Subject: [mile] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-murillo-mile-cps-00.txt

From: Martin Murillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 21:11:01 -0500

Dear all,

Please find below a link to a proposed draft for extending IODEF for the 
reporting of cyber-physical system incidents. These systems are often 
referred as  Operational Technology Systems, Industrial Control Systems, 
Automatic Control  Systems, or simply Control Systems.

Cyber-Physical systems have been around for decades.  However, they are 
now at a higher risk to be  the target of attacks by individual 
highly-skilled attackers, organized groups, nation-states, or simply 
suffer repercussions of mainstream IT cyber-attacks. While over 90% of 
critical control system infrastructure is currently owned by private 
enterprises, these can have direct repercussions on national security of 
world nations.  Indeed, various of these systems are key parts of 
nuclear reactor facilities, transportation systems, electric power 
distribution, oil and natural gas distribution, health care, water and 
waste-water treatment, dam infrastructure, missile and defense systems, 
and others.   The disruption of these control systems could have a 
significant impact on public health, safety, and lead to large economic 
losses.

Among the issues that catalyze this higher risk are:

i) these systems are gradually becoming more interconnected, ii) legacy 
systems do not have proper cybersecurity protection, iii) the existence 
of highly-skilled individuals and motivations, iv) some these systems 
are generally considered critical, v) these are a natural extension of 
IT cyber-attacks, vi) the emergence of the Internet of Things (IOT), and 
vi) these attacks can be carried out remotely and quite inexpensively.

While there might exist national approaches to deal with incidents, 
there's the need of a global international approach that will engulf 
governments, private organizations and other stakeholders. IETF, as a 
leading global Internet standards organization, seeks to satisfy this 
need through open standards that seek to encompass issues that are 
critical for the global community.

Feedback at two levels are welcome:

1. On the existence and inclusion either by utilizing any already 
existing industry formats (XML-   encoded) and/or by utilizing atomic data
2. Contributions on making the extension (and background information) 
more comprehensive, accurate and principally useful for the community

Look forward to feedback and other input!

Martin Murillo

A new version of I-D, draft-murillo-mile-cps-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Martin Murillo and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:		draft-murillo-mile-cps
Revision:	00
Title:		IODEF extension for Reporting Cyber-Physical System Incidents
Document date:	2014-01-21
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		24
URL:            http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-murillo-mile-cps-00.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-murillo-mile-cps/
Htmlized:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-murillo-mile-cps-00

Abstract:
    This draft document will extend the Incident Object Description
    Exchange Format (IODEF) defined in [RFC5070] to support the reporting
    of incidents dealing with attacks to physical infrastructure through
    the utilization of IT means as a vehicle or as a tool.  These systems
    might also be referred as Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS), Operational
    Technology Systems, Industrial Control Systems, Automatic Control
    Systems, or simply Control Systems.  These names are used
    interchangeably in this document.  In this context, an incident is
    generally the result of a cybersecurity issue whose main goal is to
    affect the operation of a CPS.  It is considered that any
    unauthorized alteration of the operation is always malign.  This
    extension will provide the capability of embedding structured
    information, such as identifier- and XML-based information.  In its
    current state, this document provides important considerations for
    further work in implementing Cyber-Physical System incident reports,
    either by utilizing any already existing industry formats (XML-
    encoded) and/or by utilizing atomic data.

    In addition, this document should provide appropriate material for
    helping making due considerations in making an appropriate decision
    on how a CPS reporting is done: 1) through a data format extension to
    the Incident Object Description Exchange Format [RFC5070], 2) forming
    part of an already existing IODEF-extension for structured
    cybersecurity information (currently draft
    draft-ietf-mile-sci-11.txt), or others.  While the format and
    contents of the present document fit more the earlier option, these
    can also be incorporated to the later.

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

---

From: Jerome Athias <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 12:17:40 +0300

Hi,

from what I know (which is limited), and as you mention, this ICS area
is often also called Critical Infrastructures (CIs), or SCADA

for a little bit of background, we could explore the Cybersecurity Framework
Example references
http://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Pages/CIPStandards.aspx
http://www.ictqatar.qa/en/documents/download/National%20Industrial%20Control%20Systems%20Security%20Standard-English.pdf
ANSI/ISA-99.02.01-2009

I don't have enough knowledge about the status and adoption of the
different efforts in term of XML representation/format/standards
http://xml.coverpages.org/emergencyManagement.html
and resilience

It would maybe be possible to obtain information from there
http://ics-cert.us-cert.gov
http://ics-isac.org/

My first feedback is that it looks like an interesting extension.

