Network Working Group B. Feinstein
Request for Comments: 4767 SecureWorks, Inc.
Category: Experimental G. Matthews
CSC/NASA Ames Research Center
March 2007
The Intrusion Detection Exchange Protocol (IDXP)
Status of This Memo
This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
This memo describes the Intrusion Detection Exchange Protocol (IDXP),
an application-level protocol for exchanging data between intrusion
detection entities. IDXP supports mutual-authentication, integrity,
and confidentiality over a connection-oriented protocol. The
protocol provides for the exchange of IDMEF messages, unstructured
text, and binary data. The IDMEF message elements are described in
RFC 4765, "The Intrusion Detection Message Exchange Format (IDMEF)",
a companion document of the Intrusion Detection Exchange Format
Working Group (IDWG) of the IETF.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. Purpose ....................................................3
1.2. Profiles ...................................................3
1.3. Terminology ................................................3
2. The Model .......................................................4
2.1. Connection Provisioning ....................................4
2.2. Data Transfer ..............................................6
2.3. Connection Teardown ........................................7
2.4. Trust Model ................................................8
3. The IDXP Profile ................................................8
3.1. IDXP Profile Overview ......................................8
3.2. IDXP Profile Identification and Initialization .............9
3.3. IDXP Profile Message Syntax ................................9
3.4. IDXP Profile Semantics .....................................9
Feinstein & Matthews Experimental [Page 1]
RFC 4767 IDXP March 2007
3.4.1. The IDXP-Greeting Element ..........................10
3.4.2. The Option Element .................................11
3.4.3. The IDMEF-Message Element ..........................12
4. IDXP Options ...................................................12
4.1. The channelPriority Option ................................13
4.2. The streamType Option .....................................14
5. Fulfillment of IDWG Communications Protocol Requirements .......16
5.1. Reliable Message Transmission .............................16
5.2. Interaction with Firewalls ................................16
5.3. Mutual Authentication .....................................16
5.4. Message Confidentiality ...................................17
5.5. Message Integrity .........................................17
5.6. Per-Source Authentication .................................17
5.7. Denial of Service .........................................18
5.8. Message Duplication .......................................18
6. Extending IDXP .................................................18
7. IDXP Option Registration Template ..............................19
8. Initial Registrations ..........................................19
8.1. Registration: The IDXP Profile ............................19
8.2. Registration: The System (Well-Known) TCP Port
Number for IDXP ...........................................19
8.3. Registration: The channelPriority Option ..................20
8.4. Registration: The streamType Option .......................20
9. The DTDs .......................................................20
9.1. The IDXP DTD ..............................................20
9.2. The channelPriority Option DTD ............................22
9.3. The streamType DTD ........................................23
10. Reply Codes ...................................................24
11. Security Considerations .......................................25
11.1. Use of the TUNNEL Profile ................................25
11.2. Use of Underlying Security Profiles ......................25
12. IANA Considerations ...........................................25
13. References ....................................................26
13.1. Normative References .....................................26
13.2. Informative References ...................................26
14. Acknowledgements ..............................................26
Feinstein & Matthews Experimental [Page 2]
RFC 4767 IDXP March 2007
1. Introduction
IDXP is specified, in part, as a Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol
(BEEP) [4] "profile". BEEP is a generic application protocol
framework for connection-oriented, asynchronous interactions.
Features such as authentication and confidentiality are provided
through the use of other BEEP profiles. Accordingly, many aspects of
IDXP (e.g., confidentiality) are provided within the BEEP framework.
1.1. Purpose
IDXP provides for the exchange of IDMEF [2] messages, unstructured
text, and binary data between intrusion detection entities.
Addressing the security-sensitive nature of exchanges between
intrusion detection entities, underlying BEEP security profiles
should be used to offer IDXP the required set of security properties.
See Section 5 for a discussion of how IDXP fulfills the IDWG
communications protocol requirements. See Section 11 for a
discussion of security considerations.
IDXP is primarily intended for the exchange of data created by
intrusion detection entities. IDMEF [2] messages should be used for
the structured representation of this intrusion detection data,
although IDXP may be used to exchange unstructured text and binary
data.
1.2. Profiles
There are several BEEP profiles discussed, the first of which we
define in this memo:
The IDXP Profile
The TUNNEL Profile [3]
The Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) Family of
Profiles (see Section 4.1 of [4])
The TLS Profile (see Section 3.1 of [4])
1.3. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [1].
Feinstein & Matthews Experimental [Page 3]
RFC 4767 IDXP March 2007
Throughout this memo, the terms "analyzer" and "manager" are used in
the context of the Intrusion Detection Message Exchange Requirements
[5]. In particular, Section 2.2 of [5] defines a collection of
intrusion detection terms.
