Re: [Syslog] Re: Threat model and charter

2006-01-12 Thread Sam Hartman
I agree with your concerns. I believe the only real issue you need to solve before you are done with the chartering discussion is whether you are going to have a transport or whether you are going to use something like syslog-sign. I *think* that you'll need to know what security threats you cons

[Syslog] SD-ELEMENT names

2006-01-12 Thread Anton Okmianski \(aokmians\)
Rainer and all: I'd like to propose a slight terminology change for syslog protocol for structured data. I think there is confusion even in this group about current terminology. For example, we (me included) keep referring to "structured data element", when we mean "structured data parameter".

RE: [Syslog] Re: Threat model and charter

2006-01-12 Thread robert . horn
I think that you are leaping too soon into implementation space. That is why the threat model is requested first. Off the top of my head here are some components of the threat model. I organize these in terms of "Asset, Threat, Mitigation". There are certainly more threats because I know I have

RE: [Syslog] Sec 6.1: Truncation

2006-01-12 Thread Anton Okmianski \(aokmians\)
Banzsi: I agree truncation does not solve the issue - that's why I don't want to over-design it. Splitting is an option I'd leave to application-layer running above syslog. It is not precluded. Just a matter of another RFC with extra sd-elements. If we do fragmentation in syslog transport/p

Re: [Syslog] Re: Threat model and charter

2006-01-12 Thread Chris Lonvick
Hi Sam, I also have a concern that we may try to craft an answer that provides good security but that won't actually be deployed. As an analogy, snmp has similar characteristics to syslog. usm has good security properties but has not been widely deployed. isms is trying to redress that and

RE: [Syslog] Sec 6.1: Truncation

2006-01-12 Thread Balazs Scheidler
On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 10:45 +0100, Rainer Gerhards wrote: > Anton & all, > > You have good points and I have to admit I am still thinking what is the > best way. I would appreciate if some other WG members could express > their thoughts... My pragmatic view is that overly long messages should be

RE: [Syslog] Sec 6.1: Truncation

2006-01-12 Thread Rainer Gerhards
Anton & all, You have good points and I have to admit I am still thinking what is the best way. I would appreciate if some other WG members could express their thoughts... Thanks, Rainer > -Original Message- > From: Anton Okmianski (aokmians) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday,