



Internet Engineering Task Force                              K. Moriarty
Internet-Draft                                         Dell Technologies
Intended status: Informational                            9 October 2020
Expires: 12 April 2021


   Coordinating Attack Response at Internet Scale 2 (CARIS2) Workshop
                                 Report
                        draft-moriarty-caris2-04

Abstract

   The Coordinating Attack Response at Internet Scale (CARIS) 2
   workshop, sponsored by the Internet Society, took place 28 February
   and 1 March 2019 in Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.  Participants
   spanned regional, national, international, and enterprise CSIRTs,
   operators, service providers, network and security operators,
   transport operators and researchers, incident response researchers,
   vendors, and participants from standards communities.  This workshop
   continued the work started at the first CARIS workshop, with a focus
   for CARIS 2 scaling incident prevention and detection as the Internet
   industry moves to a stronger and a more ubiquitous deployment of
   session encryption.

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 12 April 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.






Moriarty                  Expires 12 April 2021                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                CARIS2 Report                 October 2020


   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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Accepted Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  CARIS2 Goals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Workshop Collaboration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Breakout 1 Results: Standardization and Adoption  . . . .   5
       4.1.1.  Wide adoption:  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.2.  Limited Adoption  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Breakout 2 Results:Preventative Protocols and Scaling
           Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  Breakout 3 Results: Incident Response Coordination  . . .   9
     4.4.  Breakout 4 Results: Monitoring and Measurement  . . . . .  11
       4.4.1.  IP Address Reputation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       4.4.2.  Server Name Authentication Reputation C (SNARC) . . .  12
       4.4.3.  Logging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.4.4.  Fingerprinting  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.5.  Taxonomy and Gaps Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.  Next Steps  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   6.  Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     10.1.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     10.2.  URL References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

1.  Introduction

   The Coordinating Attack Response at Internet Scale (CARIS) 2 workshop
   workshop [CARISEvent], sponsored by the Internet Society, took place
   28 February and 1 March 2019 in Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
   Participants spanned regional, national, international, and
   enterprise Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRT),
   operators, service providers, network and security operators,
   transport operators and researchers, incident response researchers,
   vendors, and participants from standards communities.  This workshop
   continued the work started at the first CARIS workshop [RFC8073],
   with a focus for CARIS 2 on scaling incident prevention and detection
   as the Internet industry moves to a stronger and a more ubiquitous
   deployment of session encryption.  Considering the related initiative



Moriarty                  Expires 12 April 2021                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                CARIS2 Report                 October 2020


   to form a research group [SMART] in the Internet Research Task Force
   (IRTF) the focus on prevention included consideration of research
   opportunities to improve protocols and determine if there are ways to
   improve attack detection devleoped during the protocol design phase
   that could later influence protocol development in the IETF.  This is
   one way to think about scaling response, through prevention and
   allowing for new methods to evolve for detection in a post-encrypted
   world.  Although SMART has not progressed, the work to better scale
   incident response continues through the projects proposed at CARIS2
   as well in future CARIS workshops.

2.  Accepted Papers

   Researchers from around the world submitted position and research
   papers summarizing key aspects of their work to help form the shared
   content of the workshop.  The accepted papers may be found at
   workshop [CARISEvent], and include:

      Visualizing Security Automation: Takeshi Takahashi, NICT, Japan

      Automating Severity Determination: Hideaki Kanehara, NICT, Japan

      OASIS's OpenC2, Draper and DoD

      Automated IoT Security (PASC and PAVA): Oscar Garcia-Morchon and
      Thorsten Dahm

      Taxonomies and Gaps: Kirsty P., UK NCSC

      FIRST: Thomas Schreck, Siemens

      NetSecWarriors: Tim April, Akamai

      Measured Approaches to IPv6 Address Anonymization and Identity
      Association: Dave Plonka and Arthur Berger, Akamai

   The program committee worked to fill in the agenda with meaningful
   and complementary sessions to round out the theme and encourage
   collaboration to advance research towards the goals of the workshop.
   These sessions included:

      Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) [RFC8520]: Eliot Lear, Cisco

      TF-CSIRT: Mirjam Kuhne, RIPE NCC

      M2M Sharing Revolution, Scott Pinkerton, DoE ANL





Moriarty                  Expires 12 April 2021                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                CARIS2 Report                 October 2020


      Comparing OpenC2 with existing efforts, e.g.  [I2NSF]: Chris
      Inacio

      Alternate Sharing and Mitigation Models: Kathleen Moriarty,
      DellEMC

   The presentations provided interesting background to familiarize
   workshop attendees with current research work, challenges that
   require addressing for forward progress, and opportunities to
   collaborate in the desire to better scale attack response and
   prevention.

3.  CARIS2 Goals

   The goal of each CARIS workshop has been to focus on the challenge of
   improving the overall security posture.  The approach has been to
   identify intrinsic or built-in protection capabilities for improved
   defense, automation, and scaling attack response through
   collaboration and improved architectural patterns.  It has been
   assumed that it is unlikely that additional training will address the
   lack of information security professionals to fill the job gap.
   Currently, there is approximately a 3 million person deficit
   [defecit] for security professionals worldwide and it's only expected
   to grow.  In preparing for the workshop, the chair and programme
   committee considered that this gap cannot be filled through training,
   but the gap requires measures to reduce the number of information
   security professionals needed through new architectures and research
   towards attack prevention.  CARIS 2 was specifically focused on the
   industry shift towards the increased use of stronger session
   encryption (TLSv1.3 [RFC8446], QUIC [I-D.ietf-quic-transport],
   TCPcrypt [RFC8548], etc.) and how prevention and detection can
   advance in this new paradigm.  As such the goals for this workshop
   included:

   *  Scale attack response, including ways to improve prevention, as
      the Internet shifts to use of stronger and more ubiquitous
      encryption.

      -  Determine research opportunities

      -  Consider methods to improve protocols/provide guidance toward
         goal.  For instance, are there ways to build detection of
         threats into protocols since they cannot be monitored on the
         wire in the future?

   *  Identify promising research ideas to seed a research agenda to
      input to the proposed IRTF SMART research group.




Moriarty                  Expires 12 April 2021                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                CARIS2 Report                 October 2020


4.  Workshop Collaboration

   Both CARIS workshops brought together a set of individuals who had
   not previously collaborated toward the goals of scaling attack
   response.  This is important as the participants span various areas
   of Internet technology work, research, provide a global perspective,
   have access to varying data sets and infrastructure, and are
   influential in their area of expertise.  The specific goals of the
   CARIS 2 workshop, contributions, and the participants were all
   considered in the design of the breakout sessions to both identify
   and advance research through collaboration.  The breakout sessions
   varied in format to keep attendees engaged and collaborating,
   involving the full set of attendees and breakout groups.

   The Workshop focused in trying to help identify potential areas for
   collaboration and advance research.  To do this, the workshop
   included 5 different breakout sessions focused on:

   1.  Standardization and adoption: identify widely adopted and
       pervasive standard protocols and data formats as well as those
       that failed.

   2.  Preventative Protocols and Scaling Defense: identify protocols to
       address automation at scale.

   3.  Incident Response Coordination: brainstorm on what potential
       areas of research or future workshops could be held to improve on
       the scalability of incident response.

   4.  Monitoring and Measurement:brainstorm on methods to perform
       monitoring and measurement with the heightened need and
       requirement to address privacy.

   5.  Taxonomy and Gaps: brainstorm on away forward for the proposed
       SMART group

4.1.  Breakout 1 Results: Standardization and Adoption

   This breakout session considered points raised in the preceding talks
   on hurdles for automating security controls, detection, and response
   as the teams presenting noted several challenges they still face
   today.  The breakout worked toward identifying standard protocols and
   data formats that succeeded in achieving adoption as well as several
   that failed or only achieved limited adoption.  The results from the
   evaluation were interesting and could aid in achieving greater
   adoption when new work areas are developed.  The results follow:





Moriarty                  Expires 12 April 2021                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                CARIS2 Report                 October 2020


4.1.1.  Wide adoption:

   Secure Sockets Layer (SSL), now replaced by Transport Layer Security
   (TLS) protocol.