The terms "peer", "initiator", "listener", "client", and "server",
and the characters "I", "L", "C", and "S" are used in the context of
BEEP [4]. In particular, Section 2.1 of BEEP discusses the roles
that a BEEP peer may perform.
The term "Document Type Definition" is abbreviated as "DTD" and is
defined in Section 2.8 of the Extensible Markup Language (XML) [7].
Note that the term "proxy" is specific to IDXP and does not exist in
the context of BEEP. The term "intrusion detection" is abbreviated
as "ID".
2. The Model
2.1. Connection Provisioning
Intrusion detection entities using IDXP to transfer data are termed
IDXP peers. Peers can exist only in pairs, and these pairs
communicate over a single BEEP session with one or more BEEP channels
opened for transferring data. Peers are either managers or
analyzers, as defined in Section 2.2 of [5].
The relationship between analyzers and managers is potentially many-
to-many. That is, an analyzer MAY communicate with many managers;
similarly, a manager MAY communicate with many analyzers. Likewise,
the relationship between different managers is potentially many-to-
many, so that a manager MAY receive the alerts sent by a large number
of analyzers by receiving them through intermediate managers.
Analyzers MUST NOT establish IDXP exchanges with other analyzers.
An IDXP peer wishing to establish IDXP communications with another
IDXP peer does so by opening a BEEP channel, which may entail
initiating a BEEP session. A BEEP security profile offering the
required security properties SHOULD initially be negotiated (see
Section 11 for a discussion of security considerations). Following
the successful negotiation of the BEEP security profile, IDXP
greetings are exchanged and connection provisioning proceeds.
In the following sequence, the peer 'Alice' initiates an IDXP
exchange with the peer 'Bob'.
Feinstein & Matthews Experimental [Page 4]
RFC 4767 IDXP March 2007
Alice Bob
---------------- xport connect(1) ------------------>
<-------------------- greeting ---------------------->
<-------------start security profile(2) ------------->
<-------------------- greeting ---------------------->
<------------------ start IDXP(3) ------------------->
Notes:
(1) 'Alice' initiates a transport connection to 'Bob', triggering the
exchange of BEEP greeting messages.
(2) Both entities negotiate the use of a BEEP security profile.
(3) Both entities negotiate the use of the IDXP profile.
In between a pair of IDXP peers may be an arbitrary number of
proxies. A proxy may be necessary for administrative reasons, such
as running on a firewall to allow restricted access. Another use
might be one proxy per company department, which forwards data from
the analyzer peers in the department onto a company-wide manager
peer.
A BEEP tuning profile MAY be used to create an application-layer
tunnel that transparently forwards data over a chain of proxies. The
TUNNEL profile [3] SHOULD be used for this purpose; see [3] for more
detail concerning the options available to set up an application-
layer tunnel using TUNNEL, and see Section 11.1 for a discussion of
TUNNEL-related security considerations. TUNNEL MUST be offered as a
tuning profile for the creation of application-layer tunnels. The
TUNNEL profile MUST offer the use of some form of SASL authentication
(see Section 4.1 of [4]). Once a tunnel has been created, a BEEP
security profile offering the required security properties SHOULD be
negotiated, followed by negotiation of the IDXP profile.
The following sequence shows how TUNNEL might be used to create an
application-layer tunnel through which IDXP would operate. A peer
'Alice' initiates the creation of a BEEP session using the IDXP
profile with the entity 'Bob' by first contacting 'proxy1'. In the
greeting exchange between 'Alice' and 'proxy1', the TUNNEL profile is
selected, and subsequently the use of the TUNNEL profile is extended
to reach through 'proxy2' to 'Bob'.
Feinstein & Matthews Experimental [Page 5]
RFC 4767 IDXP March 2007
Alice proxy1 proxy2 Bob
-- xport connect -->
<---- greeting ----->
-- start TUNNEL --->
- xport connect(1) ->
<----- greeting ----->
--- start TUNNEL --->
--- xport connect -->
<----- greeting ----->
--- start TUNNEL --->
<----- (2) ------
<------- -------
<------ -------
<------------------------- greeting -------------------------->
<------------------ start security profile ------------------->
<------------------------- greeting -------------------------->
<------------------------ start IDXP ------------------------->
Notes:
(1) Instead of immediately acknowledging the request from 'Alice' to
start TUNNEL, 'proxy1' attempts to establish use of TUNNEL with
'proxy2'. 'proxy2' also delays its acknowledgment to 'proxy1'.
