Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.protocols.kerberos > #5253

RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

Show key headers only | View raw

At higher levels it falls under "Non Destructive testing".

-----Original Message-----
From: Brent Kimberley
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 12:12 PM
To: 'kerberos@mit.edu' <kerberos@mit.edu>; 'kenh@cmf.nrl.navy.mil' <kenh@cmf.nrl.navy.mil>
Subject: RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

This approach is taught in first year engineering.

-----Original Message-----
From: Brent Kimberley
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 12:10 PM
To: kerberos@mit.edu; kenh@cmf.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

Ken.
The term Frame of Reference is a Cyber Physical system (CPS) term.

For those who work in the cyber subset, the term is "interface".

Regardless of what you call it.

You take the system diagram and evaluate using each major interface or Frame of Reference.

The STIG or CIS benchmark is just one of the interfaces evaluated.


-------------

>Minor comment the CIS Benchmark appears to have been written from the
>system administrator's frame of reference - not the network frame of
>reference (FoR).  Typically, each frame of reference (FoR) needs to be
>audited.  Hence the need for automation.

I can only say this:

- I've been doing Kerberos for a few decades (but I'm certainly not the
  person with the most Kerberos experience on this list).
- I've done a ton of security accreditation work at my $DAYJOB, which
  also involves Kerberos.  As part of the accrediation work we (and
  others) do automated scanning that includes the Kerberos servers
  and this seems to satisfy the powers that be.  Some of the scanning
  seems to detect Kerberos but I am unclear how much it actually checks
  for other than "Kerberos is found".
- I've used the aforementioned CIS Benchmark.
- I really have no clue what you mean by "frame of reference" in this
  context, and this corresponds to no security accreditation or auditing
  requirements I have ever encountered so I cannot provide any
  suggestions; I'm really unclear what you are asking for.

--Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Brent Kimberley
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 3:24 PM
To: Christopher D. Clausen <cclausen@acm.org>; kerberos@mit.edu
Subject: RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

Minor comment the CIS Benchmark appears to have been written from the system administrator's frame of reference - not the network frame of reference (FoR).
Typically, each frame of reference (FoR) needs to be audited.  Hence the need for automation.

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher D. Clausen <cclausen@acm.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 2:10 PM
To: Brent Kimberley <Brent.Kimberley@Durham.ca>; kerberos@mit.edu
Subject: Re: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry

[You don't often get email from cclausen@acm.org. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

I have used this as a guide, but I think MIT Kerberos version 1.10 is the latest available:
https://www.cisecurity.org/benchmark/mit_kerberos

Not sure if this is what you are looking for or not.

<<CDC

On 2/14/2024 11:46 AM, Brent Kimberley via Kerberos wrote:
> Preferably something smaller and more focused than nmap or OpenSCAP. 😉




> > > > >
> From: Brent Kimberley
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 12:44 PM
> To: kerberos@mit.edu
> Subject: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry
>
> Hi.
> Can anyone point me to some methods to benchmark and/or audit Kerberos v5?
>
> For example, SSH:
>                 Manual
>                                Read the RFCs and specs.
>                Semi-automatic.
>                                jtesta/ssh-audit: SSH server & client security auditing (banner, key exchange, encryption, mac, compression, compatibility, security, etc) (github.com)<https://github.com/jtesta/ssh-audit/>
>                 Automatic
>                                SSH Configuration Auditor
> (ssh-audit.com)<http://ht/
> tps%3A%2F%2Fwww.ssh-audit.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7CBrent.Kimberley%40Durh
> am.ca%7C8eddde16708448e6cdb008dc2d907d49%7C52d7c9c2d54941b69b1f9da198d
> c3f16%7C0%7C0%7C638435345797172606%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4
> wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&s
> data=ydwY2y5%2FxuZxJavbNQw877yOmuFuVo3DktJr%2FdFA05A%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> TLS example upon request.

THIS MESSAGE IS FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) ONLY AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY, CONFIDENTIAL, AND/OR EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER ANY RELEVANT PRIVACY LEGISLATION. No rights to any privilege have been waived. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, re-transmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy, taking of action in reliance on or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify me by return e-mail and delete or destroy all copies of this message.

Back to comp.protocols.kerberos | Previous | Next | Find similar

Thread

RE: Protocol benchmarking / auditing inquiry Brent Kimberley <Brent.Kimberley@Durham.ca> - 2024-02-15 17:18 +0000

csiph-web