'Black_David@emc.com'; ips@ece.cmu.edu
> > Subject: RE: Security Gateways
> > 
> > 
> > Dear David,
> > 
> > I would like to address the rather serious question you have
> > raised here about both architectural layering and market
> > requirements.  After considerable thought, based on the
> > explanations below, I have concluded that the FCIP RFC should
> > specify that security is optional to implement and optional to use.
> > 
> > 1)  Concerning architectural layering:
> > 
> > It is clear that the problems of security are well understood
> > within IETF. Numerous solutions have been proposed and
> > many of those have become standard implementations.  The most
> > successful of those (as an example, IPSec) have used the
> > principles of architectural layering very well.  IPSec
> > provides a secure mechanism for transporting any IP-based
> > protocol if the protocol requires such security.  However,
> > the overlaying protocols (as an example, TCP) have no requirement
> > to actually make use of IPSec, and in fact have no particular
> > requirement to make use of IP.  This is as it should be.
> > Each layer is implemented independently of the other.  The
> > services that each layer implements depend on the market
> > requirements for the environment.  By that logic, it is 
> > unnecessary for FCIP to specify any security mechanism at all, 
> > since so many security mechanisms are available.  However,
> > FCIP has provided the additional guidance that, if security
> > in a TCP environment is used, it shall be provided at a layer
> > below the TCP interface.  In particular, it recommends the
> > use of IPSec for TCP/IP environments (and will recommend the
> > appropriate IPSec options).  This additional guidance has nothing
> > to do with the architecture or definition of FCIP and is 
> > merely a recommendation that should improve interoperability.
> > 
> > 2)  Concerning market requirements:
> > 
> > A very high percentage of storage environments today manage
> > their configurations very carefully.  Such careful management is
> > necessary to guarantee redundant paths for proper availability,
> > to provide sufficient paths to provide the required 
> > performance, and to
> > guarantee known paths to improve reparability and consistency
> > of behavior.  As a side effect, a very high percentage of
> > the paths of a storage environment are physically secured and have
> > no requirement for additional security mechanisms.  At present,
> > the only paths that are using security are those very few paths
> > that leave one physically secure environment to transport data to
> > another physically secure environment.  Those few paths 
> > almost universally
> > use security mechanisms at a lower level (as an example, a virtual
> > private network) to achieve their goals.  As a first guess, such
> > paths are well under 1% of the storage paths being used today.
> > 
> > I do not believe that this paradigm will change significantly over
> > the next several years, although of course the percentage of paths
> > requiring transport security may rise over 1%.  The requirements for
> > storage performance and the desire to maintain the storage devices
> > and many of their primary processors in a physically secure
> > environment will assure similar configurations.
> > 
> > In this environment, the market will demand low cost and high
> > performance for the great majority of interconnects and will demand
> > security for a relatively low percentage of interconnects.  
> > 
> > What this implies for technologies like FCIP is that security
> > be available as a separate option, outside the primary FCIP
> > definition.  While still allowing the integration of security
> > inside an FCIP unit, the IETF draft for FCIP  must also allow security
> > to be provided either not at all or by an outside mechanism.  
> > The most common outside mechanism would be a gateway box of some sort.
> > In many cases, the gateway box will be a secure router placed on the
> > external link and servicing a large number of locally attached
> > unsecured FCIP boxes.
> > 
> > CONCLUSIONS:
> > 
> > The FCIP draft should continue to specify a security mechanism,
> > with IPSec being the appropriate candidate, to guarantee 
> > interoperability
> > when security is provided.  The FCIP draft should be modified to
> > indicate that security is optional to implement and optional to use.
> > In addition, it should explicitly indicate that external gateway
> > boxes are allowed implementation mechanisms for security.
> > 
> > As a side question, note that management of storage area networks
> > and FCIP boxes is a separate question and is outside the scope of
> > the FCIP draft.  Both Fibre Channel and Ethernet management paths
> > have security appropriate to the particular management mechanism.
> > As an example, web-based management mechanisms use web-based
> > security tools. 
> > 
> > Bob Snively                        e-mail:    rsnively@brocade.com
> > Brocade Communications Systems     phone:  408 487 8135
> > 1745 Technology Drive
> > San Jose, CA 95110
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Black_David@emc.com [mailto:Black_David@emc.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 7:11 PM
> > To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> > Subject: Security Gateways
> > 
> > 
> > The following issue was hidden in my long set of
> > comments on the -03 version of FCIP:
> > 
> > > > Delete 12 b).  If an FCIP entity is operating with an external
> > > > security gateway, only the interface on the public side of the
> > > > gateway is compliant with this specification.  The interface
> > > > between the FCIP entity and the gateway is not compliant because
> > > > it is lacking required security features - the FCIP entity
> > > > *includes* the security gateway in this structure.
> > > 
> > > Please post this as a separate issue because several of the
> > > FCIP Authors believe it is appropriate for FCIP and I cannot
> > > represent their opinions.
> > 
> > The issue is not whether it's "appropriate".  The issue
> > is that if an implementation uses an FCIP Entity plus
> > an external security gateway, the only interface that
> > conforms to the forthcoming RFC is the public/external
> > interface on the security gateway.  The interface between
> > the FCIP Entity and the security gateway is private
> > and fails to conform to the security that will be
> > required of all FCIP implementations.
> > 
> > The above paragraph also applies to iSCSI (substitute iSCSI
> > for FCIP in all instances).  Let me also note that iSCSI's
> > ability to use a security gateway is not final at this
> > juncture.  The spectrum of security possibilities includes
> > things like SRP keying of ESP and IPsec transport mode that
> > would make external gateways difficult or impossible to use.
> > 
> > Those who care about being able to use security gateways
> > (or think that there's no need to support their use)
> > should speak up on the list, in London, and/or in Orange
> > County (I would expect the decision not to be made prior
> > to Orange County) and *EXPLAIN WHY* [technical rationale].
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > --David
> > 
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > David L. Black, Senior Technologist
> > EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> > +1 (508) 435-1000 x75140     FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
> > black_david@emc.com       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> >  
> > 
>