(2) 'Bob' acknowledges the request from 'proxy2' to start TUNNEL, and
this acknowledgment propagates back to 'Alice' so that a TUNNEL
application-layer tunnel is established from 'Alice' to 'Bob'.
2.2. Data Transfer
Between a pair of ID entities communicating over a BEEP session, one
or more BEEP channels MAY be opened using the IDXP profile. If
desired, additional BEEP sessions MAY be established to offer
additional channels using the IDXP profile. However, in most
situations additional channels using the IDXP profile SHOULD be
opened within an existing BEEP session, as opposed to provisioning a
new BEEP session containing the additional channels using the IDXP
profile.
Peers assume the role of client or server on a per-channel basis,
with one acting as the client and the other as the server. A peer's
role of client or server is determined independent of whether the
peer assumed the role of initiator or listener during the BEEP
session establishment. Clients and servers act as sources and sinks,
respectively, for exchanging data.
Feinstein & Matthews Experimental [Page 6]
RFC 4767 IDXP March 2007
In a simple case, an analyzer peer sends data to a manager peer. For
example,
+----------+ +----------+
| | | |
| |****** BEEP session ******| |
| | | |
| Analyzer | ----- IDXP profile ----> | Manager |
| (Client) | | (Server) |
| | | |
| |**************************| |
| | | |
+----------+ +----------+
Use of multiple BEEP channels in a BEEP session facilitates
categorization and prioritization of data sent between IDXP peers.
For example, a manager 'M1', sending alert data to another manager,
'M2', may choose to open a separate channel to exchange different
categories of alerts. 'M1' would act as the client on each of these
channels, and manager 'M2' can then process and act on the incoming
alerts based on their respective channel categorizations. See
Section 4 for more detail on how to incorporate categorization and/or
prioritization into channel creation.
+----------+ +----------+
| | | |
| |*************** BEEP session ***************| |
| | | |
| | -- IDXP profile, network-based alerts ---> | |
| Manager | | Manager |
| M1 | ---- IDXP profile, host-based alerts ----> | M2 |
| (Client) | | (Server) |
| | ------ IDXP profile, other alerts -------> | |
| | | |
| |********************************************| |
| | | |
+----------+ +----------+
2.3. Connection Teardown
An IDXP peer may choose to close an IDXP channel under many different
circumstances (e.g., an error in processing has occurred). To close
a channel, the peer sends a "close" element (see Section 2.3.1.3 of
[4]) on channel zero indicating which channel is being closed. An
IDXP peer may also choose to close an entire BEEP session by sending
a "close" element indicating that channel zero is to be closed.
Feinstein & Matthews Experimental [Page 7]
RFC 4767 IDXP March 2007
Section 2.3.1.3 of [4] offers a more complete discussion of the
circumstances under which a BEEP peer is permitted to close a channel
and the mechanisms for doing so.
It is anticipated that due to the overhead of provisioning an
application-layer tunnel and/or a BEEP security profile, BEEP
sessions containing IDXP channels will be long-lived. In addition,
the repeated overhead of IDXP channel provisioning (i.e., the
exchange of IDXP greetings) may be avoided by keeping IDXP channels
open even while data is not actively being exchanged on them. These
are recommendations and, as such, IDXP peers may choose to close and
re-provision BEEP sessions and/or IDXP channels as they see fit.
2.4. Trust Model
In our model, trust is placed exclusively in the IDXP peers. Proxies
are always assumed to be untrustworthy. A BEEP security profile is
used to establish end-to-end security between pairs of IDXP peers,
doing away with the need to place trust in any intervening proxies.
Only after successful negotiation of the underlying security profile
are IDXP peers to be trusted. Only BEEP security profiles offering
at least the protections required by Section 5 of [5] should be used
to secure a BEEP session containing channels using the IDXP profile.
See Section 3 of [4] for the registration of the TLS profile, an
example of a BEEP security profile meeting the requirements of
Section 5 of [5]. See Section 5 for a discussion of how IDXP
fulfills the IDWG communications protocol requirements.
3. The IDXP Profile
3.1. IDXP Profile Overview
The IDXP profile provides a mechanism for exchanging information
between intrusion detection entities. A BEEP tuning profile MAY be
used to create an application-layer tunnel that transparently
forwards data over a chain of proxies. The TUNNEL profile [3] SHOULD
be used for this purpose; see [3] for more detail concerning the
options available to set up an application-layer tunnel using TUNNEL,
and see Section 11.1 for a discussion of TUNNEL-related security
considerations. TUNNEL MUST be offered as a tuning profile for the
creation of application-layer tunnels. The TUNNEL profile MUST offer
the use of some form of SASL authentication (see Section 4.1 of [4]).