I would suggest to focus on the reuse of existing Taxonomies, or
references to them.

As such, for [Industry], maybe
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?chart=2012
ISO 3166 (Country Codes)

[TargetSystems], I (personally) don't like the word "system" and prefer "asset"

[CompromisedPhysicalInfrastrucute] (with a typo ;p) seems to be a
category of "Infrastructure" (or group of assets)

[EntryPoint] could be ok since it could be a little bit different from
"endpoint"

[PerpetratingParty] seems to reference "Threat Actor" or "Threat
Agent" or "Attacker"

[RecurrencePreventionMeasures] is this Security Controls? (and
Mitigations/Remediations)
Reference: https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/800-53/control?controlName=AC-3&type=1

Describing an [Exploit] is not so easy (depending on the level of
details wanted/needed)

Figure 1 (or "Diagram 1") is interesting, (of course it is different
from, i.e. CAESARS), it MAYBE could be more layered
http://www.isa.org/InTechTemplate.cfm?template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=94401

(To follow: ENISA CDXI)

Some typos

Next step: more XML focused ;)

My 2 bitcents

2014/1/24 Martin Murillo <[email-masked]>:
> Cyber-Physical systems have been around for decades.  However, they are now
> at a higher risk to be  the target of attacks by individual highly-skilled
> attackers, organized groups, nation-states, or simply suffer repercussions
> of mainstream IT cyber-attacks. While over 90% of critical control system
> infrastructure is currently owned by private enterprises, these can have
> direct repercussions on national security of world nations.  Indeed, various
> of these systems are key parts of nuclear reactor facilities, transportation
> systems, electric power distribution, oil and natural gas distribution,
> health care, water and waste-water treatment, dam infrastructure, missile
> and defense systems, and others.   The disruption of these control systems
> could have a significant impact on public health, safety, and lead to large
> economic losses.
>
> systems do not have proper cybersecurity protection, iii) the existence of
> highly-skilled individuals and motivations, iv) some these systems are
> generally considered critical, v) these are a natural extension of IT
> cyber-attacks, vi) the emergence of the Internet of Things (IOT), and vi)
> these attacks can be carried out remotely and quite inexpensively.
>
> While there might exist national approaches to deal with incidents, there's
> the need of a global international approach that will engulf governments,
> private organizations and other stakeholders. IETF, as a leading global
> Internet standards organization, seeks to satisfy this need through open
> standards that seek to encompass issues that are critical for the global
> community.
>
> 1. On the existence and inclusion either by utilizing any already existing
> industry formats (XML-   encoded) and/or by utilizing atomic data
> 2. Contributions on making the extension (and background information) more
> comprehensive, accurate and principally useful for the community
>
> URL:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-murillo-mile-cps-00.txt
> _______________________________________________
> mile mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mile

---

From: "Johnson, Blake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 19:09:02 +0000

This is an interesting application of IODEF that I had not considered. Most industry sharing that takes place in this space, from my perspective, is in the form of in person and telephone threat briefings. These are facilitated by the FBI, DHS, and the ISAC's.

At least a handful of the ISAC's have started sharing structured threat indicator data, and the taxonomy for this extension could cover what the Electric Sector ISAC currently refers to as 'Experience Sharing.' I can review this proposal as it relates to information captured by the ES-ISAC's Experience Sharing tool, using IEC/ANSI 62443 (ISA99) as an informative reference.

Blake Johnson
Threat Intelligence Analyst
Alliant Energy | Infrastructure Secruity
Office: 608-458-6320 | Cell: 608-843-2790

-----Original Message-----
From: mile [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jerome Athias
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 3:18 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [mile] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-murillo-mile-cps-00.txt

Hi,

(To follow: ENISA CDXI)

Some typos

My 2 bitcents

---

From: Martin Murillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 20:10:46 -0500

Have read the links posted by Jerome and info on the Experience Sharing 
Tool (EST). It is my impression that a revision under the light of the 
EST would be very appropriate, and one of the first uses of the 
extension, given its report-based nature.  Look forward to seeing the 
reviews in this light.

As Jerome mentioned, focusing on referencing already existing taxonomies 
(and when necessary reusing them and referencing their xml 
implementations, if publicly available) would be the best approach; 
given the early stages in the field, I tend to think that atomic data 
will need to be used.

Regarding the term "Asset" vs "System", I believe system provides a more 
general connotation, while asset, seem to focus more on mainstream 
infrastructure; because the inclusion of IoT-related infrastructure 
(anywhere from centralized home control to self-driving cars), I wonder 
whether "Asset" is too an specific term.

Martin

Martin