Hi, if secdir people believe RFC 6242 needs to be revised or updated, then this is a separate work item for the NETCONF working group to consider. I do not think that such an update should gate any data models currently in the pipeline. (I am not even sure such an update is strictly needed since if we go there, we constantly need udpates, but that is then a NETCONF discussion.)
/js On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 12:13:51PM +0000, Qin Wu wrote: > Thanks Balazs for heads up. I think the security guideline we are currently > following is one defined in the following link: > https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines > If it is a issue, I believe it applies to all YANG related documents. > > -Qin > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Balázs Lengyel > 发送时间: 2020年3月10日 19:59 > 收件人: 'netmod@ietf.org' <netmod@ietf.org> > 主题: [netmod] FW: Secdir last call review of > draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-14 > > As an author of netmod drafts I would like to see some general guidance on > this issue. Can someone help please. > Balazs > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Kent via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > Sent: 2020. március 9., hétfő 20:15 > To: sec...@ietf.org > Cc: netmod@ietf.org; draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default....@ietf.org; > last-c...@ietf.org > Subject: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-14 > > Reviewer: Stephen Kent > Review result: Has Issues > > SECDIR review of draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-14 > > Section 6, Security Considerations, calls for use of SSH (RFC 6242) with > NETCONF and HTTPS (RFC 8446) with RESTCONF. The TLS reference is current, > citing TLS v1.3. However, RFC 6242 is a document that describes how to use > SSH with NETCONF. That document, in turn, cites RFC 4254, and that RFC cites > RFC > 4253 for a description of SSH. 4253 is a very much out of date document; the > integrity and key management algorithms in the original RFC have been updated > 3 times (6668, 8268, and 8332). The encryption algorithms cited in 4253 are > all outdated. This discussion of SSH security for use with NETCONF, based on > the one citation, seems to be inconsistent with current IETF crypto > guidelines. > This is a problem that the net management area should address before this > document is approved. > > The discussion of how a factory-reset RPC may isolate a device, is good, as > is the warning about not relying on this RPC to prevent recovery of > security-sensitive data from NV storage. > > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