The TLS profile SHOULD be used to provide the required combination of
mutual-authentication, integrity, and confidentiality for the IDXP
profile. For further discussion of application-layer tunnel and
security issues, see Sections 2.1 and 11.
Feinstein & Matthews Experimental [Page 8]
RFC 4767 IDXP March 2007
The IDXP profile supports several elements of interest:
o The "IDXP-Greeting" element identifies an analyzer or manager at
one end of a BEEP channel to the analyzer or manager at the other
end of the channel.
o The "Option" element is used to convey optional channel parameters
between peers during the exchange of "IDXP-Greeting" elements.
This element is OPTIONAL.
o The "IDMEF-Message" element carries the structured information to
be exchanged between the peers.
3.2. IDXP Profile Identification and Initialization
The IDXP profile is identified as
http://idxp.org/beep/profile
in the BEEP "profile" element during channel creation.
During channel creation, "IDXP-Greeting" elements MUST be mutually
exchanged between the peers. An "IDXP-Greeting" element MAY be
contained within the corresponding "profile" element in the BEEP
"start" element. Including an "IDXP-Greeting" element in the initial
"start" element has exactly the same semantics as passing it as the
first "MSG" message on the channel. If channel creation is
successful, then before sending the corresponding reply, the BEEP
peer processes the "IDXP-Greeting" element and includes the resulting
response in the reply. This response will be an "ok" element or an
"error" element. The choice of which element is returned is
dependent on local provisioning of the peer.
3.3. IDXP Profile Message Syntax
BEEP messages in the profile MUST have a MIME Content-Type [8] of
"text/xml", "text/plain", or "application/octet-stream". The syntax
of the individual elements is specified in Section 9.1 of this
document and Section 4 of [2].
3.4. IDXP Profile Semantics
Each BEEP peer issues the "IDXP-Greeting" element using "MSG"
messages. The "IDXP-Greeting" element MAY contain one or more
"Option" sub-elements, conveying optional channel parameters. Each
BEEP peer then issues "ok" in "RPY" messages or "error" in "ERR"
messages. (See Section 2.3.1 of [4] for the definitions of the
"error" and "ok" elements.) An "error" element MAY be issued within
Feinstein & Matthews Experimental [Page 9]
RFC 4767 IDXP March 2007
a "RPY" message when piggy-backed within a BEEP "profile" element.
See Section 3.4.1 for an example of an "error" element being issued
within a "RPY" message. Based on the respective client/server roles
negotiated during the exchange of "IDXP-Greeting" elements, the
client sends data using "MSG" messages. Depending on the MIME
Content-Type, this data may be an "IDMEF-Message" element, plain
text, or binary. The server then issues "ok" in "RPY" messages or
"error" in "ERR" messages.
3.4.1. The IDXP-Greeting Element
The "IDXP-Greeting" element serves to identify the analyzer or
manager at one end of the BEEP channel to the analyzer or manager at
the other end of the channel. The "IDXP-Greeting" element MUST
include the role of the peer on the channel (client or server) and
the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) [6] of the peer. In addition,
the "IDXP-Greeting" element MAY include the fully qualified domain
name (see [9]) of the peer. One or more "Option" sub-elements MAY be
present.
An "IDXP-Greeting" element MAY be sent by either peer at any time.
The peer receiving the "IDXP-Greeting" MUST respond with an "ok"
(indicating acceptance), or an "error" (indicating rejection). A
peer's identity and role on a channel and any optional channel
parameters are, in effect, specified by the most recent "IDXP-
Greeting" it sent that was answered with an "ok".
An "IDXP-Greeting" may be rejected (with an "error" element) under
many circumstances. These include, but are not limited to,
authentication failure, lack of authorization to connect under the
specified role, the negotiation of an inadequate cipher suite, or the
presence of a channel option that must be understood but was
unrecognized.
For example, a successful creation with an embedded "IDXP-Greeting"
might look like this:
I: MSG 0 10 . 1592 187
I: Content-Type: text/xml
I:
I:
I:
I: ]]>
I:
I:
I: END
L: RPY 0 10 . 1865 91
Feinstein & Matthews Experimental [Page 10]
RFC 4767 IDXP March 2007
L: Content-Type: text/xml
L:
L:
L: ]]>
L:
L: END
L: MSG 0 11 . 1956 61
L: Content-Type: text/xml
L:
L:
I:
I: ]]>
I:
I:
I: END
L: RPY 0 10 . 1592 182
L: Content-Type: text/xml
L:
L:
L: 'http://example.com/eve' must first
L: negotiate the TLS profile ]]>
L:
L: END
3.4.2. The Option Element
If present, the "Option" element MUST be contained within an "IDXP-
Greeting" element. An individual "IDXP-Greeting" element MAY contain
one or more "Option" sub-elements. Each "Option" element within an
"IDXP-Greeting" element represents a request to enable an IDXP option
on the channel being negotiated. See Section 4 for a complete
description of IDXP options and the "Option" element.