   Observations: There was a clear need for session encryption at the
   transport layer to protect application data. eCommerce was a driving
   force at the time with a downside to those who did not adopt.  Other
   positive attributes that aided adoption were modular design, clean
   interfaces, and being first to market.

   Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) enables configuration
   management of devices with extension points for private configuration
   and management settings.  SNMP is widely adopted and is only now
   after decades being replaced by a newer alternative, YANG (a data
   modeling language) facilitating configuration management via NETCONF
   or RESTCONF.  The SNMP protocol facilitated an answer to a needed
   problem set: configuration, telemetry, and network management.  It's
   development considered the connection between the user, vendor, and
   developers.  Challenges did surface for adoption from SNMPv1.1 to
   1.2, as there was no compelling reason for adoption.  SNMPv3 gained
   adoption due to its resilience to attacks by providing protection
   through improved authentication and encryption.

   IP Flow Information Export (IPFix) was identified as achieving wide
   adoption for several reasons.  The low cost of entry, wide vendor
   support, diverse user base, and the wide set of use cases spanning
   multiple technology areas were some of the key drivers cited.

   X.509 was explored for its success in gaining adoption.  The solution
   being abstract from crypto, open, customizable, and extensible were
   some of the reasons cited for its successful adoption.  The team
   deemed it a good solution to a good problem and observed that
   government adoption aided its success.

4.1.2.  Limited Adoption

   Next each team evaluated solutions that have not enjoyed wide
   adoption.

   Although STIX and IODEF are somewhat similar in their goals, the
   standards were selected for evaluation by two separate groups with
   some common findings.

   *Structured Threat Information eXpression (STIX)* has had limited
   adoption by the financial sector, but no single, definitive end user.
   The standard is still in development with the US government as the
   primary developer in partnership with OASIS.  There is interest in



Moriarty                  Expires 12 April 2021                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                CARIS2 Report                 October 2020


   using STIX to manage content, but users don't really care about what
   technology is used for the exchange.  The initial goals may not wind
   up matching the end result for STIX as managing content may be the
   primary use case.

   Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF) was specified by
   national research and education networks (NREN) and computer security
   incident response teams (CSIRT) and formalized in the IETF.  The user
   is the security operations center (SOC).  While there are several
   implementations, it is not widely adopted.  In terms of exchange,
   users are more interested in indicators than full event information
   and this applies to STIX as well.  Sharing and trust are additional
   hurdles as many are not willing to disclose information.

   DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) has DNSsec as a
   dependency, which is a hurdle towards adoption (too many
   dependencies).  It has a roll-your-own adoption model, which is
   risky.  While there are some large pockets of adoption, there is
   still much work to do to gain widespread adoption.  A regulatory
   requirement gave rise to partial adoption in Germany, which naturally
   resulted in production of documentation written in German - possibly
   giving rise to further adoption in German-speaking countries.  There
   has also been progress made in the Netherlands through the creation
   of a website, internet.nl.  The website allows you you to test your
   website for a number of standards (IPv6, DNSSEC, DANE etc.).
   Internet.nl is a collaboration of industry organizations, companies,
   and the government in the Netherlands, and is available for worldwide
   use.

   IP version 6 (IPv6) has struggled and the expense of running a dual
   stack was one of the highest concerns on the list discussed in the
   workshop breakout.  The end user for IPv6 is everyone and the
   breakout team considered it too ambiguous.  Too many new requirements
   have been added over its 20 year life.  The scope of necessary
   adoption is large with many peripheral devices.  Government
   requirements for support have helped somewhat with improved
   interoperability and adoption, but features like NAT being added to
   IPv4 slowed adoption.  With no new features being added to IPv4 and
   lessons learned, there's still a possibility for success.

