Hi Reese, Just one comment at bottom. Kent > On Jan 29, 2024, at 4:05 PM, Reese Enghardt <ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Kent, > > Thank you for the responses. Please see inline: > > On 1/26/24 17:47, Kent Watsen wrote: >> On Jan 22, 2024, at 8:36 PM, Reese Enghardt via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> […] >>> I was surprised to see that the model allows to store keys in the clear. I >>> assume that the WG has carefully considered the security implications here, and >>> at least Section 4.2 says a key SHOULD be encrypted. Still, I wonder, if it's >>> worth giving a bit of context in the Introduction, maybe saying why clear text >>> keys are supported but that they SHOULD NOT be used unless there's no other way? >> >> Whoops, my Security Considerations for the module left out this paragraph >> added to all of the other drafts in the series: >> >> Please be aware that this YANG module uses groupings from >> other YANG modules that define nodes that may be considered >> sensitive or vulnerable in network environments. Please >> review the Security Considerations for dependent YANG modules >> for information as to which nodes may be considered sensitive >> or vulnerable in network environments. >> >> This is important because the “cleartext-key” and “cleartext-private-key” >> leafs come from groupings defined in the crypto-types draft: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types-27#section-2.1.4.3 >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types-27#section-2.1.4.5 >> >> And that draft’s Security Considerations sections says: >> >> 3.7. Cleartext Passwords and Keys >> >> The module contained within this document enables, only when specific >> "feature" statements are enabled, for the cleartext value of passwords >> and keys to be stored in the configuration database. Storing cleartext >> values for passwords and keys is NOT RECOMMENDED. >> >> All good? > > Yes, I think that's sufficient. > > >>> Section 5 (Security Considerations): >>> Given the sensitive nature of the data stored using this model, I suggest >>> another pass at this section following RFC 3552 (BCP 72): Are there any other >>> possible attacks on confidentiality, integrity, authenticity, or availability, >>> which are in scope for this section? Is there any specific threat model that >>> needs to be considered? I also suggest naming some of the possible impacts of >>> these attacks. Some possible impacts seem obvious, but I wonder if I'm missing >>> any significant impacts because I'm not very familiar with the model. >> >> IDK either. But I can say that this draft has had two SecDir reviews. >> I’m happy to email or get on a call to discuss with interested parties at anytime. > > Ok. I don't have any specific suggestions and I'll defer to the security experts here. > > >>> Section 5.3: >>> "access control mechanisms like NACM SHOULD be used to limit access to the >>> key's secret data to only the most trusted authorized clients (e.g., an >>> organization’s crypto officer)." Does "client" refer to a person here, rather >>> than the RFC 6241 definition of client, which the document says it uses? If so, >>> I suggest finding a different term here. >> >> Client refers to RFC 6241’s definition of client. But that client authenticates >> itself to the server using credentials that may, e.g., belong to an organization’s >> crypto officer. I did this: >> >> s/an organization’s/belonging to an organizations’s/??? >> >> Is it better? > > Yes, that helps, thank you. > > >>> Nits/editorial comments: >>> >>> Section 5.1: >>> "The YANG module defined in this document defines a mechanism called a >>> "keystore" that, by its name, suggests that it will protect its contents from >>> unauthorized disclosure and modification." This might be semantics, but: In my >>> mind, the name suggests that there's sensitive data, which implies that the >>> data needs to be protected, with obvious consequences otherwise. Please >>> consider rephrasing this sentence. >> >> I get what you’re saying, but turning the sentence around like that seems to >> misplace the emphasis, e.g., the draft isn’t about the data but the mechanism. >> At least I couldn’t see how to do it. Can you suggest specific replacement text? > > Maybe just simplify it as follows? > > "The YANG module defined in this document defines a mechanism called a > "keystore" that will protect its contents from unauthorized disclosure and modification. > > That said, I won't insist on this editorial change, I'd be okay with leaving the text as is if you think that's better. I’m okay removing the "that, by its name, suggests” text. Your sentence is okay, but the "will protect” seems too strong. How about "that intends to protect” instead? > Thanks, > Reese Kent > > -- > last-call mailing list > last-call@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
