Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-mile-grc-exchange
draft-ietf-mile-grc-exchange
MILE Working Group K. Moriarty
Internet-Draft S. Tabet
Intended status: Standards Track EMC
Expires: May 10, 2013 D. Waltermire
NIST
November 6, 2012
GRC Report Exchange
draft-ietf-mile-grc-exchange-01.txt
Abstract
Governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) programs provide oversight
(governance) of risks and compliance initiatives within an
organization. GRC reports are increasingly provided in an XML
format. This specification defines a common method to securely
transport GRC and other XML reports. The defined messaging
capability provides policy options and markings in an XML schema,
options for confidentiality at the document/report level, and
security for the end-to-end communication. XML reports may be shared
between service providers and clients, enterprises, or within
enterprises. Reports may also be exchanged for official purposes
such as business report filings, compliance report filings, and the
handling of legal incidents (eWarrant, eDiscovery, etc.) This work
is a generalized format derived from the secure exchange of incident
information defined by RFC6545, Real-time Inter-network Defense
(RID).
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 10, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Normative and Informative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Report Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Communication between Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Inter-network Provider GRC Messaging . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. GRC Report Exchange Communication Topology . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Message Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. GRC Report Exchange Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4.1. Boolean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4.2. Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4.3. Multilingual Strings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4.4. Uniform Resource Locator strings . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4.5. Date-Time Strings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4.6. Timezone String . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4.7. Postal Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4.8. Telephone and Fax Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4.9. Email String . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5. GRC Report Exchange Message Types . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. GRC-Exchange Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. GRCPolicy Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2. RequestStatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3. GRCDocument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.4. Reference Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.5. ReportID Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.6. Contact Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.6.1. RegistryHandle Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.6.2. PostalAddress Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.6.3. Email Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.6.4. Telephone and Fax Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.7. ExtensionType Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.8. Node Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
4.9. Address Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.10. GRC-Exchange Name Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5. Extending the Enumerated Values of Attributes . . . . . . . . 37
6. GRC Report Exchange Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6.1. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6.2. Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6.3. Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
6.4. Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6.5. Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
7. GRC-Exchange Communication Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7.1. Report Communication Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7.1.1. GRC-Exchange Report Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
7.2. Request Communication Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
7.2.1. Request Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
7.2.2. Acknowledgement Message Example . . . . . . . . . . . 45
7.3. Query Communication Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
7.3.1. Query Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
7.3.2. Acknowledgement Message Example . . . . . . . . . . . 46
7.3.3. Result Message Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
8. Internationalization Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
9. GRC-Exchange Schema Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
10. Requirements for GRC XML Schemas for GRC-Exchange . . . . . . 49
11. Security Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
11.1. XML Digital Signatures and Encryption . . . . . . . . . . 50
11.2. Public Key Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
11.2.1. Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
11.2.2. Multi-Hop Request Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . 55
11.3. Consortiums and Public Key Infrastructures . . . . . . . . 56
11.4. Privacy Concerns and System Use Guidelines . . . . . . . . 57
11.5. Sharing Profiles and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
15. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
1. Introduction
Governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) programs provide oversight
(governance) of risks and compliance initiatives within an
organization. The areas typically covered by GRC include:
o Finance and Business Operations,
o Information Technology,
o Security, and
o Legal and Compliance
GRC Report Exchange provides a secure method to communicate relevant
information and reports, through the automated exchange of extensible
markup language (XML) documents. GRC Report Exchange considers
security, policy, and privacy issues as related to the exchange of
potentially sensitive information. Additionally, it enables
organizations accepting GRC report filings, such as service providers
or enterprises, the options to make appropriate decisions according
to their policy requirements. GRC Report Exchange includes
provisions for confidentiality, integrity, and authentication.
The data in GRC reports exchanged are represented in an XML
[W3C.REC-xml-20081126] document using the appropriate XML schema for
the included report. The XML document or formatted report is then
enveloped by the GRC Report Exchange schema to set policy options and
provide a common secure exchange method for such documents. By
following this model, a single method for all GRC reports can be
used, simplifying the integration of GRC reports across platforms.
Security and privacy considerations are of high concern since
potentially sensitive information may be passed through GRC Report
Exchange messages. GRC Report Exchange takes advantage of XML
security and privacy policy information set in the GRC Report
Exchange schema and provides standard settings for fine grain
controls within GRC XML schemas. The GRC Report Exchange schema acts
as an XML envelope to support the communication of GRC report
documents. GRC Report Exchange messages are encapsulated for
transport, which is defined in a separate document [RFC6546]. The
authentication, integrity, and authorization features GRC Report
Exchange and RID transport offer are used to achieve a necessary
level of security.
GRC report exchange is not strictly a technical problem. There are
numerous procedural, trust, and legal considerations that might
prevent an organization from sharing information. GRC Report
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
Exchange provides information and options that can be used by
organizations who must then apply their own policies for sharing
information. Organizations must develop policies and procedures for
the use of the GRC Report Exchange protocol and XML reports.
1.1. Normative and Informative
The XML schema [W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028] and transport
requirements contained in this document are normative; all other
information provided is intended as informative. More specifically,
the following sections of this document are intended as informative:
Sections XXX. The following sections of this document are normative:
Sections XXX.
1.2. 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 [RFC2119].
2. Report Types
There are many possible report types that may be exchanged using GRC
Report Exchange. The reports MUST all be XML formatted reports and
MAY leverage the data markings used by this specification to require
security options such as encryption on the entire report (XML
document) or a section of the report.
The types of reports may vary within each area of GRC. Example
report types broken out by GRC focus areas include:
o Finance and Business Operations
* Finance or business Filing Report
o Information Technology
* Service Level Agreement (SLA) Reports from service providers
(public cloud providers, community cloud providers, etc.)
o Security
* Security Report aligned to control requirements (ISO27002, NIST
800-53, etc.) from service providers
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
o Legal and Compliance
* eDiscovery Reports
* eWarrant Reports
* Compliance report aligned to specific regulations
* Report for internal or external audit aligned to risk and
control frameworks (ISO27002, NIST 800-53, COSO, COBIT, etc.)
3. Communication between Entities
Trust relationships. Service provider to tenant or client is the
most likely scenario for the initial use cases of GRC report
exchange. See Section 11.5 on profiles.
3.1. Inter-network Provider GRC Messaging
GRC Report Exchange provides a standard protocol and format that is
required to ensure inter-operability between vendors for the exchange
and filing of GRC reports. GRC Report Exchange provides the
framework necessary for communication between entities exchanging or
filing GRC reports. Several message types described in Section 6 are
necessary to facilitate the exchange or filing of reports. The
message types include the Report, Query, Acknowledgement, Result, and
the Request message.
The Report message is used when a GRC report is to be filed on a
system or associated database accepting GRC Report Exchange messages,
where no further action is required. A Query message is used to
request information on a particular report. The Acknowledgement and
Report messages are used to communicate the status and result of a
Query or Request message.
Use of the communication network and the GRC Report Exchange protocol
must be for pre-approved, authorized purposes only. It is the
responsibility of each participating party to adhere to guidelines
set forth in both a global use policy established through the peering
agreements for each bilateral peer or agreed-upon consortium
guidelines. The purpose of such policies is to avoid abuse of the
system; the policies shall be developed by a consortium of
participating entities. The global policy may be dependent on the
domain it operates under; for example, a government network or a
commercial network such as the Internet would adhere to different
guidelines to address the individual concerns. Privacy issues must
be considered in public networks such as the Internet. Privacy
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
issues are discussed in the Security Requirements section
(Section 11), along with other requirements that must be agreed upon
by participating entities.
The GRC Report Exchange system should be configurable to either
require user input or automatically provide or file reports. If the
trust relationship is not strong, it may not be in the peer's best
interest to accept a report or respond to a request. The trust
relationship may evolve over time through experience working with a
peer and knowledge and review of their policies and operating
procedures.
3.2. GRC Report Exchange Communication Topology
The most basic topology for communicating GRC Report Exchanges is a
direct connection or a bilateral relationship as illustrated below.
______________ _____________
| | | |
| GRC-RE |_____________________| GRC-RE |
|____________| |___________|
Figure 1: Direct Peer Topology
A star topology may be desirable in instances where a peer may be a
provider of GRC Reports. This requires trust relationships to be
established between the provider of information and each of the
consumers of that information. Examples may include clients that
file compliance or business reports to an authoritative entity.
The examples provided serve as an initial baseline set of expected
topologies that may change over time.
3.3. Message Formats
Section 6 describes the five GRC Report Exchange message types, to be
used with the appropriate XML documents. The messages are expected
to be generated and received on designated systems for GRC report
exchanges.
3.4. GRC Report Exchange Data Types
3.4.1. Boolean
A boolean value is represented by the BOOLEAN data type.
The BOOLEAN data type is implemented as "xs:boolean"
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028] in the schema.
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
3.4.2. Language
A language value is represented by the LANG data type.
The LANG data type is a valid language code per [RFC5646] constrained
by the definition of "xs:language" [W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028]
inherited from [W3C.REC-xml-20081126].
3.4.3. Multilingual Strings
STRING data that represents multi-character attributes in a language
different than the default encoding of the document is of the
ML_STRING data type.
The ML_STRING data type is implemented as an "grc-
exchange:MLStringType" in the schema.
The base definition of this type is reused from the IODEF
specification [RFC5070], Section 2.4. This definition is fully
included in the GRC-Exchange specification in Section 4.8 to prevent
the need to use the IODEF schema.
3.4.4. Uniform Resource Locator strings
A uniform resource locator (URL) is represented by the URL data type.
The format of the URL data type is documented in [RFC3986].
The URL data type is implemented as an "xs:anyURI"
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028] in the schema.
3.4.5. Date-Time Strings
Date-time strings are represented by the DATETIME data type. Each
date-time string identifies a particular instant in time; ranges are
not supported.
Date-time strings are formatted according to a subset of ISO 8601:
2004 [ISO.8601.2000] documented in [RFC3339].
The DATETIME data type is implemented as an "xs:dateTime"
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028] in the schema.
The base definition of this type is reused from the IODEF
specification [RFC5070], Section 2.8. This definition is fully
included in the GRC-Exchange specification in Section 4.8 to prevent
the need to use the IODEF schema.
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
3.4.6. Timezone String
A timezone offset from UTC is represented by the TIMEZONE data type.
It is formatted according to the following regular expression:
"Z|[\+\-](0[0-9]|1[0-4]):[0-5][0-9]".
The TIMEZONE data type is implemented as an "xs:string"
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028] with a regular expression constraint
in the schema. This regular expression is identical to the timezone
representation implemented in an "xs:dateTime".
The base definition of this type is reused from the IODEF
specification [RFC5070], Section 2.9. This definition is fully
included in the GRC-Exchange specification in Section 4.8 to prevent
the need to use the IODEF schema.
3.4.7. Postal Address
A postal address is represented by the POSTAL data type. This data
type is an ML_STRING whose format is documented in Section 2.23 of
[RFC4519]. It defines a postal address as a free-form multi-line
string separated by the "$" character.
The POSTAL data type is implemented as an "xs:string"
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028] in the schema.
The base definition of this type is reused from the IODEF
specification [RFC5070], Section 2.11. This definition is fully
included in the GRC-Exchange specification in Section 4.8 to prevent
the need to use the IODEF schema.
3.4.8. Telephone and Fax Numbers
A telephone or fax number is represented by the PHONE data type. The
format of the PHONE data type is documented in Section 2.35 of
[RFC4519].
The PHONE data type is implemented as an "xs:string"
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028] in the schema.
The base definition of this type is reused from the IODEF
specification [RFC5070], Section 2.13. This definition is fully
included in the GRC-Exchange specification in Section 4.8 to prevent
the need to use the IODEF schema.
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
3.4.9. Email String
An email address is represented by the EMAIL data type. The format
of the EMAIL data type is documented in Section 3.4.1 of [RFC5322].
The EMAIL data type is implemented as an "xs:string"
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028] in the schema.
The base definition of this type is reused from the IODEF
specification [RFC5070], Section 2.14. This definition is fully
included in the GRC-Exchange specification in Section 4.8 to prevent
the need to use the IODEF schema.