Feinstein & Matthews Experimental [Page 11]
RFC 4767 IDXP March 2007
3.4.3. The IDMEF-Message Element
The "IDMEF-Message" element carries the information to be exchanged
between the peers. See Section 4 of [2] for the definition of this
element.
4. IDXP Options
IDXP provides a service for the reliable exchange of data between
intrusion detection entities. Options are used to alter the
semantics of the service.
The specification of an IDXP option MUST define
o the identity of the option;
o what content, if any, is contained within the option; and
o the processing rules for the option.
An option registration template (see Section 7) organizes this
information.
An "Option" element is contained within an "IDXP-Greeting" element.
The "IDXP-Greeting" element itself MAY contain one or more "Option"
elements. The "Option" element has several attributes and contains
arbitrary content:
o the "internal" and the "external" attributes, exactly one of which
MUST be present, uniquely identify the option;
o the "mustUnderstand" attribute, whose presence is OPTIONAL and
whose default value is "false", specifies whether the option, if
unrecognized, MUST cause an error in processing to occur; and
o the "localize" attribute, whose presence is OPTIONAL, specifies
one or more language tokens, each identifying a desirable language
tag to be used if textual diagnostics are returned to the
originator.
The value of the "internal" attribute is the IANA-registered name for
the option. If the "internal" attribute is not present, then the
value of the "external" attribute is a URI or URI with a fragment-
identifier. Note that a relative-URI value is not allowed.
The "mustUnderstand" attribute specifies whether the peer may ignore
the option if it is unrecognized. If the value of the
"mustUnderstand" attribute is "true", and if the peer does not
Feinstein & Matthews Experimental [Page 12]
RFC 4767 IDXP March 2007
recognize the option, then an error in processing has occurred. When
absent, the value of the "mustUnderstand" attribute is defined to be
"false".
4.1. The channelPriority Option
Section 8.3 contains the IDXP option registration for the
"channelPriority" option. This option contains a "channelPriority"
element (see Section 9.2).
By default, IDXP does not place any requirements on how peers should
manage multiple IDXP channels. The "channelPriority" option provides
a way for peers using multiple IDXP channels to request relative
priorities for each channel. When sending an "IDXP-Greeting" element
during the provisioning of an IDXP channel, the originating peer MAY
request that the remote peer assign a priority to the channel by
including an "Option" element containing a "channelPriority" element.
The "channelPriority" element has one attribute named "priority", of
range 0..2147483647. This attribute is REQUIRED. Not
coincidentally, this is the maximum range of possible BEEP channel
numbers. 0 is defined to represent the highest priority, with
relative priority decreasing as the "priority" value ascends.
For example, during the exchange of "IDXP-Greeting" elements during
channel provisioning, an analyzer successfully requests that a
manager assign a priority to the channel:
analyzer manager
--------------- greeting w/ option ----------------->
<---------------------- ------------------------
C: MSG 1 17 . 1984 165
C: Content-Type: text/xml
C:
C:
C:
C:
C: END
S: RPY 1 17 . 2001 7
S: Content-Type: text/xml
S:
S: ---------------------->
S: MSG 1 17 . 1312 194
S: Content-Type: text/xml
S:
S:
S:
S:
S: END
C: ERR 1 17 . 451 68
C: Content-Type: text/xml
C:
C: 'channelPriority' option was unrecognized
C: END
4.2. The streamType Option
Section 8.4 contains the IDXP option registration for the
"streamType" option. This option contains a "streamType" element
(see Section 9.3).
By default, IDXP provides no explicit method for categorizing
channels. The "streamType" option provides a way for peers to
request that a channel be categorized as a particular stream type.
When sending an "IDXP-Greeting" element during the provisioning of an
IDXP channel, the originating peer MAY request that the remote peer
assign a stream type to the channel by including an "Option" element
containing a "streamType" element.