4.2.  Breakout 2 Results:Preventative Protocols and Scaling Defense

   This next breakout followed the sessions on MUD, PAVA (Protocol for
   Automated Vulnerability Assessment), and PASC (Protocol for Automatic
   Security Configuration) which have themes of automation at scale.
   MUD was designed for IoT and as such, scaling was a major
   consideration.  The PAVA and PASC work builds off of MUD and
   maintains some of the same themes.  This next breakout was focused on



Moriarty                  Expires 12 April 2021                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                CARIS2 Report                 October 2020


   groups brainstorming on preventative measures and enabling vendors to
   deploy mitigations.

   One group dove a bit deeper into MUD and layer 2 (L2) discovery.  MUD
   changes sets of filtering control management to the vendor or
   intermediary MUD vendors for a predictable platform that scales well.
   While the overall value of MUD is clear, the use of MUD and what
   traffic is expected for a particular device should be considered
   sensitive information as it could be used to exploit a device.  MUD
   has an option of using L2 discovery to share MUD files.  L2
   discovery, like the dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP) is not
   encrypted from the local client to the DHCP server at this point in
   time (there is some interest to correct this, but it hasn't received
   enough support yet).  As a result, it is possible to leak information
   and reveal data about the devices for which the MUD files would be
   applied.  This could multicast out information such as network
   characteristics, firmware versions, manufacturer, etc.  There was
   some discussion on the use of 802.11 to improve connections.  Several
   participants from this group planned to research this further and
   identify options to prevent information leakage while achieving the
   stated goals of MUD.

   The next group discussed a proposal one of the participants had
   already begun developing, namely privacy for rendezvous service.  The
   basic idea was to encrypt SNI using DNS to obtain public keys.  The
   suffix on server IPv6 would be unique to a TLS session (Information
   missing).  The discussion on this proposal was fruitful as the full
   set of attendees engaged, with special interest from the incident
   responders to be involved in early review cycles.  Incident
   responders are very interested to understand how protocols will
   change and to assess the overall impact of changes on privacy and
   security operations.  Even if there are no changes to the protocol
   proposals stemming from this review, the group discussion landed on
   this being a valuable exchange to understand early the impacts of
   changes for incident detection and mitigation, to devise new
   strategies and to provide assessments on the impact of protocol
   changes on security in the round.

   The third group reported back on trust exchanges relying heavily on
   relationships between individuals.  They were concerned with scaling
   the trust model and finding ways to do that better.  The third
   breakout dove deeper into this topic.

   The fourth breakout group discussed useful data for incident
   responders.  This built on the first breakout session.  The group
   determined that indicators of compromise (IOCs) are what most
   organizations and groups are able to successfully exchange.  Ideally,
   these would be fixed and programmable.  They discussed developing a



Moriarty                  Expires 12 April 2021                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                CARIS2 Report                 October 2020


   richer event threat sharing format.  When reporting back to the
   group, a successful solution used in the EU was mentioned, Malware
   Information Sharing Platform (MISP) [MISP].  This will be considered
   in their review of existing efforts to determine if anything new is
   needed.

4.3.  Breakout 3 Results: Incident Response Coordination

   Incident response coordination currently does not scale.  This
   breakout session focused on brainstorming on incident response and
   coordination, looking specifically at what works well for teams
   today, what is holding them back, and what risks loom ahead.  Output
   from this session could be used to generate research and to dive
   deeper in a dedicated workshop on these topics.