3.5. GRC Report Exchange Message Types
The five GRC Report Exchange message types are as follows:
1. Acknowledgement. This message is sent to the requestor of a
report (Request) or in response to a Query to notify on the state
of a request (approved, pending, not approved).
2. Result. This message is sent to the requestor of a GRC report
(Request) or in response to a Query. The Result may contain the
full report requested or a section of the report as appropriate
for the request in the Query.
3. Request. This message type is used to request a specific type of
GRC report. The Request MUST specify the XML schema and version
for the requested report along with any other parameters required
in the XML schema to generate the correct report.
4. Report. This message is used to provide a GRC Report. The
message can be considered a wrapper for any approved GRC schema
used to format a report for submission.
5. Query. This message is used to request information about a
specific GRC report. The XML schema and version used MUST be
specified along with any details required to provide the proper
Report response. The response is provided through the Report
message.
When an application receives a GRC Report Exchange message, it must
be able to determine the type of message and parse it accordingly.
The message type is specified in the GRCPolicy class. The GRCPolicy
class may also be used by the transport protocol to facilitate the
secure communication of the GRC Report Exchange.
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
4. GRC-Exchange Schema
There are three classes included in the GRC Report Exchange schema
required to facilitate communications. The RequestStatus class is
used to indicate the approval status of a report Request or Query;
the GRCDocument class identifies the XML schema to be used by the
provided or requested report; and the GRCPolicy class provides
information on the agreed-upon policies and specifies the type of
communication message being used.
The GRC Report Exchange schema acts as an envelope for the GRC XML
schema to facilitate secure GRC report communications. The intent in
maintaining a separate schema is for the flexibility of sending
messages between participating entities. Since GRC Report Exchange
is a separate schema that includes the appropriate GRC XML schema,
the GRC Report Exchange information acts as an envelope, and then the
GRCPolicy class can be easily extracted for use by the transport
protocol.
The security requirements of sending GRC reports and associated
information on finance, IT operations, legal, compliance, and
security across the network include the use of confidentiality
(encryption prior to the transport level), authentication
(potentially multi-hop), integrity, and non-repudiation. GRCPolicy
uses labels that correspond to policy and agreements to standardize
on handling requirements such as encryption and sharing limitations.
The GRCPolicy information should not be encrypted, hence GRC Report
Exchange is maintained separate from the GRC XML schema used to send
or request a report. This segregation enables flexibility for GRC
Report Exchange to be used with any GRC XML schema and removes the
need for decrypting and parsing the entire GRC Report and GRC Report
Exchange document to determine how it should be handled at each
entity communicating via GRC Report Exchange.
The purpose of the GRCPolicy class is to specify the message type for
the receiving host, facilitate the policy needs of GRC Reports, and
provide routing information in the form of an IP address of the
destination entity accepting GRC Report Exchange messages.
The policy information and guidelines are discussed in Section
Section 4.1. The policy is defined between GRC-Exchange peers and
within or between consortiums. The GRCPolicy is meant to be a tool
to facilitate the defined policies. This MUST be used in accordance
with policy set between clients, peers, consortiums, and/or regions.
Security, privacy, and confidentiality MUST be considered as
specified in this document.
The GRC Report Exchange (GRC-Exchange) schema is defined as follows:
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
+------------------+
| GRC-Exchange |
+------------------+
| LANG lang |<>---{0..1}----[ GRCPolicy ]
| |
| |<>---{0..1}----[ RequestStatus ]
| |
| |<>---{0..1}----[ GRCDocument ]
+------------------+
Figure 2: The GRC-Exchange Schema
The aggregate classes that constitute the GRC-Exchange schema in the
grc-exchange namespace are as follows:
GRCPolicy
Zero or One. The GRCPolicy class is used by all message types to
facilitate policy agreements between peers, consortiums, or
federations, as well as to properly route messages.
RequestStatus
Zero or One. The RequestStatus class is used only in
Acknowledgement messages to report back to the entity requesting a
report or sending a report Query if the request is denied or
remains in a pending state.
GRCDocument
Zero or One. The GRCDocument class is used in each of the message
types to state the XML schema and version for the included XML
report, XML report request, or response.
The GRC-Exchange class defines one attribute as follows:
lang
REQUIRED. ENUM. A valid language code per [RFC5646] constrained
by the definition of "xs:language" [W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028]
inherited from [W3C.REC-xml-20081126].
Each of the three listed classes may be the only class included in
the GRC-Exchange class, hence the option for zero or one. In some
cases, GRCPolicy MAY be the only class in the GRC-Exchange definition
when used by the transport protocol [RFC6546], as that information
should be as small as possible and may not be encrypted. The
Acknowledgement message using the RequestStatus class MUST be able to
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
stand alone without the need for an GRC XML document to facilitate
the communication, limiting the data transported to the required
elements per [RFC6546].
4.1. GRCPolicy Class
The GRCPolicy class facilitates the delivery of GRC Report Exchange
messages.
+--------------------------+
| GRCPolicy |
+--------------------------+
| |<>---{0..1}----[ ReportID ]
| ENUM restriction |
| STRING ext-restriction |<>-------------[ Node ]
| ENUM MsgType |
| STRING ext-MsgType |<>---{1..*}----[ PolicyRegion ]
| ENUM MsgDestination |
| STRING ext-MsgDestination|
| |
+--------------------------+
Figure 3: The GRCPolicy Class
The aggregate elements that constitute the GRCPolicy class are as
follows:
ReportID
Zero or one. Global reference pointing back to the ReportID
defined in the GRC XML data model. The ReportID includes the
domain name of the entity who creates the report, a report number,
and an instance of that report number. The default report number
is a date, where the requested report is the most recent report on
or prior to the date specified. The format for the date SHALL be
YYYYMMDD, where Y is the year, M is the month, and D is the day.
The instance number is appended with a dash separating the values
and is used in cases for which there may be multiple reports
issued in a day. The format for the instance SHALL be HHMMSS,
where H is the hour as specified in a 24hour range, M is the
minute, S is the second provided in GMT. An alternate ID may be
specified within the GRC XML schema for the specific report. This
element has been derived from IODEF [RFC5070].
Node
One. The Node class is used to identify a host or network device,
in this case to identify the system communicating GRC-Exchange
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
messages. The base definition of this class is reused from the
IODEF specification [RFC5070], Section 3.16. This definition is
fully included in the GRC-Exchange specification in Section 4.8 to
prevent the need to use the IODEF schema.
PolicyRegion
One or many. REQUIRED. The values for the attribute "region" are
used to determine what policy area may require consideration
before a trace can be approved. The PolicyRegion may include
multiple selections from the attribute list in order to fit all
possible policy considerations when crossing regions, consortiums,
or networks.
region
One. ENUM.
1. ClientToSP. An enterprise initiated the request to their
service provider.
2. SPToClient. An service provider passed a GRC request or
report to a client or an enterprise based on requested
services or service level agreements.
3. IntraConsortium. GRC report information that should have
no restrictions within the boundaries of a consortium with
the agreed-upon use and abuse guidelines.
4. PeerToPeer. GRC report information that should have no
restrictions between two peers but may require further
evaluation before continuance beyond that point with the
agreed-upon use and abuse guidelines.
5. BetweenConsortiums. GRC report information that should
have no restrictions between consortiums that have
established agreed-upon use and abuse guidelines.
6. ext-value. An escape value used to extend this attribute.
This attribute has been derived from IODEF [RFC5070],
Section 5.1 and is explained in Section 5, Extending the
Enumerated Values of Attributes.
Additionally, there is an extension attribute to add new
enumerated values:
ext-region. An escape value used to extend this attribute.
This attribute has been derived from IODEF [RFC5070] Section
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
5.1 and is explained in Section 5, Extending the Enumerated
Values of Attributes.
The GRCPolicy class has six attributes:
restriction
Optional. ENUM. This attribute indicates the disclosure
guidelines to which the sender expects the recipient to adhere
for the information represented in this class and its children.
This guideline provides no security since there are no
specified technical means to ensure that the recipient of the
document handles the information as the sender requested.
The value of this attribute is logically inherited by the
children of this class. That is to say, the disclosure rules
applied to this class, also apply to its children.
It is possible to set a granular disclosure policy, since all
of the high-level classes (i.e., children of the Incident
class) have a restriction attribute. Therefore, a child can
override the guidelines of a parent class, be it to restrict or
relax the disclosure rules (e.g., a child has a weaker policy
than an ancestor; or an ancestor has a weak policy, and the
children selectively apply more rigid controls). The implicit
value of the restriction attribute for a class that did not
specify one can be found in the closest ancestor that did
specify a value.
This attribute is defined as an enumerated value with a default
value of "private". Note that the default value of the
restriction attribute is only defined in the context of the
GRCPolicy class. In other classes where this attribute is
used, no default is specified.
This attribute is derived from IODEF [RFC5070] and is fully
included within this schema.
1. public. There are no restrictions placed in the
information.
2. need-to-know. The information may be shared with other
parties that are involved in the incident as determined by
the recipient of this document (e.g., multiple victim sites
can be informed of each other).
3. private. The information may not be shared.
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
4. default. The information can be shared according to an
information disclosure policy pre-arranged by the
communicating parties.
5. ext-value. An escape value used to extend this attribute.
This attribute has been derived from IODEF [RFC5070],
Section 5.1 and is explained in Section 5, Extending the
Enumerated Values of Attributes.
ext-restriction
OPTIONAL. STRING. A means by which to extend the restriction
attribute. This attribute has been derived from IODEF
[RFC5070] Section 5.1 and is explained in Section 5, Extending
the Enumerated Values of Attributes.
MsgType
REQUIRED. ENUM. The type of GRC-Exchange message sent. The
five types of messages are described in Section 3.5 and can be
noted as one of the five selections below.
1. Acknowledgement. This message is sent to the initiating
GRC-Exchange entity if a Request or Query has been denied
or is pending.
2. Result. This message provides the result of a Query.
3. Request. The purpose of the Request is to request a report
from an entity.
4. Report. This message is used to provide a GRC XML report.
5. Query. This message is used to request information either
about a specific report or group of reports. The actual
query is specified in the GRC XML Schema and is outside the
scope of this specification.
6. ext-value. An escape value used to extend this attribute.
This attribute has been derived from IODEF [RFC5070],
Section 5.1 and is explained in Section 5, Extending the
Enumerated Values of Attributes.
ext-MsgType
OPTIONAL. STRING. A means by which to extend the MsgType
attribute. This attribute has been derived from IODEF
[RFC5070] Section 5.1 and is explained in Section 5, Extending
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
the Enumerated Values of Attributes.
MsgDestination
REQUIRED. ENUM. The destination required at this level may
either be the system accepting GRC report exchange requests or
reports. The Node element lists the address of the host
receiving the GRC-Exchange message.
1. GRCSystem. The address listed in the Node element of the
GRCPolicy class is the system communicating via GRC-
Exchange that will receive the message.
2. ext-value. An escape value used to extend this attribute.
This attribute has been derived from IODEF [RFC5070]
Section 5.1 and is explained in Section 5, Extending the
Enumerated Values of Attributes.
ext-MsgDestination
OPTIONAL. STRING. A means by which to extend the
MsgDestination attribute. This attribute has been derived from
IODEF [RFC5070] Section 5.1 and is explained in Section 5,
Extending the Enumerated Values of Attributes.
4.2. RequestStatus
The RequestStatus class is an aggregate class in the GRC-Exchange
class.
+--------------------------------+
| RequestStatus |
+--------------------------------+
| |
| ENUM restriction |
| STRING ext-restriction |
| ENUM AuthorizationStatus |
| STRING ext-AuthorizationStatus |
| ENUM Justification |
| STRING ext-Justification |
| |
+--------------------------------+
Figure 4: The RequestStatus Class
The RequestStatus class has six attributes:
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
restriction
OPTIONAL. ENUM. This attribute indicates the disclosure
guidelines to which the sender expects the recipient to adhere.