The "streamType" element has one attribute named "type", with the
possible values of "alert", "heartbeat", or "config". This attribute
is REQUIRED. A value of "alert" indicates that the channel should be
categorized as being used for the exchange of ID alerts. A value of
"heartbeat" indicates that the channel should be categorized as being
used for the exchange of heartbeat messages such as the "Heartbeat"
element (see Section 4 of [2]). A value of "config" indicates that
the channel should be categorized as being used for the exchange of
configuration messages.
Feinstein & Matthews Experimental [Page 14]
RFC 4767 IDXP March 2007
For example, during the exchange of "IDXP-Greeting" elements during
channel provisioning, an analyzer successfully requests that a
manager assign a stream type to the channel:
analyzer manager
--------------- greeting w/ option ----------------->
<---------------------- ------------------------
C: MSG 1 21 . 1963 155
C: Content-Type: text/xml
C:
C:
C:
C:
C: END
S: RPY 1 21 . 1117 7
S: Content-Type: text/xml
S:
S: ---------------------->
S: MSG 1 21 . 1969 176
S: Content-Type: text/xml
S:
S:
S:
S:
S: END
C: ERR 1 21 . 1292 63
C: Content-Type: text/xml
C:
C: 'streamType' option was unrecognized
C: END
Feinstein & Matthews Experimental [Page 15]
RFC 4767 IDXP March 2007
5. Fulfillment of IDWG Communications Protocol Requirements
The following lists each of the communications protocol requirements
established in Section 5 of [5] and, for each requirement, describes
the manner in which it is fulfilled. IDXP itself does not fulfill
each of the communications protocol requirements, but instead relies
on the underlying BEEP protocol and a variety of BEEP profiles.
5.1. Reliable Message Transmission
"The [protocol] MUST support reliable transmission of messages." See
Section 5.1 of [5].
IDXP operates over BEEP, which operates only over reliable
connection-oriented transport protocols (e.g., TCP). In addition,
BEEP peers communicate using a simple request-response protocol,
which provides end-to-end reliability between peers.
5.2. Interaction with Firewalls
"The [protocol] MUST support transmission of messages between ID
components across firewall boundaries without compromising security."
See Section 5.2 of [5].
The TUNNEL profile [3] MUST be offered as an option for creation
of application-layer tunnels to allow operation across firewalls.
The TUNNEL profile SHOULD be used to provide an application-layer
tunnel. The ability to authenticate hosts during the creation of
an application-layer tunnel MUST be provided by the mechanism
chosen to create such tunnels. A firewall may therefore be
configured to authenticate all hosts attempting to tunnel into the
protected network. If the TUNNEL profile is used, SASL (see
Section 4.1 of [4]) MUST be offered as a mechanism by which hosts
can be authenticated.
5.3. Mutual Authentication
"The [protocol] MUST support mutual authentication of the analyzer
and the manager to each other." See Section 5.3 of [5].
IDXP supports mutual authentication of the peers through the use
of an appropriate underlying BEEP security profile. The TLS
profile and members of the SASL family of profiles (see Section
4.1 of [4]) are examples of security profiles that may be used to
authenticate the identity of communicating ID components. TLS
MUST be offered as a mechanism to provide mutual authentication,
and TLS SHOULD be used to provide mutual authentication.
Feinstein & Matthews Experimental [Page 16]
RFC 4767 IDXP March 2007
5.4. Message Confidentiality
"The [protocol] MUST support confidentiality of the message content
during message exchange. The selected design MUST be capable of
supporting a variety of encryption algorithms and MUST be adaptable
to a wide variety of environments." See Section 5.4 of [5].
IDXP supports confidentiality through the use of an appropriate
underlying BEEP security profile. The TLS profile is an example
of a security profile that offers confidentiality. The TLS
profile with the TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA cipher suite
MUST be offered as a mechanism to provide confidentiality, and TLS
with this cipher suite SHOULD be used to provide confidentiality.
The TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA cipher suite uses ephemeral
Diffie-Hellman (DHE) with DSS signatures for key exchange and
triple DES (Data Encryption Standard) (3DES) and cipher-block
chaining (CBC) for encryption. Stronger cipher suites are
optional.
5.5. Message Integrity
"The [protocol] MUST ensure the integrity of the message content.
The selected design MUST be capable of supporting a variety of
integrity mechanisms and MUST be adaptable to a wide variety of
environments." See Section 5.5 of [5].
IDXP supports message integrity through the use of an appropriate
underlying BEEP security profile. The TLS profile and members of
the SASL family of profiles (see Section 4.1 of [4]) are examples
of security profiles that offer message integrity. The TLS
profile with the TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA cipher suite
MUST be offered as a mechanism to provide integrity, and TLS with
this cipher suite SHOULD be used to provide integrity. The
TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA cipher suite uses the Secure
Hash Algorithm (SHA) for integrity protection using a keyed
message authentication code. Stronger cipher suites are optional.