   Supporting:

   *  Trust between individuals in incident response teams

   *  Volume of strong signals and automated discovery

   *  Need to protect network as a forcing function

   *  Law and legal catalyst, motivator to stay on top

   *  Current efforts supported by profit and company interests, but
      those may shift

   *  Fear initially results in activity or in terms of the diagram
      used, a burst of wind, but eventually leads to complacency

   Creating Drag:

   *  Lack of clear KPIs

   *  Too many standards

   *  Regional border impact data flows

   *  Ease of use for end users

   *  Speed to market without security considerations

   *  Legal framework slow to adapt

   *  Disconnect in actual/perceived risk

   *  Regulatory requirements preventing data sharing



Moriarty                  Expires 12 April 2021                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                CARIS2 Report                 October 2020


   *  Lack of clarity in shared information

   *  Behind the problem/reactionary

   *  Lack of resources/participation

   *  Monoculture narrows focus

   Looming problems:

   *  Dynamic threat landscape

   *  Liability

   *  Vocabulary collision

   *  Lack of target/adversary clarity

   *  Bifurcation of Internet

   *  Government regulation

   *  Confusion around metrics

   *  Sensitivity of intelligence (trust)

   *  Lack of skilled analysts

   *  Lack of "fraud loss" data sharing

   *  Stakeholder/leader confusion

   *  Unknown impact of emerging technologies

   *  Over-centralization of the Internet

   *  New technologies and protocols

   *  Changes in application layer configurations (e.g. browser
      resolvers)











Moriarty                  Expires 12 April 2021                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                CARIS2 Report                 October 2020


4.4.  Breakout 4 Results: Monitoring and Measurement

   The fourth breakout followed Dave Plonka's talk on IPv6 aggregation
   to provide privacy for IPv6 sessions.  Essentially, IPv6 provides
   additional capabilities for monitoring sessions end-to-end.  Dave and
   his co-author Arthur Berger primarily focus on measurement research,
   but found a way to aggregate sessions to assist with maintaining user
   privacy.  If you can devise methods to perform management and
   measurement, or even perform security functions, while accommodating
   methods to protect privacy, a stronger result is likely.  This also
   precludes the need for additional privacy improvement work to defeat
   measurement objectives.

   This breakout was focused on devising methods to perform monitoring
   and measurement, coupled with advancing privacy considerations.  The
   full group listed out options for protocols to explore and ranked
   them, with the 4 highest then explored by the breakout groups.
   Groups agreed to work further on the proposed ideas.

4.4.1.  IP Address Reputation

   There is a need to understand address assignment and configuration
   for hosts and services, especially with IPv6 [PlonkaBergerCARIS2] in
   (1) sharing IP address-related information to inform attack response
   efforts, while still protecting the privacy of victims and possible
   attackers, and (2) mitigating abuse by altering the treatment, e.g.,
   dropping or rate-limiting, of packets.  Currently, there is no
   database for analysts and researchers can consult to, for instance,
   determine to lifetimes of IPv6 addresses or the prefix length at
   which the address is expected to be stable over time.  The
   researchers propose either introduce a new database (compare
   PeerdingDB) or extending existing databases (e.g., the RIRs'), to
   contain such information and allowing arbitrary queries.  The prefix
   information would either be provided by networks, who are willing, or
   based on measurement algorithms that reverse-engineer reasonable
   values based on Internet measurements [PlonkaBergerKIP].  In the
   former case, the incentive of networks to provide such information is
   to so that privacy of their users is respected and to limit
   collateral damage caused by access control lists affecting more of
   that network's addresses than necessary, e.g., in the face of abuse.
   This is an early idea, the lead to contact if interested to help
   develop this further is Dave Plonka.









Moriarty                  Expires 12 April 2021                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                CARIS2 Report                 October 2020


4.4.2.  Server Name Authentication Reputation C (SNARC)

   SNARC is a mechanism to assign value to trust indicators, used to
   make decisions about good or bad actors.  The mechanism would be able
   to distinguish between client and server in connections, would be
   human readable, builds on zero trust networking, and avoids
   consolidation supporting legitimate new players.  The group planned
   to research visual aspects and underlying principles as they begin
   work on this idea.  SNARC has a similar theme to the IP reputation/
   BGP ranking idea mentioned above.  An RFC would help customers and
   design team on existing solutions.  They planned to begin work in
   several stages, researching "trust" indicators, "trust" value
   calculations, and research actions to apply to "trust".  The
   overarching goal is to address blind trust, one of the challenges
   identified with information/incident exchanges.  If interested to
   work further with this team, the lead contact is: Trent Adams.