This guideline provides no real security since it is the choice
of the recipient of the document to honor it. This attribute
follows the same guidelines as "restriction" used in IODEF and
is explained in the GRCPolicy Class description in Section 4.1.
ext-restriction
OPTIONAL. STRING. A means by which to extend the restriction
attribute. This attribute has been derived from IODEF
[RFC5070] Section 5.1 and is explained in Section 5, Extending
the Enumerated Values of Attributes.
AuthorizationStatus
REQUIRED. ENUM. The listed values are used to provide a
response to the requesting entity of the ReportRequest or
ReportQuery.
1. Approved. The request was approved and will be provided.
The approved message MAY be sent if there will be a delay
in providing the report, otherwise, the Report or Result
MAY be provided without sending a Acknowledgement message.
2. Denied. The request has been denied.
3. Pending. Awaiting approval; a timeout period has been
reached, which resulted in this Pending status and
Acknowledgement message being generated.
4. ext-value. An escape value used to extend this attribute.
This attribute has been derived from IODEF [RFC5070]
Section 5.1 and is explained in Section 5, Extending the
Enumerated Values of Attributes.
ext-AuthorizationStatus
OPTIONAL. STRING. A means by which to extend the
AuthorizationStatus attribute. This attribute has been derived
from IODEF [RFC5070] Section 5.1 and is explained in Section 5,
Extending the Enumerated Values of Attributes.
Justification
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
OPTIONAL. ENUM. Provides a reason for a Denied or Pending
message.
1. SystemResource. A resource issue exists on the systems
that would be involved in the request.
2. Authentication. The enveloped digital signature [RFC3275]
failed to validate.
3. AuthenticationOrigin. The detached digital signature for
the original requestor on the RecordItem entry failed to
validate.
4. Encryption. Unable to decrypt the request.
5. UnrecognizedFormat. The format of the provided document
was unrecognized.
6. CannotProcess. The document could not be processed.
Reasons may include legal or policy decisions. Resolution
may require communication outside of this protocol to
resolve legal or policy issues. No further messages SHOULD
be sent until resolved.
7. Other. There were other reasons this request could not be
processed.
8. ext-value. An escape value used to extend this attribute.
This attribute has been derived from IODEF [RFC5070]
Section 5.1 and is explained in Section 5, Extending the
Enumerated Values of Attributes.
ext-Justification-ext
OPTIONAL. STRING. A means by which to extend the
Justification attribute. This attribute has been derived from
IODEF [RFC5070] Section 5.1 and is explained in Section 5,
Extending the Enumerated Values of Attributes.
4.3. GRCDocument
The GRCDocument class is an aggregate class in the GRC-Exchange
class.
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
+-------------------------+
| GRCDocument |
+-------------------------+
| |<>---{1..*}----[ ReportType ]
| ENUM Version |
| STRING ext-Version |<>---{0..1}----[ FromContact ]
| ENUM XMLSchemaID |
| STRING ext-XMLSchemaID |<>---{0..1}----[ URL ]
| ENUM restriction |
| STRING ext-restriction |<>---{1}-------[ XMLDocument ]
| |
| |<>---{0..*}----[ Signature ]
| |
| |
+-------------------------+
Figure 5: The GRCDocument Class
The elements that constitute the GRCDocument class are as follows:
ReportType
One or many. REQUIRED. The values for the attribute "type"
are meant to assist in determining if the included XML report
or request is appropriate for the entity receiving the request
or report message. Multiple values may be selected for this
element; however, where possible, it should be restricted to
one value that most accurately describes the report type.
type
One. ENUM.
1. Filing. This ReportType is used when a GRC report is
included for expected filing purposes. Examples may
include the filing of a regulatory or business
operations report to a regulatory body.
2. Service Level Agreement. This option specifies the
report type as a report on a service level agreement.
This report may be sent from a service provide (SP) to a
tenant or client or from a trust authority to a
requesting entity. An SLA report may be associated with
any report format (XML) associated with an SLA
agreement, including but not limited to an IT or
security report.
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
3. Operational. An operational report may include any
standard operating reports used within or between
businesses or enterprises. This may be a routine
business, IT operational, or other type of report.
4. Compliance. A compliance report is specified when there
is a specific compliance report format required (as
specified by the schema used for the report). This type
may be used for internal or external compliance report
exchanges.
5. Audit. The Audit report type is distinguished from a
compliance report as the report contents may vary
depending on the report or report request in the
exchange. An audit report may take an approach of only
providing the state of compliance or details of findings
from an automated control review.
6. RiskAssessment. A RiskAssessment report differs from
the Compliance and Audit reports in that the report may
prioritize risks as specified in the XML schema and may
include GRC-XML risk ratings. A RiskAssessment may be
provided for any GRC area or on the GRC program as
specified by the GRCDocument.
7. OfficialBusiness. This option MUST be used if the GRC
information is requested by or affiliated with any
government or other official business request. This
could be used during an investigation for an eDiscovery,
eWarrant, or other use case.
8. Other. If this option is selected, a description of the
request MUST be provided so that policy decisions can be
made to proceed with the request or act upon the report.
The information should be provided in the GRC-Exchange
class meaning attribute.
9. ext-value. An escape value used to extend this type.
This value has been derived from IODEF [RFC5070],
Section 5.1 and is explained in Section 5, Extending the
Enumerated Values of Attributes.
ext-type
OPTIONAL. One. STRING. A means by which to extend the type
attribute. This attribute has been derived from IODEF
[RFC5070] Section 5.1 and is explained in Section 5,
Extending the Enumerated Values of Attributes.
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
FromContact
Zero or more. Contact. Provides contact information for the
parties responsible for a report provided in the GRC Report
Exchange as defined by the Contact class in Section 4.6.
URL
Zero or One. URL. A reference to the XML schema included. The
URL data type is defined in Section 3.4.4. The schemaLocation
for IODEF is already included in the RID schema, so this is not
necessary to include a URL for IODEF documents.
XMLDocument
One. ExtensionType. The XMLDocument is a complete XML document
defined by the ExtensionType class in Section 4.7. This class
follows the guidelines in [RFC5070] Section 5 where the data
type is set to "xml" and meaning is set to "xml" to include an
xml document.
Signature
Zero to many. ExtensionType. The Signature includes a
complete XML document with the type specified by the
ExtensionType class in Section 4.7. This class follows the
guidelines in [RFC5070] Section 5 where the data type is set to
"xml" and meaning is set to "xml" to include an xml document.
The usage of this element is similar to RID [RFC6545] and is
used to encapsulate the detached signature based on a specific
class within the XML document to verify the originator of the
message. If a detached signature is used, guidance for the
encapsulated document MUST be provided as to which class should
be used to create the signature. Alternatively, if no guidance
is provided, the digital signature MUST be an enveloped
signature of the entire XML document that is encapsulated.
This attribute has been derived from RID [RFC6545], Section
5.1.1.
The GRCDocument class has six attributes:
Version
OPTIONAL. One. The Version attribute is the version number of
the specified XML schema. That schema must be an approved
version of a schema registered with IANA for use with GRC-
Exchange. The IANA registry for managing schemas used with
GRC-Exchange is specified in Section 13. This attribute has
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
been derived from RID [RFC6545], Section 5.1.1.
ext-value. An escape value used to extend this attribute.
This attribute has been derived from IODEF [RFC5070],
Section 5.1 and is explained in Section 5, Extending the
Enumerated Values of Attributes.
ext-Version
OPTIONAL. One. STRING. The ext-Version attribute is the
version number of the included XML schema. This attribute is
used if a schema other than an IANA registered schema that has
been added to the enumerated list for Version is included.
This attribute has been derived from RID [RFC6545], Section
5.1.1.
XMLSchemaID
OPTIONAL. One. URL. The XMLSchemaID attribute is the
identifier, the defined namespace [W3C.REC-xml-names-20091208],
of the XML schema of the XML document included. The
XMLSchemaID and Version specify the format of the XMLDocument
element. The only permitted values, include any namespace
listed in the IANA managed list of registered schemas for use
with GRC-Exchange. The IANA registry for managing schemas is
specified in Section 13. This attribute has been derived from
RID [RFC6545], Section 5.1.1.
ext-value. An escape value used to extend this attribute.
This attribute has been derived from IODEF [RFC5070],
Section 5.1 and is explained in Section 5, Extending the
Enumerated Values of Attributes.
ext-XMLSchemaID
OPTIONAL. One. The ext-XMLSchemaID attribute is the identifier
(defined namespace) of the XML schema of the XML document
included. The ext-XMLSchemaID and ext-Version specify the
format of the XMLDocument element and are used if the included
schema is not an IANA registered schema that has been added to
the enumerated list for XMLSchemaID. This attribute has been
derived from RID [RFC6545], Section 5.1.1.
restriction
OPTIONAL. ENUM. This attribute indicates the disclosure
guidelines to which the sender expects the recipient to adhere.
This guideline provides no real security since it is the choice
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
of the recipient of the document to honor it. This attribute
follows the same guidelines as "restriction" used in IODEF and
is explained in the GRCPolicy Class description in Section 4.1.
ext-restriction
OPTIONAL. STRING. A means by which to extend the restriction
attribute. This attribute has been derived from IODEF
[RFC5070] Section 5.1 and is explained in Section 5, Extending
the Enumerated Values of Attributes.
4.4. Reference Class
The Reference class is a reference to the GRC Schema used for the
exchange. A reference consists of a name, a URL to this reference,
and an optional description.
+------------------+
| Reference |
+------------------+
| |<>----------[ ReferenceName ]
| |<>--{0..*}--[ URL ]
| |<>--{0..*}--[ Description ]
+------------------+
Figure 6: The Reference Class
The aggregate classes that constitute Reference:
ReferenceName
One. ML_STRING. Name of the reference.
URL
Zero or many. URL. A URL associated with the reference.
Description
Zero or many. ML_STRING. A free-form text description of this
reference.
4.5. ReportID Class
The ReportID class represents a report tracking number that is unique
in the context of the reporting organization and identifies the
activity characterized in a GRCDocument. This identifier would serve
as an index into the organizational reporting system. The
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
combination of the name attribute and the string in the element
content MUST be a globally unique identifier describing the activity.
Documents generated by a given organization MUST NOT reuse the same
value unless they are referencing the same report instance. The
ReportID class is derived from IODEF [RFC5070], Section 3.3.
+------------------------+
| ReportID |
+------------------------+
| STRING |
| |
| STRING name |
| STRING instance |
| ENUM restriction |
| STRING ext-restriction |
+------------------------+
Figure 7: The ReportID Class
The ReportID class has four attributes:
name
Required. STRING. An identifier describing the organization
that created the report. In order to have a globally unique
organization name, the fully qualified domain name associated
with the organization MUST be used.
instance
Optional. STRING. An identifier referencing a subset of the
named report.
restriction
Optional. ENUM. This attribute follows the same guidelines as
"restriction" explained in the GRCPolicy Class description in
Section 4.1.
ext-restriction
OPTIONAL. STRING. A means by which to extend the restriction
attribute. This attribute has been derived from IODEF
[RFC5070] Section 5.1 and is explained in Section 5, Extending
the Enumerated Values of Attributes.
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
4.6. Contact Class
The Contact class describes contact information for organizations and
personnel involved in the report exchange. This class allows for the
naming of the involved party, specifying contact information for
them, and identifying their role in the XML Report. The Contact
class is derived from IODEF [RFC5070], Section 3.7.
People and organizations are treated interchangeably as contacts; one
can be associated with the other using the recursive definition of
the class (the Contact class is aggregated into the Contact class).
The 'type' attribute disambiguates the type of contact information
being provided.
The inheriting definition of Contact provides a way to relate
information without requiring the explicit use of identifiers in the
classes or duplication of data. A complete point of contact is
derived by a particular traversal from the root Contact class to the
leaf Contact class. As such, multiple points of contact might be
specified in a single instance of a Contact class. Each child
Contact class logically inherits contact information from its
ancestors.