5.6. Per-Source Authentication
"The [protocol] MUST support separate authentication keys for each
sender." See Section 5.6 of [5].
IDXP supports separate authentication keys for each sender (i.e.,
per-source authentication) through the use of an appropriate
underlying BEEP security profile. The TLS profile is an example
of a security profile that supports per-source authentication
through the mutual authentication of public-key certificates. TLS
MUST be offered as a mechanism to provide per-source
Feinstein & Matthews Experimental [Page 17]
RFC 4767 IDXP March 2007
authentication, and TLS SHOULD be used to provide per-source
authentication.
5.7. Denial of Service
"The [protocol] SHOULD resist protocol denial-of-service attacks."
See Section 5.7 of [5].
IDXP supports resistance to denial of service (DoS) attacks
through the use of an appropriate underlying BEEP security
profile. BEEP peers offering the IDXP profile MUST offer the use
of TLS with the TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA cipher suite,
and SHOULD use TLS with that cipher suite. To resist DoS attacks
it is helpful to discard traffic arising from a non-authenticated
source. BEEP peers MUST support the use of authentication in
conjunction with any mechanism used to create application-layer
tunnels. In particular, the use of some form of SASL
authentication (see Section 4.1 of [4]) MUST be offered to provide
authentication in the use of the TUNNEL profile. See Section 7 of
[3] for a discussion of security considerations in the use of the
TUNNEL profile.
5.8. Message Duplication
"The [protocol] SHOULD resist malicious duplication of messages."
See Section 5.8 of [5].
IDXP supports resistance to malicious duplication of messages
(i.e., replay attacks) through the use of an appropriate
underlying BEEP security profile. The TLS profile is an example
of a security profile offering resistance to replay attacks. The
TLS profile with the TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA cipher
suite MUST be offered as a mechanism to provide resistance against
replay attacks, and TLS with this cipher suite SHOULD be used to
provide resistance against replay attacks. The
TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA cipher suite uses cipher-block
chaining (CBC) to ensure that even if a message is duplicated the
cipher-text duplicate will produce a very different plain-text
result. Stronger cipher suites are optional.
6. Extending IDXP
The specification of IDXP options (see Section 4) is the preferred
method of extending IDXP. In order to extend IDXP, an IDXP option
SHOULD be documented in an RFC and MUST be registered with the IANA
(see Section 7). IDXP extensions that cannot be expressed as IDXP
options MUST be documented in an RFC.
Feinstein & Matthews Experimental [Page 18]
RFC 4767 IDXP March 2007
7. IDXP Option Registration Template
When an IDXP option is registered, the following information is
supplied:
Option Identification: specify the NMTOKEN or the URI that
authoritatively identifies this option.
Contains: specify the XML content that is contained within the
"Option" element.
Processing Rules: specify the processing rules associated with the
option.
Contact Information: specify the postal and electronic contact
information for the author(s) of the option.
8. Initial Registrations
8.1. Registration: The IDXP Profile
Profile identification: http://idxp.org/beep/profile
Messages exchanged during channel creation: "IDXP-Greeting"
Messages starting one-to-one exchanges: "IDXP-Greeting", "IDMEF-
Message"
Messages in positive replies: "ok"
Messages in negative replies: "error"
Messages in one-to-many exchanges: none
Message syntax: see Section 3.3
Message semantics: see Section 3.4
Contact information: see the "Authors' Addresses" section of this
memo
8.2. Registration: The System (Well-Known) TCP Port Number for IDXP
Protocol Number: 603
Message Formats, Types, Opcodes, and Sequences: see Section 3.3
Functions: see Section 3.4
Feinstein & Matthews Experimental [Page 19]
RFC 4767 IDXP March 2007
Use of Broadcast/Multicast: none
Proposed Name: Intrusion Detection Exchange Protocol
Short name: idxp
Contact Information: see the "Authors' Addresses" section of this
memo
8.3. Registration: The channelPriority Option
Option Identification: channelPriority
Contains: channelPriority (see Section 9.2)
Processing Rules: see Section 4.1
Contact Information: see the "Authors' Addresses" section of this
memo
8.4. Registration: The streamType Option
Option Identification: streamType
Contains: streamType (see Section 9.3)
Processing Rules: see Section 4.2
Contact Information: see the "Authors' Addresses" section of this
memo
9. The DTDs
9.1. The IDXP DTD
The following is the DTD defining the valid elements for the IDXP
profile.