4.4.3.  Logging

   The breakout group presented the possibility of injecting logging
   capabilities at compile time for applications, resulting in a more
   consistent set of logs, covering an agreed set of conditions.  If the
   log-injecting compiler were used this would increase logging for
   those applications and improve the uniformity of logged activity.
   Increasing logging capabilities at the endpoint is necessary as the
   shift towards increased use of encrypted transport continues.  The
   lead for contact if interested to develop this further is Nalini
   Elkins.

4.4.4.  Fingerprinting

   Fingerprinting has been used for numerous applications on the web,
   including security, and will become of increasing importance with the
   deployment of stronger encryption.  This provides a method to
   identify traffic without using decryption.  The group discussed
   privacy considerations and balancing how you achieve the security
   benefits (identifying malicious traffic, information leakage, threat
   indicators, etc.).  They are interested to derive methods to validate
   the authenticity without identifying the source of traffic.  They are
   also concerned with scaling issues.  If interested to work further
   with this team, the lead contact is: William Weinstein.










Moriarty                  Expires 12 April 2021                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                CARIS2 Report                 October 2020


4.5.  Taxonomy and Gaps Session

   At the start of day 2, Kirsty Paine and Mirjam Kuhne prepared and
   Kirsty led a workshop style session to discuss taxonomies used in
   incident response, attacks, and threat detection, comparing solutions
   and identifying gaps.  The primary objective was to determine a path
   forward selecting language to be used in the proposed SMART group.
   Several taxonomies were presented for review and discussion.  The
   topic remains open, the following key points were highlighted by
   participants:

   *  A single taxonomy might not be the way to go, because which
      taxonomy you use depends on what problem you are trying to solve;
      e.g. attribution of the attack, mitigation steps, technical
      features or organizational impact measurements.

   *  A tool to map between taxonomies should be automated as there are
      requirements within groups or nations to use specific taxonomies.

   *  The level of detail needed for reporting to management and for the
      analyst investigating the incident can be very different.  At the
      workshop, one attendee mentioned that for management reporting
      they only use 8 categories to lighten the load on analysts,
      whereas some of the taxonomies contain 52 categories.

   *  How you plan to use the taxonomy matters and may vary between use
      cases.  Take for instance sharing data with external entities
      versus internal only.  The taxonomy selected depends on what you
      plan to do with it.  Some stated a need for attribute-based
      dynamic anthologies as opposed to rigid taxonomies used by others.
      A rigid taxonomy did not work for many from feedback in the
      session.

   *  [RFC4949] was briefly discussed as a possibility, however there is
      a clear need to update terminology in this publication around this
      space in particular.  This is likely to be raised in SAAG during
      open mic, hopefully with proposed new definitions to demonstrate
      the issue and evolution of terms over time.

   *  Within a taxonomy, prioritization matters to understand the impact
      of threats or an attack.  How do you map that between differing
      taxonomies? (problem to be solved; possible tooling required)









Moriarty                  Expires 12 April 2021                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                CARIS2 Report                 October 2020


   *  Attack attribution had varying degrees of interest.  Some felt the
      public sector cared more about attribution; not about individuals,
      but the possible motivations behind an attack and likely other
      victims based on these motivations.  Understanding if the source
      was an individual actor, organized crime, or a nation state
      mattered.

   The result of this discussion was not to narrow down to one taxonomy,
   but to think about mappings between taxonomies and the use cases for
   exchanging or sharing information, eventually giving rise to a common
   method to discuss threats and attacks.  Researchers need a common
   vocabulary, not necessarily a common taxonomy.

5.  Next Steps

   The next steps from the CARIS2 workshop are twofold.

   *  The research initiatives spawned from the second CARIS require
      further exploration and development.  Fostering this development
      and creating communities around each proposed project is the first
      step, with reports back out to the SMART mailing list.

   *  The second initiative will be planning for the next CARIS
      workshop.