+------------------------+
| Contact |
+------------------------+
| ENUM role |<>-{0..1}-[ ContactName ]
| STRING ext-role |<>-{0..*}-[ Description ]
| ENUM type |<>-{0..*}-[ RegistryHandle ]
| STRING ext-type |<>-{0..1}-[ PostalAddress ]
| ENUM restriction |<>-{0..*}-[ Email ]
| STRING ext-restriction |<>-{0..*}-[ Telephone ]
| |<>-{0..1}-[ Fax ]
| |<>-{0..1}-[ Timezone ]
| |<>-{0..*}-[ AdditionalContact ]
| |<>-{0..*}-[ AdditionalData ]
+------------------------+
Figure 8: The Contact Class
The aggregate classes that constitute the Contact class are:
ContactName
Zero or one. ML_STRING. The name of the contact. The contact
may either be an organization or a person. The type attribute
disambiguates the semantics.
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
Description
Zero or many. ML_STRING. A free-form description of this
contact. In the case of a person, this is often the
organizational title of the individual.
RegistryHandle
Zero or many. A handle name into the registry of the contact.
PostalAddress
Zero or one. The postal address of the contact.
Email
Zero or many. The email address of the contact.
Telephone
Zero or many. The telephone number of the contact.
Fax
Zero or one. The facsimile telephone number of the contact.
Timezone
Zero or one. TIMEZONE. The timezone in which the contact
resides formatted according to Section Section 3.4.6.
AdditionalContact
Zero or many. A Contact instance contained within another
Contact instance inherits the values of the parent(s). This
recursive definition can be used to group common data
pertaining to multiple points of contact and is especially
useful when listing multiple contacts at the same organization.
AdditionalData
Zero or many. A mechanism by which to extend the data model.
At least one of the aggregate classes MUST be present in an instance
of the Contact class. This is not enforced in the GRC-Exchange
schema as there is no simple way to accomplish it.
The Contact class has six attributes:
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
role
Required. ENUM. Indicates the role the contact fulfills.
This attribute is defined as an enumerated list:
1. creator. The entity that generate the document.
2. admin. An administrative contact for a host, network, or
entity.
3. tech. A technical contact for a host or network.
4. cc. (also known as carbon-copy) An entity that is to be
kept informed about the report.
5. ext-value. An escape value used to extend this attribute.
This attribute has been derived from IODEF [RFC5070],
Section 5.1 and is explained in Section 5, Extending the
Enumerated Values of Attributes.
ext-role
Optional. STRING. A means by which to extend the role
attribute. This attribute has been derived from IODEF
[RFC5070] Section 5.1 and is explained in Section 5, Extending
the Enumerated Values of Attributes.
type
Required. ENUM. Indicates the type of contact being
described. This attribute is defined as an enumerated list:
1. person. The information for this contact references an
individual.
2. organization. The information for this contact references
an organization.
3. ext-value. An escape value used to extend this attribute.
This attribute has been derived from IODEF [RFC5070],
Section 5.1 and is explained in Section 5, Extending the
Enumerated Values of Attributes.
ext-type
Optional. STRING. A means by which to extend the type
attribute. This attribute has been derived from IODEF
[RFC5070] Section 5.1 and is explained in Section 5, Extending
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
the Enumerated Values of Attributes.
restriction
Optional. ENUM. This attribute follows the same guidelines as
"restriction" used in IODEF and is explained in the GRCPolicy
Class description in Section 4.1.
ext-restriction
OPTIONAL. STRING. A means by which to extend the restriction
attribute. This attribute has been derived from IODEF
[RFC5070] Section 5.1 and is explained in Section 5, Extending
the Enumerated Values of Attributes.
This definition is from the IODEF specification [RFC5070], Section
3.7. This definition is fully included in the GRC-Exchange
specification to prevent the need to use the IODEF schema.
4.6.1. RegistryHandle Class
The RegistryHandle class represents a handle into an Internet
registry or community-specific database. The handle is specified in
the element content and the type attribute specifies the database.
The RegistryHandle class is derived from IODEF [RFC5070], Section
3.7.1.
+---------------------+
| RegistryHandle |
+---------------------+
| STRING |
| |
| ENUM registry |
| STRING ext-registry |
+---------------------+
Figure 9: The RegistryHandle Class
The RegistryHandle class has two attributes:
registry
Required. ENUM. The database to which the handle belongs.
The default value is 'local'. The possible values are:
1. internic. Internet Network Information Center
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
2. apnic. Asia Pacific Network Information Center
3. arin. American Registry for Internet Numbers
4. lacnic. Latin-American and Caribbean IP Address Registry
5. ripe. Reseaux IP Europeens
6. afrinic. African Internet Numbers Registry
7. local. A database local to the CSIRT
8. ext-value. An escape value used to extend this attribute.
This attribute has been derived from IODEF [RFC5070],
Section 5.1 and is explained in Section 5, Extending the
Enumerated Values of Attributes.
ext-registry
Optional. STRING. A means by which to extend the registry
attribute. This attribute has been derived from IODEF
[RFC5070] Section 5.1 and is explained in Section 5, Extending
the Enumerated Values of Attributes.
This definition is from the IODEF specification [RFC5070], Section
3.7.1. This definition is fully included in the GRC-Exchange
specification to prevent the need to use the IODEF schema.
4.6.2. PostalAddress Class
The PostalAddress class specifies a postal address formatted
according to the POSTAL data type (Section 3.4.7).
+---------------------+
| PostalAddress |
+---------------------+
| POSTAL |
| |
| ENUM meaning |
| ENUM lang |
+---------------------+
Figure 10: The PostalAddress Class
The PostalAddress class has two attributes:
meaning
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
Optional. ENUM. A free-form description of the element
content.
lang
Required. ENUM. A valid language code per [RFC5646]
constrained by the definition of "xs:language"
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028] inherited from
[W3C.REC-xml-20081126].
This definition is from the IODEF specification [RFC5070], Section
3.7.2. This definition is fully included in the GRC-Exchange
specification to prevent the need to use the IODEF schema.
4.6.3. Email Class
The Email class specifies an email address formatted according to
EMAIL data type (Section 3.4.9).
+--------------+
| Email |
+--------------+
| EMAIL |
| |
| ENUM meaning |
+--------------+
Figure 11: The Email Class
The Email class has one attribute:
meaning
Optional. ENUM. A free-form description of the element
content.
This definition is from the IODEF specification [RFC5070], Section
3.7.3. This definition is fully included in the GRC-Exchange
specification to prevent the need to use the IODEF schema.
4.6.4. Telephone and Fax Classes
The Telephone and Fax classes specify a voice or fax telephone number
respectively, and are formatted according to PHONE data type
(Section 3.4.8).
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
+--------------------+
| {Telephone | Fax } |
+--------------------+
| PHONE |
| |
| ENUM meaning |
+--------------------+
Figure 12: The Telephone and Fax Classes
The Telephone class has one attribute:
meaning
Optional. ENUM. A free-form description of the element
content (e.g., hours of coverage for a given number).
This definition is from the IODEF specification [RFC5070], Section
3.7.4. This definition is fully included in the GRC-Exchange
specification to prevent the need to use the IODEF schema.
4.7. ExtensionType Class
The ExtensionType class serves as an extension mechanism for
information not otherwise represented in the data model. For
relatively simple information, atomic data types (e.g., integers,
strings) are provided with a mechanism to annotate their meaning.
The class can to encapsulating entire XML documents conforming to an
IANA registered Schema. This class is also used to provide a
consistent location for the inclusion of digital signatures.
Unlike XML, which is self-describing, atomic data must be documented
to convey its meaning. This information is described in the
'meaning' attribute. Since these description are outside the scope
of the specification, some additional coordination may be required to
ensure that a recipient of a document using the ExtensionType classes
can make sense of the custom extensions.
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
+------------------+
| AdditionalData |
+------------------+
| ANY |
| |
| ENUM dtype |
| STRING ext-dtype |
| STRING meaning |
| STRING formatid |
| ENUM restriction |
+------------------+
Figure 13: The ExtensionType Class
The ExtensionType class has five attributes:
dtype
Required. ENUM. The data type of the element content. The
permitted values for this attribute are shown below. The
default value is "string".
1. boolean. The element content is of type BOOLEAN.
2. byte. The element content is of type BYTE.
3. character. The element content is of type CHARACTER.
4. date-time. The element content is of type DATETIME.
5. integer. The element content is of type INTEGER.
6. portlist. The element content is of type PORTLIST.
7. real. The element content is of type REAL.
8. string. The element content is of type STRING.
9. file. The element content is a base64 encoded binary file
encoded as a BYTE[] type.
10. frame. The element content is a layer-2 frame encoded as
a HEXBIN type.
11. packet. The element content is a layer-3 packet encoded
as a HEXBIN type.
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
12. ipv4-packet. The element content is an IPv4 packet
encoded as a HEXBIN type.
13. ipv6-packet. The element content is an IPv6 packet
encoded as a HEXBIN type.
14. path. The element content is a file-system path encoded
as a STRING type.
15. url. The element content is of type URL.
16. csv. The element content is a common separated value
(CSV) list per Section 2 of [RFC4180] encoded as a STRING
type.
17. winreg. The element content is a Windows registry key
encoded as a STRING type.
18. xml. The element content is XML (see Section 5).
19. ext-value. An escape value used to extend this attribute.
This attribute has been derived from IODEF [RFC5070],
Section 5.1 and is explained in Section 5, Extending the
Enumerated Values of Attributes.
ext-dtype
Optional. STRING. A means by which to extend the dtype
attribute. This attribute has been derived from IODEF
[RFC5070] Section 5.1 and is explained in Section 5, Extending
the Enumerated Values of Attributes.
meaning
Optional. STRING. A free-form description of the element
content.
formatid
Optional. STRING. An identifier referencing the format and
semantics of the element content.
restriction
Optional. ENUM. This attribute follows the same guidelines as
"restriction" explained in the GRCPolicy Class description in
Section 4.1.
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
This definition is from the IODEF specification [RFC5070], Section
3.6. This definition is fully included in the GRC-Exchange
specification to prevent the need to use the IODEF schema.
4.8. Node Class
The Node class names a system (e.g., PC, router) or network.
This class was derived from IODEF [RFC5070] and is partially included
in this specification. The original IODEF definition was derived
from IDMEF [RFC4765].
+---------------+
| Node |
+---------------+
| |<>--{0..*}--[ NodeName ]
| |<>--{0..*}--[ Address ]
| |<>--{0..1}--[ Location ]
| |<>--{0..1}--[ DateTime ]
+---------------+
Figure 14: The Node Class
The aggregate classes that constitute Node are:
NodeName
Zero or more. ML_STRING. The name of the Node (e.g., fully
qualified domain name). This information MUST be provided if
no Address information is given.
Address
Zero or more. The hardware, network, or application address of
the Node. If a NodeName is not provided, at least one Address
MUST be specified. This class is defined in Section 4.9.
Location
Zero or one. ML_STRING. A free-from description of the
physical location of the equipment.
DateTime
Zero or one. DATETIME. A timestamp of when the resolution
between the name and address was performed. This information
SHOULD be provided if both an Address and NodeName are
specified.
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
4.9. Address Class
The Address class represents a hardware (layer-2), network (layer-3),
or application (layer-7) address.
This class was derived from IODEF [RFC5070] and is fully included in
this specification. The original IODEF definition was derived from
IDMEF [RFC4765].
+---------------------+
| Address |
+---------------------+
| ENUM category |
| STRING ext-category |
| STRING vlan-name |
| INTEGER vlan-num |
+---------------------+
Figure 15: The Address Class
The Address class has four attributes:
category
Required. ENUM. The type of address represented. The
permitted values for this attribute are shown below. The
default value is "ipv4-addr".
asn. Autonomous System Number
atm. Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) address
e-mail. Electronic mail address (RFC 822)
ipv4-addr. IPv4 host address in dotted-decimal notation
(a.b.c.d)
ipv4-net. IPv4 network address in dotted-decimal notation,
slash, significant bits (a.b.c.d/nn)
ipv4-net-mask. IPv4 network address in dotted-decimal
notation, slash, network mask in dotted-decimal notation
(a.b.c.d/w.x.y.z)
ipv6-addr. IPv6 host address
ipv6-net. IPv6 network address, slash, significant bits
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
ipv6-net-mask. IPv6 network address, slash, network mask
mac. Media Access Control (MAC) address
ext-value. An escape value used to extend this attribute.