Feinstein & Matthews Experimental [Page 20]
RFC 4767 IDXP March 2007
%BEEP;
%IDMEF;
Feinstein & Matthews Experimental [Page 21]
RFC 4767 IDXP March 2007
9.2. The channelPriority Option DTD
The following is the DTD defining the valid elements for the
channelPriority option.
9.3. The streamType DTD
The following is the DTD defining the valid elements for the
streamType option.
Feinstein & Matthews Experimental [Page 23]
RFC 4767 IDXP March 2007
10. Reply Codes
This section lists the three-digit error codes the IDXP profile may
generate.
code meaning
==== =======
421 Service not available
(e.g., the peer does not have sufficient resources)
450 Requested action not taken
(e.g., DNS lookup failed or connection could not
be established. See also 550.)
454 Temporary authentication failure
500 General syntax error
(e.g., poorly-formed XML)
501 Syntax error in parameters
(e.g., non-valid XML)
504 Parameter not implemented
530 Authentication required
534 Authentication mechanism insufficient
(e.g., cipher suite too weak, sequence exhausted)
535 Authentication failure
537 Action not authorized for user
550 Requested action not taken
(e.g., peer could be contacted, but
malformed greeting or no IDXP profile advertised)
553 Parameter invalid
554 Transaction failed
(e.g., policy violation)
Feinstein & Matthews Experimental [Page 24]
RFC 4767 IDXP March 2007
11. Security Considerations
The IDXP profile is a profile of BEEP. In BEEP, transport security,
user authentication, and data exchange are orthogonal. Refer to
Section 9 of [4] for a discussion of this. It is strongly
recommended that those wanting to use the IDXP profile initially
negotiate a BEEP security profile between the peers that offers the
required security properties. The TLS profile SHOULD be used to
provide for transport security. See Section 5 for a discussion of
how IDXP fulfills the IDWG communications protocol requirements.
See Section 2.4 for a discussion of the trust model.
11.1. Use of the TUNNEL Profile
See Section 5 for IDXP's requirements on application-layer tunneling
and the TUNNEL profile specifically. See Section 7 of [3] for a
discussion of the security considerations inherent in the use of the
TUNNEL profile.
11.2. Use of Underlying Security Profiles
At present, the TLS profile is the only BEEP security profile known
to meet all of the requirements set forth in Section 5 of [5]. When
securing a BEEP session with the TLS profile, the
TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA cipher suite offers an acceptable
level of security. See Section 5 for a discussion of how IDXP
fulfills the IDWG communications requirements through the use of an
underlying security profile.
12. IANA Considerations
The IANA registered "idxp" as a TCP port number as specified in
Section 8.2.
The IANA maintains a list of:
IDXP options, see Section 7.
For this list, the IESG is responsible for assigning a designated
expert to review the specification prior to the IANA making the
assignment. As a courtesy to developers of non-standards track IDXP
options, the mailing list idxp-discuss@lists.idxp.org may be used to
solicit commentary.
IANA made the registrations specified in Sections 8.3 and 8.4.
Feinstein & Matthews Experimental [Page 25]
RFC 4767 IDXP March 2007
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Debar, H., Curry, D., and B. Feinstein, "The Intrusion Detection
Message Exchange Format (IDMEF)", RFC 4765, March 2007.
[3] New, D., "The TUNNEL Profile", RFC 3620, October 2003.
[4] Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core", RFC
3080, March 2001.
[5] Wood, M. and M. Erlinger, "Intrusion Detection Message Exchange
Requirements", RFC 4766, March 2007.
13.2. Informative References
[6] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986,
January 2005.
[7] Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. and E. Maler,
"Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (2nd ed)", W3C REC-xml,
October 2000, .
[8] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, November
1996.
[9] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD
13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
14. Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Darren New,
Marshall T. Rose, Roy Pollock, Tim Buchheim, Mike Erlinger, John C.
C. White, and Paul Osterwald.
Feinstein & Matthews Experimental [Page 26]
RFC 4767 IDXP March 2007
Authors' Addresses
Benjamin S. Feinstein
SecureWorks, Inc.
PO Box 95007
Atlanta, GA 30347
US
Phone: +1 404 327-6339
Email: bfeinstein@acm.org
URI: http://www.secureworks.com/
Gregory A. Matthews
CSC/NASA Ames Research Center
EMail: gmatthew@nas.nasa.gov
URI: http://www.nas.nasa.gov/
Feinstein & Matthews Experimental [Page 27]
RFC 4767 IDXP March 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Feinstein & Matthews Experimental [Page 28]
RFC, FYI, BCP