Inception: Secure By Default, Phase 1 (2004/368)
Submitter: Craig Payne
Owner: Gary Winiger
Interest: sbd-core@sun.com


SUMMARY
=======
* Project team will fix the issue so that the install screen points to the 
manual.
* Project team will provide more information on which ports are less opened.




ISSUES
======
jdc-1	Exactly which network-listening services are disabled?  Is it
	just the list in 20q13?  (Assume this list will be provided by
	commitment.)

* No, this is not just about the ON. The list that is given is the complete 
one though.
* Jim: YOu either completely rip the wire out of the wall or you know that 
there is a security issue here.
* EdG: What is the policy we're really trying to comply with?
   - We're trying to minimize outside attacks.


jdc-2	It doesn't sound like this delivers "by default" behavior,
	despite the name, and instead provides a profile.  Why
	shouldn't "no network" just be the system default?  (And do we
	really want yet another install-time question?)

* My understanding was that We cannot change the default in an update. If 
there is a way to change this, the project team is willing to make that 
change.
   - At install time, you can always choose this default profile...
   - This could change in Nevada.
* Jim: I don't like the install asking a bunch of useless questions...


jdc-3	What's a "hostile network," and how is success judged?

* Which ports are less opened?
   - The project team will provide this information for commitment.
* Jim: I would suggest to file bugs against Solaris.


jdc-4	20q4: are you coordinating with the network approachability
	group?  This project sounds like it treads on a lot of the
	same ground that a13y and install do.

* You need to talk with at least John Beck on this issue,
   - Gary contacted him already.


jdc-5	20q19: I'm not wild about conflating installation with
	configuration, as it just makes administration more
	difficult.  I see no problem with making rnet imply "no
	network," but it shouldn't be the only way to invoke the
	profile.

* The project team just wants to re-use the name...
   - Gary: Rather than creating a new name, the project team was going to 
re-use what is already there...

gw-0	What's changed since last time?  If this is phase 1, what's
	phase 2?

		Not much.  Last time was a rush to discuss what was
		happening with the project since it was thought that
		it would be pushed into S10 FCS.

		PSARC/2004/781 "generic_limited_net smf(5) profile,
		SBD Phase 0" did deliver a limited networking profile
		that could be chosen post install.

		Now it's ready for inception.  The case is not yet
		complete.

		Phase 2 or later allowing that selection not only for
		initial install, but also for Upgrade, having all
		Sun delivered software meet the requirements of
		installing and operating securely by default (not
		likely to be this I Team).

		This project is intended to stand on its own and
		have a patch release binding.

* This was answered by Gary.
   - Answer seems ok by project team.
* Shudong: what eventually will this become?
   - The traditional mode will probalby be provided. The administrator can 
choose between any of the profiles.
   - Install will allow you to pick which profiles to run.
   - This is not an irreversable decision. If the user decides to change 
their services, they can go ahead and enable those services.
* I would suggest that the project team come back to commitment about this 
on the install screen point to the manual.



gw-1	20Q#19 -- is this OK?

* I think that having 2 profiles would confuse customers...
   - Much more will be disabled in the limited profile. Philisophically, 
nothing is changing...


gw-2	20Q#10 -- ssh to allow root login.

* The project team kicked around whether or not to allow ssh and allow it to 
log in as root or not...the last position was to not allow it.
   - The project team should provide more information on this issue for 
commitment (finding and easier way of turning on root login)
   - Bill: I think that we should really consider remote root login as root 
install

gw-3	only 1 exported interface?  Install keyword.  What about
	any new FRMIs or properties or config files or profiles?
	What about the new install question?  What cases export
	them?

* This can be taken offline for discussion


gw-4	Nit LSARC/2004/811 "CDE daemons conversion to SMF" was
	mistakenly put back to the Nevada CDE consolidation.
	The case is not yet closed at LSARC.  When it does close,
	probably new/modified manifests and methods will replace
	those presently integrated.

wes-1 	How will you ensure that the "secure by default" property is
	preserved going forward?

* Maintaining secure by default?
   - Craig: ONe of the things that JES has been providing is the ability to 
audit the security stance on the machine. They are talking about adding 
properties...


wes-2	20Q8: "material improvement to RAS" question: are you sure it's "No"?
	Likewise for boot time.  Disabled services can't fail, and can't cause
	other services to fail.  Quantifying this is difficult.

* This is just a suggestion but quantifying this will be tricky.
   - This will be explained later.


wes-3 	How are we going to finish the project and secure-by-default the
	rest of the WOS?

* Everything on the DVD will be turned off by default.


wes-4 	What open ports will turn up in an external port scan?  What
	technical obstacles stand in the way of making the spurious
	false positives (e.g., rpcbind) go away?  Will portscan and
	other audit tools will be used to see if there's a measureable
	difference?  (Eliminating false positives from common audit
	tools is an exercise akin to making the kernel lint clean --
	many of the warnings are harmless, and making them go away
	often feels like make-work, but reducing the noise floor makes
	it easier to spot new ones..)

* Piggybacks on jdc-3


wes-5 	What's the default actually going to be?  i.e., if I take a
	jumpstart profile which works with the WOS as of before this project
	integrates, and use it with the WOS as of right after this project
	integrates, will I see a change?  If not, why not?

* For Nevada you get the SBD, for Solaris you don't.


sz-1	What about DHCP security for netinstall?

* Project team will look into this.



White Board:
------------
KB-1	Searing the net-boot: what mechanism? What boot?

* This will be put into the issues file.


KB-2	Reliance on ssh: how will the exposure and the initial...in the middle 
attack? By 	delivering an original trusted cert?

* My install is being read through the CD...
   - There would be a general install question here...


NEXT STEP
=========
* Project team will go back and resolve all issues.