This attribute has been derived from IODEF [RFC5070],
Section 5.1 and is explained in Section 5, Extending the
Enumerated Values of Attributes.
ext-category
Optional. STRING. A means by which to extend the category
attribute. This attribute has been derived from IODEF
[RFC5070] Section 5.1 and is explained in Section 5, Extending
the Enumerated Values of Attributes.
vlan-name
Optional. STRING. The name of the Virtual LAN to which the
address belongs.
vlan-num
Optional. STRING. The number of the Virtual LAN to which the
address belongs.
4.10. GRC-Exchange Name Spaces
The GRC-Exchange schema declares a namespace of "grc-exchange-1.0"
and registers it per [W3C.REC-xml-names-20091208]. Any XML instance
incorporating GRC-Exchange MUST use the element GRC-Exchange in the
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:grc-exchange-1.0" namespace. It can be
referenced as follows:
<GRC-Exchange version="1.00" lang="en-US"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-Instance"
xmlns:grc-exchange="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:grc-exchange-1.0"
xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/schema
/grc-exchange-1.0.xsd">
5. Extending the Enumerated Values of Attributes
In order to support the evolving needs of XML Schema exchanges, some
extensibility is built into the GRC Report Exchange protocol. This
section discusses how new attributes that have no current
representation in the data model can be incorporated into GRC-
Exchange. These techniques are designed so that adding new data will
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
not require a change to the schema. With proven value, well-
documented additions can be incorporated into future versions of the
specification. However, this approach also supports private
additions relevant only to a closed consortium.
The data model supports a means by which to add new enumerated values
to an attribute, following the method used in IODEF [RFC5070] for the
same purpose. For each attribute that supports this extension
technique, there is a corresponding attribute in the same element
whose name is identical, less a prefix of "ext-". This special
attribute is referred to as the extension attribute, and the
attribute being extended is referred to as an extensible attribute.
For example, an extensible attribute named "foo" will have a
corresponding extension attribute named "ext-foo". An element may
have many extensible, and therefore many extension, attributes. In
addition to a corresponding extension attribute, each extensible
attribute has "ext-value" as one its possible values. This
particular value serves as an escape sequence and has no valid
meaning.
In order to add a new enumerated value to an extensible attribute,
the value of this attribute MUST be set to "ext-value", and the new
desired value MUST be set in the corresponding extension attribute.
For example, an extended instance of the type attribute of the Impact
class would look as follows:
<Impact type="ext-value" ext-type="new-attack-type">
A given extension attribute MUST NOT be set unless the corresponding
extensible attribute has been set to "ext-value".
6. GRC Report Exchange Messages
The GRC-Exchange schema is used in combination with GRC XML documents
to facilitate GRC Report Exchange communications. Each message type
varies slightly in format and purpose; hence, the requirements vary
and are specified for each.
Note: The implementation of GRC-Exchange may automate the ability to
fill in the content required for each message type from the GRC
management systems involved in the message exchange.
6.1. Acknowledgement
Description: This message is sent in response to a Request or a Query
message to provide status as to the approval of a request.
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
The following information is required for Acknowledgement messages
and is provided through:
GRC-Exchange Information:
GRCPolicy
GRC-Exchange message type, ReportID, and destination policy
information
RequestStatus class:
AuthorizationStatus of request
Standards for encryption and digital signatures [RFC3275],
[W3C.REC-xmldsig-core-20080610]:
Digital signature of responding entity authenticity of GRC-
Exchange Message, from the entity creating this message using an
enveloped XML digital signature.
XML encryption as required by policy, agreements, and standard
data markers.
A pending status is automatically generated after a 5-minute timeout
without system predefined or administrator action taken to approve or
deny the request. If a request is left in a pending state for more
than a configurable period of time (default of 5 minutes), a response
is sent to the requestor with the enumeration value set to pending.
If a request is denied, the response sets the enumeration value to
denied. If the request is approved, but the response will be
delayed, a response MAY be sent with the enumerated value set to
approved. The approved message is not mandatory, however the pending
and denied message types MUST be sent if the conditions are reached.
6.2. Result
Description: This message provides the result of an approved Query.
The Query may be used when a query is made on a group of reports or a
request is made for specific details within a report. If a standard
report is requested based on a specific XML schema, Request MUST be
used. The details of the Query will vary depending on the included
GRC XML schema. The XML schema may provide specific guidance on how
queries are conducted as this specification is intended to provide a
generalized structure for many types of GRC information exchanges.
The following information is required for Result messages and will be
provided through:
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
GRC-Exchange Information:
GRCPolicy
GRC-Exchange message type, ReportID, and destination policy
information
GRCDocument
The GRCDocument class specifies the specific GRC-Exchange
XML schema that is required per the Query. The Result will
include the necessary information to appropriately respond
to the request.
GRC XML Information:
GRC XML schema elements and attributes as appropriate for the
Query.
Standards for encryption and digital signatures [RFC3275]:
Digital signature of sending entity for authenticity of Result
message, from the entity creating this message using an
enveloped XML digital signature.
XML encryption as required by policy, agreements, and standard
data markers.
A Result message is sent back to the requesting entity of a Query.
This will include the results of the query using the appropriate XML
schema named in the request. Details of what standard queries are
automated in addition to the standard responses are to be detailed by
the appropriate GRC communities (GRC-XML, LI-XML, etc.) in guidance
documents associated with each of the relevant schemas.
6.3. Request
Description: The Request is used to request a report in a
standardized format using the referenced XML schema in the
GRCDocument class. The report requested will be the most recent
report to the date and time requested.
The following information is required for Request messages and is
provided through:
GRC-Exchange Information:
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
GRCPolicy
GRC-Exchange message type, ReportID, and destination policy
information
GRC XML Information:
GRC XML schema elements and attributes as appropriate for the
Request.
Standards for encryption and digital signatures [RFC3275]:
Digital signature from initiating entity sending the GRC-
Exchange message using a detached XML digital signature on the
GRC-Exchange information.
Digital signature of requesting entity for authenticity of the
GRC-Exchange message, from the entity sending this message
using an enveloped XML digital signature on the included GRC-
XML document document.
XML encryption as required by policy, agreements, and data
markers.
Security requirements include the ability to encrypt
[W3C.REC-xmlenc-core-20021210] the contents of the ReportRequest
message using the public key of the destination entity communicating
via GCR-Exchange. If no report is available for the exact date and
time in the request, the most recent report details prior to the date
requested will be provided. If there is no report to provide per the
specified date and time, the Acknowledgement message will be sent
instead setting the AuthorizationStatus to denied and providing the
appropriate reason for the deny.
6.4. Report
Description: This message is used to provide a report using a
specified GRC XML schema. This message does not require any actions
to be taken, except to file the report on the receiving system or
associated database. This message may be in response to a Request or
sent as a regularly scheduled report.
The following information is required for Report messages and will be
provided through:
GRC-Exchange Information:
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
GRCPolicy GRC-Exchange message type, ReportID, and destination
policy information
The following data is recommended if available and can be provided
through:
GRC XML Information:
GRC XML schema elements and attributes as appropriate for the
Request.
Standards for encryption and digital signatures [RFC3275]:
Digital signature from initiating entity, passed to all systems
receiving the report using an enveloped XML digital signature.
XML encryption as required by policy, agreements, and standard
data markers.
Security requirements include the ability to encrypt
[W3C.REC-xmlenc-core-20021210] the contents of the Report message
using the public key of the destination entity. Senders of a Report
message should note that the information may be used to correlate
information for the purpose of trending, pattern detection, etc., and
may be shared with other parties unless otherwise agreed upon with
the receiving entity in an established contract or agreement.
Therefore, sending parties of a Report message may obfuscate or
remove sensitive information before sending a Report message. A
Report message may be sent either to file a report or in response to
an ReportRequest, and data sensitivity must be considered in both
cases.
6.5. Query
Description: The report Query message is used to request information
from a trusted entity participating in GRC-Exchanges. The request
can include the ReportID number, if known, or detailed information
about the report or group of reports applicable to the query.
The following information must be used for a report Query message and
is provided through:
GRC-Exchange Information:
GRCPolicy
GRC-Exchange message type, ReportID, and destination policy
information
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
GRC XML information (optional):
GRC XML schema elements and attributes as appropriate for the
report Query.
Standards for encryption and digital signatures [RFC3275]:
Digital signature from the entity initiating the GRC-Exchange
message, passed to all systems receiving the report Query using
an enveloped XML digital signature.
XML encryption as required by policy, agreements, and standard
data markers.
The proper response to the Query message is a Result message.
Security requirements include the ability to encrypt
[W3C.REC-xmlenc-core-20021210] the contents of the report Request
message using the public key of the destination entity communicating
via GCR-Exchange. If no report is available for the exact date and
time in the request, the most recent report details prior to the date
requested will be provided. If there is no report to provide per the
specified date and time, the Acknowledgement message will be sent
instead setting the AuthorizationStatus to denied and providing the
appropriate reason for the deny.
7. GRC-Exchange Communication Flows
The following section outlines the communication flows for GRC-
Exchange and also provides examples of messages.
7.1. Report Communication Flow
The diagram below outlines the communication flow for a GRC-Exchange
Report message sent from one entity to another. This communication
flow is the simplest as no response is required. The Report may be a
regularly scheduled report filing.
Sending Entity Receiving Entity
1. Generate Report message
2. o----------Report---------->
3. Receive and process report
No Response
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
Figure 16: GRC-Exchange Report Communication Flow
The Report message MAY be encrypted [W3C.REC-xmlenc-core-20021210]
for the recipient of the report depending upon the markers included
in the restriction class either in the GRC-Exchange schema or in the
GRC XML schema used for the report. When a report is received, the
receiving entity must verify that the report has not already been
filed. The ReportID and other distinguishing information in the
specific report type can be used to compare with existing database
entries. The Report message typically does not have a response, but
the use of an Acknowledgement message is sometimes required to
communicate status or error handling information.
7.1.1. GRC-Exchange Report Example
The example listed is of a Report based on ...
In the following example, use of [W3C.REC-xmldsig-core-20080610] to
generate digital signatures follows the guidance of XMLDsig 1.0
[W3C.REC-xmldsig-core-20080610]. XMLDsig version 1.1
[W3C.CR-xmldsig-core1-20110303] supports additional digest
algorithms. Reference [RFC4051] for URIs intended for use with XML
digital signatures, encryption, and canonicalization. SHA-1 SHOULD
NOT be used, see [RFC6194] for further details.
Example to be provided in an updated version of this document.
7.2. Request Communication Flow
The diagram below outlines the GRC-Exchange report request
communication flow between participating entities. The proper
response to a report Request is a Report message. If there is a
problem with the request, such as a failure to validate the digital
signature or decrypt the request, a Acknowledgement message is sent
to the requestor. The Acknowledgement message should provide the
reason why the message could not be processed.
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
Sending Entity Receiving Entity
1. Generate report Request
2. o--------Request---------->
3. Receive and process request
4. If denied or pending, send notice
5. <---Acknowledgement---o
6. If request is approved,
7. <----------Report----------o
Figure 17: Request Communication Flow
7.2.1. Request Example
The following example of the report Request is based on the ReportID
time-based identifier tied to the specified GRC XML GRCDocument.
Example to be provided in an updated version of this document.
7.2.2. Acknowledgement Message Example
The example Acknowledgement message is in response to the report
Request listed above. The entity that received the request was
unable to validate the digital signature used to authenticate the
sending RID system.
Example to be provided in an updated version of this document.
7.3. Query Communication Flow
The diagram below outlines the GRC-Exchange report Query
communication flow between participating entities.
