Subject: [bmwg] Network security test methodology development at BMWG supported by NetSecOPEN initiative

From: Carsten Rossenhoevel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 02:54:35 +0100

Dear BMWG,

Recently, the multi-vendor, not-for-profit NetSecOPEN
<http://www.netsecopen.org> initiative has been formed to innovate
network security test methodology.  The network security vendors, test
equipment manufacturers and test labs involved in the initiative aim to
strongly improve the applicability, reproducibility and transparency of
benchmarks for next-gen firewalls (NGFW), intrusion detection/prevention
systems (IDS/IPS) and unified threat management (UTM) solutions. 
NetSecOPEN is chaired by Brian Monkman (Cc'ed). 

We currently develop test terminology, traffic profiles and benchmarking
methodology for NGFWs to start with.  With the BMWG's consent, we would
like to contribute our initial draft to BMWG and continue the standards
development under this working group's guidance with the goal to create
RFC(s).

Some time next week we plan to submit the first draft for the WG's
review.  Our contributions should proceed swiftly in November and
December - hoping that there will be a lot to review and contribute to
before the end of the year.  Any contributions are more than welcome -
we really hope for peer review, contributions and innovative testing
ideas from the BMWG!

An early draft table of contents is listed below for your information
(this is not a formal contribution).

Best regards,
    Carsten Rossenhoevel (EANTC CTO)
    Balamuhunthan Balarajah (EANTC Senior Test Engineer)

Table of Contents

1. Introduction    
2. Requirements    
3. Scope
This document is focused on test methodology for network security device benchmarking tests in term of performance metrics.  It describes the test methodology to obtain reproducible test results independently using different vendor test equipment.  By defining a full set of test configuration parameters, this document will allow users to reproduce network performance measurements and compare measurements. The benchmarking tests focus a set of key performance indicators (KPI): throughput, transaction rates, concurrent connection, connection setup rate and SSL/TLS handshake rate. 
Devices such as firewalls, Next Generation firewalls, intrusion detection and prevention devices, application delivery controllers, deep packet inspection devices and web application firewalls generally fall into the
network security device category.  
    
4. Test Setup
    4.1. Testbed Configuration
    4.2. DUT/SUT Configuration
    4.3. Test Equipment Configuration
   
5. Test Bed Calibration
    
6. Reporting
    6.1. Testbed Software and Hardware Details
    6.2. Key Performance Indicators    

7. Benchmarking Tests   
    7.1. Throughput Performance    
    7.2. TCP Concurrent Connection Capacity    
    7.3. TCP Connection Setup Rate    
    7.4. Application Transaction Rate       
    7.5. SSL/TLS Handshake Rate    
      
Appendix A. Traffic Mix Definition

-- 
Carsten Rossenhövel
Managing Director, EANTC AG (European Advanced Networking Test Center)
Salzufer 14, 10587 Berlin, Germany
office +49.30.3180595-21, fax +49.30.3180595-10, mobile +49.177.2505721
[email-masked], http://www.eantc.de

Place of Business/Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin, Germany
Chairman/Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Herbert Almus
Managing Directors/Vorstand: Carsten Rossenhövel, Gabriele Schrenk
Registered: HRB 73694, Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, Berlin, Germany
EU VAT No: DE812824025

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 03:57:48 +0000

Hi Carsten and Bala,

Thanks for your contribution and proposal on our mailing list.

It’s fairly clear that your initial proposal to benchmark
Next-Gen Firewalls is within our current (and about to be
revised) WG Charter, since closely related work was completed
in 2003, in RFC 3511 (for Firewalls).

It will be interesting to see how benchmarking might be
conducted for intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS)
and unified threat management (UTM) solutions, and how
interactions with the IETF Security Area that could help.
But we will cross that bridge when we come to it.

So, the contribution-driven process here at IETF doesn’t
require WG consent, but we want everyone to become familiar with
IETF’s IPR policy https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/about/
and other aspects of IETF participation https://www.ietf.org/about/
as you join us.

We also have a “getting started” page for BMWG here:
http://bmwg.encrypted.net/

Looking forward to continued interactions.

regards,
Al
bmwg co-chair

From: bmwg [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Carsten Rossenhoevel
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 8:55 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [bmwg] Network security test methodology development at BMWG supported by NetSecOPEN initiative

Dear BMWG,

Recently, the multi-vendor, not-for-profit NetSecOPEN<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.netsecopen.org&d=DwMDaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=RztzWZB_FZO1LrnEZXJ-6yKcCn_0rRGq5SsYg3PUHK4&s=9W6HPgdYIjU1tt_byRjpBkHdhdPKPKmQ7YQ5a1C3rXc&e=> initiative has been formed to innovate network security test methodology.  The network security vendors, test equipment manufacturers and test labs involved in the initiative aim to strongly improve the applicability, reproducibility and transparency of benchmarks for next-gen firewalls (NGFW), intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) and unified threat management (UTM) solutions.  NetSecOPEN is chaired by Brian Monkman (Cc'ed).

We currently develop test terminology, traffic profiles and benchmarking methodology for NGFWs to start with.  With the BMWG's consent, we would like to contribute our initial draft to BMWG and continue the standards development under this working group's guidance with the goal to create RFC(s).

Some time next week we plan to submit the first draft for the WG's review.  Our contributions should proceed swiftly in November and December - hoping that there will be a lot to review and contribute to before the end of the year.  Any contributions are more than welcome - we really hope for peer review, contributions and innovative testing ideas from the BMWG!

An early draft table of contents is listed below for your information (this is not a formal contribution).

Best regards,

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Requirements

3. Scope

4. Test Setup

5. Test Bed Calibration

6. Reporting

7. Benchmarking Tests

--

Carsten Rossenhövel

[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>, http://www.eantc.de<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.eantc.de&d=DwMDaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=RztzWZB_FZO1LrnEZXJ-6yKcCn_0rRGq5SsYg3PUHK4&s=AEfyNYfvzmc0QvgVqBd4EglaHvr3ozDISQNyc236QjA&e=>

EU VAT No: DE812824025