6.  Summary

   Wrapping up the workshop, we reviewed the list of agreed projects to
   get a feel for actual interest as a follow up.  Through the course of
   the 2-day workshop, a larger set of potential research items had been
   generated, and this gave participants a chance to reassess
   commitments to better have them match expected outcomes.  The highest
   ranking projects in terms of interest to drive the ideas forward
   included the following:

   *  Traffic fingerprinting

   *  SNARC

   *  Attack coordination solutions/automated security

   *  Cryptographic Rendezvous

   *  L2 discovery







Moriarty                  Expires 12 April 2021                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                CARIS2 Report                 October 2020


7.  Security Considerations

   There are no security considerations as this is an informational
   workshop summary report.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

9.  Acknowledgements

   Thank you to each of the CARIS2 participants who brought their ideas,
   energy and willingness to collaborate to advance attack response at
   Internet scale.

   A big thank you to each member of the program committee for your
   review of program materials, papers, and guidance on the workshop
   format: Mat Ford, Internet Society, UK, Jamie Gillespie, APNIC, AU,
   Chris Inacio, CERT/CC, US, Mirja Kuhlewind, ETH Zurich, CH, Mirjam
   Kuhne, RIPE NCC, NL, Carlos Martinez, LACNIC, UY, Kathleen M.
   Moriarty, Dell EMC (Chair), Kirsty Paine, NCSC, UK, and Takeshi
   Takahashi, NICT, JP.

   Thank you to Megan Hyland, DellEMC, for her review and guidance on
   the breakout session format and tools to enable successful
   collaboration.

   Thank you to the minute takers, Akashaya Khare and Thinh Nguyen,
   DellEMC OCTO Cambridge Dojo team.

10.  References

10.1.  Informative References

   [RFC8073]  Moriarty, K. and M. Ford, "Coordinating Attack Response at
              Internet Scale (CARIS) Workshop Report", RFC 8073,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8073, March 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8073>.

   [RFC4949]  Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2",
              FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4949>.

   [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.





Moriarty                  Expires 12 April 2021                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                CARIS2 Report                 October 2020


   [RFC8548]  Bittau, A., Giffin, D., Handley, M., Mazieres, D., Slack,
              Q., and E. Smith, "Cryptographic Protection of TCP Streams
              (tcpcrypt)", RFC 8548, DOI 10.17487/RFC8548, May 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8548>.

   [RFC8520]  Lear, E., Droms, R., and D. Romascanu, "Manufacturer Usage
              Description Specification", RFC 8520,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8520, March 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8520>.

   [I-D.ietf-quic-transport]
              Iyengar, J. and M. Thomson, "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed
              and Secure Transport", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-quic-transport-31, 24 September 2020,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-transport-
              31>.

10.2.  URL References

   [CARISEvent]
              Internet Society, "CARIS Event Information and Accepted
              Papers https://www.internetsociety.org/events/caris2",
              2019.

   [I2NSF]    IETF, "Interface to Network Security Functions (i2nsf)
              https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/i2nsf/about".

   [defecit]  Morgan, S., "Cybersecurity Talent Crunch To Create 3.5
              Million Unfilled Jobs Globally By 2021
              https://cybersecurityventures.com/jobs/".

   [MISP]     MISP-project.org, "Malware Information Sharing Platform
              https://www.misp-project.org/", 2019.

   [SMART]    IRTF, "Stopping Malware and Researching Threats
              https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/smart/about/", 2019.

   [PlonkaBergerCARIS2]
              CARIS2, "CARIS2 Paper Submission,", 2019.

   [PlonkaBergerKIP]
              Arxiv, "kIP: a Measured Approach to IPv6 Address
              Anonymization https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.03900", 2017.

Author's Address






Moriarty                  Expires 12 April 2021                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                CARIS2 Report                 October 2020


   Kathleen M Moriarty
   Dell Technologies
   176 South Street
   Hopkinton, MA 01748
   United States

   Email: kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com












































Moriarty                  Expires 12 April 2021                [Page 17]