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
Sending Entity Receiving Entity
1. Generate Report Query
2. o---------Query----------->
3. Receive and process request
4. If denied or pending, send notice
5. <---Acknowledgement---o
6. If request approved
7. <----------Result----------o
Figure 18: Query Communication Flow
The report Query communication flow is used to request specific
information about a GRC report or group of reports. Information may
be shared between participating entities using this format.
If there is a problem with the Query message, such as a failure to
validate the digital signature [RFC3275] or decrypt the request, an
Acknowledgement message is sent to the requestor. The
Acknowledgement message should provide the reason why the message
could not be processed.
7.3.1. Query Example
The following example includes the GRC-Exchange information and an
example query using an included XML schema, which is also referenced
in the GRCDocument class.
Example to be provided in an updated version of this document.
7.3.2. Acknowledgement Message Example
The example Acknowledgement message is in response to the Query
message listed above. The entity that received the request is
responding with an answer to the Query. The Result in this instance
will be delayed for more than the 5-minute default time period, hence
a Acknowledgement message is sent to notify of the approval status.
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
Example to be provided in an updated version of this document.
7.3.3. Result Message Example
The example Result message is in response to the Query request. This
message type may be preceded by a Acknowledgement within the report
Query flow of messages. It may be a direct response to a report
Query request if the request is approved prior to the timeout period.
This message provides a response to the request in the Query.
Example to be provided in an updated version of this document.
8. Internationalization Issues
Internationalization and localization is of specific concern to the
GRC-Exchange, since information will often need to be exchanged
across language barriers. The GRC-Exchange supports this goal by
depending on XML constructs, and through explicit design choices in
the data model.
GRC-Exchange documents are limited to the use of UTF-8 as it
adequately provides the necessary support for internationalization.
Additionally, each included document MUST specify the language in
which their contents are encoded. The language can be specified with
the attribute "xml:lang" (per Section 2.12 of [W3C.REC-xml-20081126])
in the top-level element (i.e., GRC-Exchange-Document@lang) and
letting all other elements inherit that definition. All GRC-Exchange
classes with a free-form text definition (i.e., all those defined of
type grc-exchange:MLStringType) can also specify a language different
from the rest of the document. The valid language codes for the
"xml:lang" attribute are described in [RFC5646].
The data model supports multiple translations of free-form text. In
the places where free-text is used for descriptive purposes, the
given class always has a one-to-many cardinality to its parent (e.g.,
Description class). The intent is to allow the identical text to be
encoded in different instances of the same class, but each being in a
different language. This approach allows a GRC-Exchange document
author to send recipients speaking different languages an identical
document. The GRC-Exchange parser SHOULD extract the appropriate
language relevant to the recipient.
While the intent of the data model is to provide internationalization
and localization, the intent is not to do so at the detriment of
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
interoperability. While the GRC-Exchange does support different
languages, the data model also relies heavily on standardized
enumerated attributes that can crudely approximate the contents of
the document. With this approach, an organization should be able to
make some sense of an GRC-Exchange document it receives even if the
text based data elements are written in a language unfamiliar to the
consumer.
The Node class identifies a host or network device. This document
re-uses the definition of Node from the IODEF specification
[RFC5070], Section 3.16. However, that document did not clearly
specify whether a NodeName could be an Internationalized Domain Name
(IDN). GRC-Exchange systems MUST treat the NodeName class as a
domain name slot [RFC5890]. GRC-Exchange systems SHOULD support IDNs
in the NodeName class; if they do so, the UTF-8 representation of the
domain name MUST be used, i.e., all of the domain name's labels MUST
be U-labels expressed in UTF-8 or NR-LDH labels [RFC5890]; A-labels
MUST NOT be used. An application communicating via GRC-Exchange can
convert between A-labels and U-labels by using the Punycode encoding
[RFC3492] for A-labels as described in the protocol specification for
Internationalized Domain Names in Applications [RFC5891].
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
9. GRC-Exchange Schema Definition
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xs:schema xmlns:grc-xml="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:grc-xml-1.0"
xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"
targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:grc-xml-1.0"
elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified">
<xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"
schemaLocation=
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/xmldsig-core-schema.xsd"/>
<!-- ****************************************************************
*********************************************************************
*** GRC Report Exchange - GRC-Exchange ***
*** Namespace - grc-exchange, October 2011 ***
*** The namespace is defined to support transport of XML ***
*** documents for exchanging GRC information. ***
*********************************************************************
-->
<!--GRC-Exchange acts as an envelope for XML documents to support the
exchange of messages-->
<!--
====== GRC Report Exchange ======
==== Suggested definition for GRC messaging ======
-->
*** Schema to be included here ***
10. Requirements for GRC XML Schemas for GRC-Exchange
GRC Report Exchange is a generalized version of the Real-time Inter-
network Defense (RID) [RFC6545] protocol. RID leverages certain
aspects of the Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF)
[RFC5070] schema to provide the necessary security features such as
confidentiality and integrity required for the exchange of
potentially sensitive information. In generalizing RID into a schema
and set of message exchange flows for GRC reports, the GRC XML
schemas MUST include the following: classes, elements, and attributes
with enumerated values to facilitate the automated security and
confidentially concerns for GRC Report Exchange. A GRC XML schema
within this document may refer to any type of XML schema used for
Governance, Risk, and Compliance information or reporting. Examples
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
include, but are not limited to GRC-XML, LI-XML, and security
automation XML schemas.
The restriction attribute, reused from IODEF [RFC5070] into GRC-
Exchange, MUST be included in any individual class of a GRC XML
schema that could require XML encryption
[W3C.REC-xmlenc-core-20021210] just on the data contained in that
class. If encryption is only required at the full document level
based on the sensitivity and sharing requirements, the restriction
attribute in GRC-Exchange may be sufficient.
11. Security Requirements
The content in this section is derived from RID [RFC6545].
11.1. XML Digital Signatures and Encryption
GRC-Exchange leverages existing security standards and data markings
in GRCPolicy to achieve the required levels of security for the
exchange of GRC information. The use of standards include TLS and
the XML security features of encryption
[W3C.REC-xmlenc-core-20021210] and digital signatures [RFC3275],
[W3C.REC-xmldsig-core-20080610]. The standards provide clear methods
to ensure that messages are secure, authenticated, and authorized,
and that the messages meet policy and privacy guidelines and maintain
integrity.
As specified in the relevant sections of this document, the XML
digital signature [RFC3275] and XML encryption
[W3C.REC-xmlenc-core-20021210] are used in the following cases:
XML Digital Signature
o For all message types, the full GRC-Exchange document MUST be
signed using an enveloped signature by the sending peer to provide
authentication and integrity to the receiving GRC-Exchange system.
The signature is placed in an instance of the Signature element.
o XML Signature Best Practices
[W3C.WD-xmldsig-bestpractices-20110809] guidance SHOULD be
followed to prevent or mitigate security risks. Examples include
the recommendation to authenticate a signature prior to processing
(executing potentially dangerous operations) and limiting the use
of URIs since they may enable cross-site scripting attacks or
access to local information.
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
o XML Path Language (XPath) 2.0 [W3C.REC-xpath20-20101214] MUST be
followed to specify the portion of the XML document to be signed.
XPath is used to specify a location within an XML document. Best
practice recommendations for using XPath
[W3C.WD-xmldsig-bestpractices-20110809] SHOULD be referenced to
reduce the risk of denial of service attacks. The use of XSLT
transforms MUST be restricted according to security guidance in
[W3C.WD-xmldsig-bestpractices-20110809].
XML Encryption
o The document included in GRC-Exchange messages MAY be encrypted to
provide an extra layer of security between peers so that the
message is not only encrypted for transport. This behavior would
be agreed upon between peers or a consortium, or determined on a
per-message basis, depending on security requirements. It should
be noted that there are cases for transport where the GRCPolicy
class needs to be presented in clear text, as detailed in the
transport document [RFC6546].
o A Request, or any other message type that may be relayed through
GRC-Exchange systems before reaching the intended destination as a
result of trust relationships, MAY be encrypted specifically for
the intended recipient. This may be necessary if the GRC-Exchange
network is being used for message transfer, the intermediate
parties do not need to have knowledge of the request contents, and
a direct communication path does not exist. In that case, the
GRCPolicy class is used by intermediate parties and as such,
GRCPolicy is maintained in clear text.
o A message may be encrypted using the key of the request
originator, while leaving the GRC-Exchange contents in clear text.
In that case, the intermediate parties can view the GRCPolicy
information and know a response has been provided without seeing
the contents of the response. If the use of encryption were
limited to sections of the message, the History class information
would be encrypted. Otherwise, it is RECOMMENDED to encrypt the
entire included schema plus GRC-Exchange document and use an
enveloped signature, for the originator of the request. The
existence of the Result message for an incident would tell any
intermediate parties used in the path of the incident
investigation that the incident handling has been completed.
o The restriction attribute sets expectations for the privacy of an
incident and is defined in Section 4.1. Following the guidance
for XML encryption in the Security Requirements Section, the
restriction attribute can be set in any of the GRC-Exchange
classes to define restrictions and encryption requirements for the
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
exchange of GRC information. The restriction options enable
encryption capabilities for the complete exchange of an XML
document (including any extensions), within specific classes of a
schema that embeds the restriction attribute where more limited
restrictions are desired. The restriction attribute is contained
in each of the GRC-Exchange classes and MUST be used in accordance
with confidentiality expectations for either sections of the
included XML document or the complete included XML document.
Consortiums and organizations should consider this guidance when
creating exchange policies.
o Expectations based on restriction setting:
* If restriction is set to "private", the class or document MUST
be encrypted for the recipient using XML encryption and the
public key of the recipient. See Section 11.2 for a discussion
on public key infrastructure (PKI) and other security
requirements.
* If restriction is set to "need-to-know", the class or document
MUST be encrypted to ensure only those with need-to-know access
can decrypt the data. The document can either be encrypted for
each individual for which access is intended or a single group
key may be used. The method used SHOULD adhere to any
certificate policy and practices agreements between entities
for the use of GRC-Exchange. A group key in this instance
refers to a single key (symmetric) that is used to encrypt the
block of data. The users with need-to-know access privileges
may be given access to the shared key via a secure distribution
method, for example, providing access to the symmetric key
encrypted with each of users public keys.
* If restriction is set to "public", the class or document MUST
be sent in clear text. This setting can be critical if certain
sections of a document or an entire document are to be shared
without restrictions. This provides flexibility within an
exchange to share out certain information freely where
appropriate.
* If restriction is set to "default", The information can be
shared according to an information disclosure policy pre-
arranged by the communicating parties.
o Expectations based on placement of the restriction setting:
* If restriction is set within one of the GRC-Exchange classes,
the restriction applies to the entire included XML document.
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
* If restriction is set within individual classes of the included
XML document, the restriction applies to the specific class and
the children of that class.
The formation of policies is a very important aspect of using a
messaging system like GRC-Exchange to exchange potentially sensitive
information. Many considerations should be involved for peering
parties, and some guidelines to protect the data, systems, and
transport are covered in this section. Policies established should
provide guidelines for communication methods, security, and fall-back
procedures. See Sections 11.3 and Section 11.4 for additional
information on consortiums and PKI considerations.
The security considerations for the storage and exchange of
information in GRC-Exchange messaging may include adherence to local,
regional, or national regulations in addition to the obligations to
protect information. GRC-Exchange Policy is a necessary tool for
listing the requirements of messages to provide a method to
categorize data elements for proper handling. Controls are also
provided for the sending entity to protect messages from third
parties through XML encryption.
GRC-Exchange provides a method to exchange GRC request and Report
messages between entities. Administrators have the ability to base
decisions on the available resources and other factors of their
enterprise and maintain control of GRC exchanges. Thus, GRC-Exchange
provides the ability for participating networks to manage their own
security controls, leveraging the information listed in GRCPolicy.
GRC-Exchange is used to transfer or exchange XML documents in an IANA
registered format. Implementations SHOULD NOT download schemas at
runtime due to the security implications, and included documents MUST
NOT be required to provide a resolvable location of their schema.
11.2. Public Key Infrastructure
It is RECOMMENDED that GRC-Exchange, the XML security functions, and
transport protocols properly integrate with a PKI managed by the
consortium, federate PKIs within a consortium, or use a PKI managed
by a trusted third party. Entities MAY use shared keys as an
alternate solution, although this may limit the ability to validate
certificates and could introduce risk. For the Internet, a few of
examples of existing efforts that could be leveraged to provide the
supporting PKI include the Regional Internet Registry's (RIR's) PKI
hierarchy, vendor issued certificates, or approved issuers of
Extended Validation (EV) Certificates. Security and privacy
considerations related to consortiums are discussed in Sections 11.3
and Section 11.4.
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
The use of PKI between entities or by a consortium SHOULD adhere to
any applicable certificate policy and practices agreements for the
use of GRC-Exchange. [RFC3647] specifies a commonly used format for
certificate policy (CP) and certification practices statements (CPS).
Systems with predefined relationships for GRC-Exchange include those
who peer directly or through a consortium with agreed-upon
appropriate use agreements. The agreements to trust other entities
may be based on assurance levels that could be determined by a
comparison of the CP, CPS, and/or GRC-Exchange operating procedures.
The initial comparison of policies and ability to audit controls
provides a baseline assurance level for entities to form and maintain
trust relationships. Trust relationships may also be defined through
a bridged or hierarchical PKI in which both peers belong. If shared
keys or keys issued from a common CA are used, the verification of
controls to determine the assurance level to trust other entities may
be limited to the GRC-Exchange policies and operating procedures.
XML security functions utilized in GRC-Exchange require a trust
center such as a PKI for the distribution of credentials to provide
the necessary level of security for this protocol. Layered transport
protocols also utilize encryption and rely on a trust center. Public
key certificate pairs issued by a trusted Certification Authority
(CA) MAY be used to provide the necessary level of authentication and
encryption for the GRC-Exchange protocol. The CA used for GRC-
Exchange messaging must be trusted by all involved parties and may
take advantage of similar efforts, such as the Internet2 federated
PKI or the ARIN/RIR effort to provide a PKI to service providers.
The PKI used for authentication also provides the necessary
certificates needed for encryption used for the GRC-Exchange
transport protocol [RFC6546].
11.2.1. Authentication
Hosts receiving a GRC-Exchange message MUST be able to verify that
the sender of the request is valid and trusted. Using digital
signatures on a hash of the GRC-Exchange message with an X.509
version 3 certificate issued by a trusted party MUST be used to
authenticate the request. The X.509 version 3 specifications as well
as the digital signature specifications and path validation standards
set forth in [RFC5280] MUST be followed in order to interoperate with
a PKI designed for similar purposes. Full path validation verifies
the chaining relationship to a trusted root and also performs a
certificate revocation check. The use of digital signatures in GRC-
Exchange XML messages MUST follow the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
recommendations for signature syntax and processing when either the
XML encryption [W3C.REC-xmlenc-core-20021210] or digital signature
[W3C.REC-xmldsig-core-20080610], [RFC3275] is used within a document.
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
It might be helpful to define an extension to the authentication
scheme that uses attribute certificates [RFC5755] in such a way that
an application could automatically determine whether human
intervention is needed to authorize a request; however, the
specification of such an extension is out of scope for this document.
The use of pre-shared keys may be considered for authentication at
the transport layer. If this option is selected, the specifications
set forth in "Pre-Shared Key Ciphersuites for Transport Layer
Security (TLS)" [RFC4279] MUST be followed. Transport specifications
are detailed in a separate document [RFC6546].
11.2.2. Multi-Hop Request Authentication
The use of multi-hop authentication in a Request is used when a
Request is sent to multiple entities in an iterative manner. Multi-
hop authentication is REQUIRED in Requests that involve multiple
entities where Requests are forwarded iteratively through peers.
Bilateral trust relationships MAY be used between peers, then Multi-
hop authentication MUST be used for cases where the originator of a
message is authenticated several hops into the message flow.
For practical reasons, entities may want to prioritize incident
handling events based upon the immediate peer for a Request, the
originator of a request, and other relevant information provided in
metadata. In order to provide a higher assurance level of the
authenticity of a Request, the originating GRC-Exchange system is
included in the Request along with contact information and the
information of all GRC-Exchange systems in the path the Request has
taken. This information is provided through the GRC-Exchange From-
Contact class nesting the list of systems and contacts involved in a
request.
To provide multi-hop authentication, the originating GRC-Exchange
system MUST include a digital signature in the Request sent to all
systems in the upstream path. The signature MUST be passed to all
parties that receive a Request, and each party MUST be able to
perform full path validation on the digital signature [RFC5280]. In
order to accommodate that requirement, the signed data MUST remain
unchanged as a request is passed along between providers and may be
restricted to one element for which the signature is applied. A
second benefit to this requirement is that the integrity of the
filter used is ensured as it is passed to subsequent entities in the
upstream trace of the incident. The trusted PKI also provides the
keys used to digitally sign the selected data element for a Request
to meet the requirement of authenticating the original request. Any
host in the path of the trace should be able to verify the digital
signature using the trusted PKI.
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
In the case in which an enterprise using GRC-Exchange sends a Request
to its provider, the signature from the enterprise MUST be included
in the initial request. The provider may generate a new request to
send upstream to members of the provider's consortium to continue the
request. If the original request is sent, the originating provider,
acting on behalf of the enterprise network with a request, MUST also
digitally sign, with an enveloped signature, the full included XML
document to assure the authenticity of the Request. A provider that
offers GRC-Exchange as a service may be using its own PKI to secure
GRC-Exchange communications between its GRC-Exchange system and the
attached enterprise networks. Providers participating in the trace
MUST be able to determine the authenticity of GRC-Exchange requests.
11.3. Consortiums and Public Key Infrastructures
Consortiums are an ideal way to establish a communication web of
trust for GRC-Exchange messaging. It should be noted that direct
relationships may be ideal for some communications, such as those
between a provider of incident information and a subscriber of the
incident reports. The consortium could provide centralized
resources, such as a PKI, and established guidelines and control
requirements for use of GRC-Exchange. The consortium may assist in
establishing trust relationships between the participating providers
to achieve the necessary level of cooperation and experience-sharing
among the consortium entities. This may be established through PKI
certificate policy [RFC3647] reviews to determine the appropriate
trust levels between organizations or entities. The consortium may
also be used for other purposes to better facilitate communication
among providers in a common area (Internet, region, government,
education, private networks, etc.).
Using a PKI to distribute certificates used by GRC-Exchange systems
provides an already established method to link trust relationships
between consortiums that peer with SPs belonging to a separate
consortium. In other words, consortiums could peer with other
consortiums to enable communication of GRC-Exchange messages between
the participating providers. The PKI along with Memorandums of
Agreement could be used to link border directories to share public
key information in a bridge, a hierarchy, or a single cross-
certification relationship.
Consortiums also need to establish guidelines for each participating
provider to adhere. The RECOMMENDED guidelines include:
o Physical and logical practices to protect GRC-Exchange systems;
o Network and application layer protection for GRC-Exchange systems
and communications;
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
o Proper use guidelines for GRC-Exchange systems, messages, and
requests; and
o A PKI, certificate policy, and certification practices statement
to provide authentication, integrity, and privacy.
The functions described for a consortium's role parallel that of a
PKI federation. The PKI federations that currently exist are
responsible for establishing security guidelines and PKI trust
models. The trust models are used to support applications to share
information using trusted methods and protocols.
A PKI can also provide the same level of security for communication
between an end entity (enterprise, educational, or government
customer network) and the provider.
11.4. Privacy Concerns and System Use Guidelines
Information sharing typically raises many concerns especially when
privacy related information may be exchanged. The GRCPolicy class is
used to automate the enforcement of the privacy concerns listed
within this document. The privacy and system use concerns for the
system communicating GRC-Exchange messages and other integrated
components include the following:
Service Provider Concerns:
o Privacy information contained in Human Resources, legal,
compliance and other reports.
Customer Attached Networks Participating in GRC-Exchange with
Provider:
o Customer networks may include an enterprise, educational,
government, or other attached networks to a provider participating
in GRC-Exchange. Customers should review data handling policies
to understand how data will be protected by a service provider.
This information will enable customers to decide what types of
data at what sensitivity level can be shared with service
providers. This information could be used at the application
layer to establish sharing profiles for entities and groups, see
Section 11.5.
o Customers should request information on the security and privacy
considerations in place by their provider and the consortium of
which the provider is a member. Customers should understand if
their data were to be forwarded, how might it be sanitized and how
will it be protected. Customers should also understand if
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
limitations can be placed on how any data they share with their
provider will be used in advance of sharing that data.
o Customers should be aware that their data can and will be sent to
other providers in order to complete a request unless an agreement
stating otherwise is made in the service level agreements between
the customer and provider. Customers considering privacy options
may limit the use of this feature if they do not want the data
forwarded.
Parties Involved in Exchanges:
o Privacy of information such as the source and destination used for
communication purposes over the monitored or GRC-Exchange
connected network(s).
o Protection of data from being viewed by intermediate parties in
the path of an Request request should be considered.
o Privacy of information exchanged in reports.
Consortium Considerations:
o System use restrictions for information sharing within the local
region's definitions of appropriate traffic. When participating
in a consortium, appropriate use guidelines should be agreed upon
and entered into contracts.
o System use prohibiting the consortium's participating providers
from inappropriately requesting information unlawfully within the
jurisdiction or region.
Inter-Consortium Considerations:
o System use between peering consortiums should consider any
government communication regulations that apply between those two
regions, such as encryption export and import restrictions.
o System use between consortiums SHOULD NOT request information and
actions beyond the scope intended and permitted by law or inter-
consortium agreements.
o System use between consortiums should consider national boundary
issues and request limits in their appropriate system use
agreements. Appropriate use should include restrictions to
prevent the use of the protocol to limit or restrict traffic that
is otherwise permitted within the country in which the peering
consortium resides.
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
The security and privacy considerations listed above are for the
consortiums, providers, and enterprises to agree upon. The agreed-
upon policies may be facilitated through use of the GRCPolicy class
and application layer options. Some privacy considerations are
addressed through the GRC-Exchange guidelines for encryption and
digital signatures as described in Section 11.1.
GRC-Exchange messaging privacy concerns should be elaborated on
here...
Information shared through through GRC-Exchange could be sensitive.
Such data in GRC-Exchange messages can be protected through the use
of encryption [W3C.REC-xmlenc-core-20021210] enveloping the XML and
GRC-Exchange document, using the public encryption key of the
originating entity.
The decision is left to the system users and consortiums to determine
appropriate data to be shared given that the goal of the
specification is to provide the appropriate technical options to
remain compliant. Local, state, or national laws may dictate the
appropriate reporting requirements for specific exchange types.
Privacy becomes an issue whenever sensitive data traverses a network.
In the case of a Request or Report, where the originating provider is
aware of the entity that will receive the request for processing, the
free-form text areas of the document could be encrypted
[W3C.REC-xmlenc-core-20021210] using the public key of the
destination entity to ensure that no other entity in the path can
read the contents. The encryption is accomplished through the W3C
[W3C.REC-xmlenc-core-20021210] specification for encrypting an
element.
GRC Report Exchanges must be legitimate incidents and not used for
purposes such as sabotage or censorship. An example of such abuse of
the system includes a report containing information about a
competitor's compliance that may have been falsified to hurt their
business.
Intra-consortium GRC-Exchange communications raise additional issues,
especially when the peering consortiums reside in different regions
or nations.
The GRC Report Exchange messages may be a valid use of the system
within the confines of that country's network border; however, it may
not be permitted to continue across network boundaries where such
content is permitted under law. A continued Request, Query, or
Report into a second country may break the laws and regulations of
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
that nation. Any such messages MUST cease at the country's border.
