OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

cti-taxii message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [cti-taxii] HTTPs


Reason #1 for allowing plain-HTTP sessions: Development sanity.


Recommending HTTPS in Production...no problem. Requiring it during development => nuts.


Setting a policy among your own Trust Group to require HTTPS...reasonable and enforceable. Mandating this in the spec and implementing it in a reference library => more forks and monkeypatches, yay! &#X1f61d


Nuf said.
JSA


From: cti-taxii@lists.oasis-open.org <cti-taxii@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Jordan, Bret <bret.jordan@bluecoat.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 7:24 PM
To: Jason Keirstead
Cc: cti-taxii@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [cti-taxii] HTTPs
 
I think the risk to data integrity makes this critical.  I think we live in a day and age where everything should be encrypted by default and we should define a base level of encryption, to set some lines in the sand.  

This protects organizations, protects content in transit from manipulation, and ensures clients can talk to servers.  You say "we should not mandate HTTPs at all".  I would flip that question around and say is there a reason to NOT do encrypted sessions.  


Thanks,

Bret



Bret Jordan CISSP
Director of Security Architecture and Standards | Office of the CTO
Blue Coat Systems
PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447  F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050
"Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg." 

On Feb 21, 2016, at 16:50, Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com> wrote:

I am actually starting to migrate to the camp that we should not mandate HTTPS at all. We should get out of that level of the stack.

For all we know people have TAXII deployed on a private IPSEC network or over a point to point tunnel.


-
Jason Keirstead
STSM, Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems
www.ibm.com/security | www.securityintelligence.com

Without data, all you are is just another person with an opinion - Unknown


<graycol.gif>"Jordan, Bret" ---02/21/2016 03:43:48 PM---Great points Jason... May I ask you to propose some replacement text? Thanks,

From: "Jordan, Bret" <bret.jordan@bluecoat.com>
To: Jason Keirstead/CanEast/IBM@IBMCA
Cc: "cti-taxii@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-taxii@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 02/21/2016 03:43 PM
Subject: Re: [cti-taxii] HTTPs
Sent by: <cti-taxii@lists.oasis-open.org>





Great points Jason... May I ask you to propose some replacement text?


Thanks,

Bret



Bret Jordan CISSP
Director of Security Architecture and Standards | Office of the CTO
Blue Coat Systems
PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050
"Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg."
      On Feb 21, 2016, at 15:49, Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@ca.ibm.com> wrote:

      Currently the spec has changed from "TAXII must require HTTPS" to "TAXII must require HTTPS TLS 1.2 with TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 and <insert two full pages of text here>.

      I very much disagree with us specifying TLS levels and ciper suites in our specification. There are many problems with this

      - There will be vendors who do not have the ability to implement the prescribed suite for a variety of reasons, and if this is part of the spec we are basically saying those vendors can't implement TAXII.

      - There will be consumers who will not want to implement the prescribed suite for a variety of reasons, and if this is part of the spec we are basically saying those consumers can't consume TAXII

      - The minimally viable cipher suite viable today is not the same one that will be minimally viable 6 months from now, so the whole chapter is entirely pointless and actually can be counter-productive, as at that point it will be mandating an insecure baseline.

      -
      Jason Keirstead
      STSM, Product Architect, Security Intelligence, IBM Security Systems

      www.ibm.com/security | www.securityintelligence.com

      Without data, all you are is just another person with an opinion - Unknown


      <graycol.gif>
      "Jordan, Bret" ---02/21/2016 02:11:53 PM---I am going to propose that TAXII 2.x does NOT allow non-encrypted communications and propose that th

      From:
      "Jordan, Bret" <bret.jordan@bluecoat.com>
      To:
      "cti-taxii@lists.oasis-open.org" <cti-taxii@lists.oasis-open.org>
      Date:
      02/21/2016 02:11 PM
      Subject:
      [cti-taxii] HTTPs
      Sent by:
      <cti-taxii@lists.oasis-open.org>






      I am going to propose that TAXII 2.x does NOT allow non-encrypted communications and propose that that text be removed form the pre-draft specs..


      We asked for feedback on this issue several weeks ago, and have yet to hear anyone suggest a reason why TAXII 2.x needs to support non-encyprted HTTPs sessions (aka null ciphers)


      If you believe TAXII 2.x should support non-encrypted sessions, please speak up and give us your use-cases.



      Thanks,


      Bret




      Bret Jordan CISSP

      Director of Security Architecture and Standards | Office of the CTO
      Blue Coat Systems

      PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050
      "Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg."

      [attachment "signature.asc" deleted by Jason Keirstead/CanEast/IBM]


[attachment "signature.asc" deleted by Jason Keirstead/CanEast/IBM]





[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]