Internet DRAFT - draft-deen-add-threats
draft-deen-add-threats
Adaptive DNS Discovery (ADD) G. Deen
Internet-Draft Comcast-NBCUniversal
Intended status: Informational July 13, 2020
Expires: January 14, 2021
Adaptive DNS Discovery Threats Here
draft-deen-add-threats-00
Abstract
DNS resolver discovery is designed to operate under a variety
different levels of trust in the underlying network. This document
describes the various trust types that DNS resolver discovery and
selection may take place under. Internet Draft.
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 https://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 January 14, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
(https://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.
Deen Expires January 14, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ADD Threats July 2020
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. Green or Trusted Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.3. Yellow or Unknown Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.4. Red or Hostile Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Appendix A. Additional Stuff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
There are a variety of network environments users may interact with
where they will be discovering and selecting a DNS resolver each of
which presents a different threat level to the user. This document
attempts to establish a common set of threats classifications for
reference by Adaptive DNS Discovery (ADD) working group drafts.
1.1. Requirements Language
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Classifications
2.1. Approach
There are many ways to classify and structure threat analysis the
approach used here is centered on the perspective of the user and how
much subjective trust they can place in different access network
situations that they may encounter.
2.2. Green or Trusted Networks
These are networks in which the user has an high sense of trust.
These are networks run by a trusted party who is known to the user
and is trusted by the user to operate the network with security and
operational integrity. While even the best run network can be
compromised by attackers or malware, the user has subjective trust
that the Green network is very unlikely to be compromised.
Deen Expires January 14, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ADD Threats July 2020
The user often has a relationship with the network operator - either
personally, as an employee, or by contract they user has entered into
such as with an ISP or Mobile Carrier.
Examples of Green Networks
o User's own home network
o User's organization, company, or enterprise network
o Mobile user's mobile network
o User's ISP network
2.3. Yellow or Unknown Networks
These are networks in which the user does not have any sense of trust
and yet has no sense or expectation that the network maybe
compromised or hostile. The network's threat level is simply
unknown.
These are networks which provided a service to visitors such as
public Wifi networks.
Examples of Yellow Networks
o School network
o Cafe or coffee shop network
o Airport network
o Hotel network
o Conference or event network
2.4. Red or Hostile Networks
These are networks in which the user has an high sense of potential
threats being present, but the use may have no other choice but to
use them.
These are networks which the user not only does not trust, but also
expects the network maybe doing things that the user does not want.
Red Networks
o War zone region network
Deen Expires January 14, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ADD Threats July 2020
o Hostile regime network
3. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
All drafts are required to have an IANA considerations section (see
Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs
[RFC5226] for a guide). If the draft does not require IANA to do
anything, the section contains an explicit statement that this is the
case (as above). If there are no requirements for IANA, the section
will be removed during conversion into an RFC by the RFC Editor.
4. Security Considerations
All drafts are required to have a security considerations section.
See RFC 3552 [RFC3552] for a guide.
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[Contributors]
Deen, G., "Authors", 2020.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
5.2. Informative References
[RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3552>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
Appendix A. Additional Stuff
This becomes an Appendix.
Deen Expires January 14, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ADD Threats July 2020
Author's Address
Glenn Deen
Comcast-NBCUniversal
Universal City, California 91608
USA
Email: glenn_deen@comcast.com
Deen Expires January 14, 2021 [Page 5]