The privacy concerns listed in this section address issues among the
trusted parties involved in a trace within an provider, a GRC-
Exchange consortium, and peering GRC-Exchange consortiums. Data used
for GRC-Exchange communications must also be protected from parties
that are not trusted. This protection is provided through the
authentication and encryption of documents as they traverse the path
of trusted servers and the local security controls in place for the
GRC Report Exchange systems. Each GRC-Exchange system MUST perform a
bi-directional authentication when sending a GRC-Exchange message and
use the public encryption key of the upstream or downstream peer to
send a message or document over the network. This means that the
document is decrypted and re-encrypted at each GRC-Exchange system
via TLS over a transport protocol such as [RFC6546]. The GRC-
Exchange messages may be decrypted at each GRC-Exchange system in
order to properly process the request or relay the information.
Today's processing power is more than sufficient to handle the
minimal burden of encrypting and decrypting relatively small typical
GRC-Exchange messages.
11.5. Sharing Profiles and Policies
The application layer can be used to establish workflows and rulesets
specific to sharing profiles for entities or consortiums. The
profiles can leverage sharing agreements to restrict data types or
classifications of data that are shared. The level of information or
classification of data shared with any entity may be based on
protection levels offered by the receiving entity and periodic
validation of those controls. The profile may also indicate how far
information can be shared according to the entity and data type. The
profile can also support if requests to share data from an entity
must go directly to that entity.
In some cases, pre-defined sharing profiles will be possible. These
include any use case where an agreement is in place in advance of
sharing. Examples may be between clients and providers, entities
such as partners, or consortiums. There may be other cases when
sharing profiles may not be established in advance. An organization
may want to establish sharing profiles specific to possible user
groups to prepare for possible incident scenarios. The user groups
could include business partners, industry peers, service providers,
experts not part of a service provider, law enforcement, or
regulatory repotting bodies.
Workflows to approve transactions may be specific to sharing profiles
and data types. Application developers should include capabilities
to enable these decision points for users of the system.
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
Any expectations between entities to preserve the weight and
admissibility of evidence should be handled at the policy and
agreement level. A sharing profile may include notes or an indicator
for approvers in workflows to reflect if such agreements exist.
12. Security Considerations
GRC Report Exchange has many security requirements and considerations
built into the design of the protocol, several of which are described
in the Security Requirements section. For a complete view of
security, considerations include the availability, confidentiality,
and integrity concerns for the transport, storage, and exchange of
information.
Authenticated encrypted tunnels between systems accepting GRC-
Exchange communications are used to provide confidentiality,
integrity, authenticity, and privacy for the data at the transport
layer. Encryption and digital signatures are also used at the GRC
XML document level through GRC-Exchange options to provide
confidentiality, integrity, authenticity, privacy and traceability of
the document contents. Trust relationships may be through direct
peers or consortiums using established trust relationships of public
key infrastructure (PKI) via cross-certifications. Trust levels can
be established in cross-certification processes where entities
compare PKI policies that include the specific management and
handling of an entity's PKI and certificates issued under that
policy. [RFC3647] defines an Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate Policy and Certification Practices
Framework that may be used in the comparison of policies to establish
trust levels and agreements between entities, an entity and a
consortium, and consortia. The agreements SHOULD consider key
management practices including the ability to perform path validation
on certificates [RFC5280], key distribution techniques [RFC2585],
Certificate Authority and Registration Authority management
practices.
The agreements between entities SHOULD also include a common
understanding of the usage of GRC-Exchange security, policy, and
privacy options discussed in this section. The formality,
requirements, and complexity of the agreements for the certificate
policy, practices, and the use of GRC-Exchange options SHOULD be
decided by the entities or consortiums creating those agreements.
13. IANA Considerations
This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
[W3C.REC-xml-names-20091208] and XML schemas
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028] conforming to a registry mechanism
described in [RFC3688].
Registration request for the grc-exchange namespace:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:grc-exchange-1.0
Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this
document.
XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification.
Registration request for the grc-exchange XML schema:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:grc-exchange-1.0
Registrant Contact: See the "Author's Address" section of this
document.
XML: See Section 4, "GRC-Exchange Schema", of this document.
Request for the specified registry to be created and managed by IANA:
Name of the registry:"XML Schemas Exchanged via GRC-Exchange"
Namespace details: A registry entry for an XML Schema Transferred
via GRC-Exchange consists of:
Schema Name: A short string that represents the schema
referenced. This value is for reference only in the table.
The version of the schema MUST be included in this string to
allow for multiple versions of the same specification to be in
the registry.
Version: The version of the registered XML schema. The version
is a string that SHOULD be formatted as numbers separated by a
'.' (period) character.
Namespace: The namespace of the referenced XML schema. This is
represented in the GRC-Exchange GRCDocument class in the
XMLSchemaID attribute as an enumerated value is represented by
a URN or URI.
Specification URI: A URI [RFC3986] from which the registered
specification can be obtained. The specification MUST be
publicly available from this URI.
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
Information that must be provided to assign a new value: The above
list of information.
Fields to record in the registry: Schema Name/Version/Namespace/
Specification URI
Initial registry contents: See section Section 13
Allocation Policy: Expert Review [RFC5226] and Specification
Required [RFC5226].
The Designated Expert is expected to consult with the MILE (Managed
Incident Lightweight Exchange) working group or its successor if any
such WG exists (e.g., via email to the working group's mailing list).
The Designated Expert is expected to retrieve the XML schema
specification from the provided URI in order to check the public
availability of the specification and verify the correctness of the
URI. An important responsibility of the Designated Expert is to
ensure that the XML schema is appropriate for use in GRC-Exchange.
Request for the specified registry to be created and managed by IANA:
Name of the registry:"GRC-Exchange Enumeration List"
The registry is intended to enable enumeration value additions to
attributes in the grc-exchange XML schema.
Fields to record in the registry: Attribute Name/Attribute Value/
Description
Initial registry content: none.
Allocation Policy: Expert Review [RFC5226]
The Designated Expert is expected to consult with the mile (Managed
Incident Lightweight Exchange) working group or its successor if any
such WG exists (e.g., via email to the working group's mailing list).
The Designated Expert is expected to review the request and validate
the appropriateness of the enumeration for the attribute. If a draft
specification is associated with the request, it MUST be reviewed by
the Designated Expert.
14. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to colleagues and the Internet community for reviewing
and commenting on the document.
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
15. Summary
Governance, Risk, and Compliance reports may contain some of the most
sensitive information for a business. Reports may contain the
prioritized risks for the effective management of Business
Operations, IT, Security, Compliance, and Legal departments of an
enterprise. There may be a regulatory or legal requirement to share
information or formatted reports with a regulatory body or other
entities in a legal review. Outsourcing of computer infrastructure
has necessitated the need for service providers to share reports with
tenants or clients to ensure SLAs and agreements on security
requirements are met. Each of these use cases require a secure
method to exchange reports. GRC Report Exchange provides a
standardized method to exchange reports while considering the
security, privacy and policy requirements without relying on the
transport layer for security. Security is provided at the document
level to provide methods to share a report where policy requirements
can be implemented by mapping to technical options and data markers
in the GRC-Exchange protocol.
16. References
16.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2585] Housley, R. and P. Hoffman, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Operational Protocols: FTP and HTTP",
RFC 2585, May 1999.
[RFC3275] Eastlake, D., Reagle, J., and D. Solo, "(Extensible Markup
Language) XML-Signature Syntax and Processing", RFC 3275,
March 2002.
[RFC3339] Klyne, G., Ed. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the
Internet: Timestamps", RFC 3339, July 2002.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
January 2004.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, January 2005.
[RFC4051] Eastlake, D., "Additional XML Security Uniform Resource
Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 4051, April 2005.
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
[RFC4279] Eronen, P. and H. Tschofenig, "Pre-Shared Key Ciphersuites
for Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 4279,
December 2005.
[RFC4519] Sciberras, A., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP): Schema for User Applications", RFC 4519,
June 2006.
[RFC5070] Danyliw, R., Meijer, J., and Y. Demchenko, "The Incident
Object Description Exchange Format", RFC 5070,
December 2007.
[RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
(CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008.
[RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
October 2008.
[RFC5646] Phillips, A. and M. Davis, "Tags for Identifying
Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, September 2009.
[RFC5755] Farrell, S., Housley, R., and S. Turner, "An Internet
Attribute Certificate Profile for Authorization",
RFC 5755, January 2010.
[RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
RFC 5890, August 2010.
[RFC5891] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names in
Applications (IDNA): Protocol", RFC 5891, August 2010.
[RFC6545] Moriarty, K., "Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID)",
RFC 6545, February 2012.
[W3C.REC-xml-20081126]
Sperberg-McQueen, C., Yergeau, F., Maler, E., Bray, T.,
and J. Paoli, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth
Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-
xml-20081126, November 2008,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126>.
[W3C.REC-xml-names-20091208]
Hollander, D., Layman, A., Thompson, H., Tobin, R., and T.
Bray, "Namespaces in XML 1.0 (Third Edition)", World Wide
Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xml-names-20091208,
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
December 2009,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xml-names-20091208>.
[W3C.REC-xmlenc-core-20021210]
Eastlake, D. and J. Reagle, "XML Encryption Syntax and
Processing", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-
xmlenc-core-20021210, December 2002,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xmlenc-core-20021210>.
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028]
Thompson, H., Beech, D., Mendelsohn, N., and M. Maloney,
"XML Schema Part 1: Structures Second Edition", World Wide
Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xmlschema-1-20041028,
October 2004,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028>.
[W3C.REC-xmldsig-core-20080610]
Solo, D., Roessler, T., Reagle, J., Eastlake, D., and F.
Hirsch, "XML Signature Syntax and Processing (Second
Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-
xmldsig-core-20080610, June 2008,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xmldsig-core-20080610>.
[W3C.CR-xmldsig-core1-20110303]
Reagle, J., Nystroem, M., Yiu, K., Hirsch, F., Eastlake,
D., Roessler, T., and D. Solo, "XML Signature Syntax and
Processing Version 1.1", World Wide Web Consortium CR CR-
xmldsig-core1-20110303, March 2011,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/CR-xmldsig-core1-20110303>.
[W3C.WD-xmldsig-bestpractices-20110809]
Datta, P. and F. Hirsch, "XML Signature Best Practices",
World Wide Web Consortium WD WD-xmldsig-bestpractices-
20110809, August 2011, <http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/
WD-xmldsig-bestpractices-20110809>.
[W3C.REC-xpath20-20101214]
Boag, S., Berglund, A., Kay, M., Simeon, J., Robie, J.,
Chamberlin, D., and M. Fernandez, "XML Path Language
(XPath) 2.0 (Second Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium
Recommendation REC-xpath20-20101214, December 2010,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-xpath20-20101214>.
16.2. Informative References
[RFC4180] Shafranovich, Y., "Common Format and MIME Type for Comma-
Separated Values (CSV) Files", RFC 4180, October 2005.
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
[RFC6194] Polk, T., Chen, L., Turner, S., and P. Hoffman, "Security
Considerations for the SHA-0 and SHA-1 Message-Digest
Algorithms", RFC 6194, March 2011.
[RFC3492] Costello, A., "Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of Unicode
for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications
(IDNA)", RFC 3492, March 2003.
[RFC4765] Debar, H., Curry, D., and B. Feinstein, "The Intrusion
Detection Message Exchange Format (IDMEF)", RFC 4765,
March 2007.
[RFC3647] Chokhani, S., Ford, W., Sabett, R., Merrill, C., and S.
Wu, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate
Policy and Certification Practices Framework", RFC 3647,
November 2003.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[ISO.8601.2000]
International Organization for Standardization, "Data
elements and interchange formats -- Information
interchange -- Representation of dates and times",
ISO Standard 8601, December 2000.
Authors' Addresses
Kathleen M. Moriarty
EMC Corporation
176 South Street
Hopkinton, MA
United States
Phone:
Email: Kathleen.Moriarty@emc.com
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft grc-exchange November 2012
Said Tabet
EMC Corporation
176 South Street
Hopkinton, MA
United States
Phone:
Email: Said.Tabet@emc.com
David Waltermire
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive
Gaithersburg, MD
United States
Phone:
Email: david.waltermire@nist.gov
Moriarty, et al. Expires May 10, 2013 [Page 68]
