[MFD] Re: Resource Service updates for Security

[MFD] Re: Resource Service updates for Security

[MFD] Re: Resource Service updates for Security

Ira McDonald blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Thu May 14 22:42:34 UTC 2009


Hi Bill,

Point well taken - it was NOT my intent to address security
issues in depth in MFD Model and Overview at all.

It's perspective.

The P2600 approaches (which are very fuzzy in details)
may be sufficient.  My point is that *if* they don't actually
RECOMMEND both antivirus and firewall on every MFD,
then they are NOT the best practice nor the best that can
be done.

Systems are responsible for their own integrity - period.

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
email: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
winter:
 579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176
 734-944-0094
summer:
 PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839
 906-494-2434


On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:10 PM, William Wagner <wamwagner at comcast.net>wrote:

>  I would suggest that the security issues of a Resource Service (and the
> Resource Service type aspects that may be within any hardcopy device) are a
> reasonable subject for the IDS group. At this point, my understanding is
> that we are doing a conceptual modeling of MDF Services. As such, we must
> recognize that there are security issues but it may not be reasonable to go
> into them to a detailed but  inevitably inadequate level.
>
>
>
> Indeed, one could argue at what point do we grind P2600 considerations into
> the models of all of the MFD services? If we decide it belongs in the
> Overall MFD discussion (which may be justifiable), I withdraw from being
> responsible for that document.
>
>
>
> Security issues need to be address (along with several other things), but I
> suggest that we establish the basic imaging model first.
>
>
>
> Bill Wagner
>
>
>
> *From:* mfd-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:mfd-bounces at pwg.org] *On Behalf Of *
> nchen at okidata.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2009 5:27 PM
> *To:* Ira McDonald
> *Cc:* mfd at pwg.org
> *Subject:* [MFD] Re: Resource Service updates for Security
>
>
>
>
> Hi Ira,
>
> I am not sure why Health Assessment does not detect a server that has been
> attacked and had its antivirus compromised. I certainly hope that the
> situation would have been detected before MFD needed to scan virus.
>
> What I want to say is that if a server has good security on guard, has
> antivirus, and Health Assessment, and MFD has its P2600 standard level of
> security on guard, then I don't think MFD's antivirus is that necessary.
>
> -Nancy
>
>
>   *Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com>*
>
> 05/14/2009 04:46 PM
>
> To
>
> nchen at okidata.com, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com>
>
> cc
>
> mfd at pwg.org
>
> Subject
>
> Re: Resource Service updates for Security
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Nancy,
>
> The MFD does NOT have access to the current Health Assessment
> for the upstream enterprise server - if that server has been attacked
> and had its antivirus compromised, then it behooves the MFD NOT
> to trust the firmware blindly - the essence of security is "trust nobody
> more than you have to" - desktops (and now mobile devices) need
> antivirus because sometimes the INFRASTRUCTURE systems get
> corrupted too.
>
> That was my point.
>
> If an MFD doesn't have sufficient free-standing self-defense, then
> sooner or later that MFD will be quarantined during Network
> Endpoint Attachment and Health Assessment by a site policy that
> doesn't accept the premise that "security is out-of-scope".
>
> Cheers,
> - Ira
>
> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
> email: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
> winter:
> 579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176
> 734-944-0094
> summer:
> PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839
> 906-494-2434
>
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:31 PM, <nchen at okidata.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Ira,
> >
> > I hope the enterprise server itself already has antivirus software that
> can
> > detect the corruption before MFD retrieve the file. Otherwise, the
> antivirus
> > does not work well on the enterprise server. If that's the case, what's
> the
> > use to install antivirus software on MFD then?
> >
> > -Nancy
> >
> >
> >
> >  *Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com>*
> >
> > 05/14/2009 04:09 PM
> >   To
> > nchen at okidata.com, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com>  cc
> > mfd at pwg.org  Subject
> > Re: Resource Service updates for Security
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Nancy,
> >
> > Right - my point is, after you verify the digital signature,
> > prudent security implementation is to SCAN the firmware
> > before making it your next boot image - what if the correct
> > digital signature comes from an enterprise server that has
> > ITSELF become corrupted?  Digital signature's no help.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > - Ira
> >
> > Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> > Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> > Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
> > email: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
> > winter:
> > 579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176
> > 734-944-0094
> > summer:
> > PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839
> > 906-494-2434
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:00 PM, <nchen at okidata.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Hi Ira,
> > >
> > > Yes, trusted path, with encryption and signature whenever necessary. In
> > > your case, you need to check the signature before executing.
> > >
> > > -Nancy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  *Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com>*
> > >
> > > 05/14/2009 02:55 PM
> > >   To
> > > nchen at okidata.com, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com>  cc
> > > mfd at pwg.org  Subject
> > > Re: Resource Service updates for Security
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Nancy,
> > >
> > > Trusted path for firmware merely means you know which
> > > upstream server was corrupted - at least, if you CHECK
> > > the content of the firmware before blindly executing it.
> > >
> > > And user scripts (and PostScript-like PDL jobs) can be
> > > highly effective Denial-of-Service attacks (by crashing the
> > > entire MFD or just the Print Service) unless scanned by
> > > antivirus/antimalware tools.
> > >
> > > Those are real threats.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > - Ira
> > >
> > > Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> > > Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> > > Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
> > > email: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
> > > winter:
> > > 579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176
> > > 734-944-0094
> > > summer:
> > > PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839
> > > 906-494-2434
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:42 PM, <nchen at okidata.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Ira,
> > > >
> > > > P2600 covers the security threats that you mentioned here.
> > > >
> > > > In short, firmware update must be through trusted path.
> > > >
> > > > User's document if needed (depending on site security requirement),
> > must
> > > be
> > > > protected from disclosure and/or alteration.
> > > >
> > > > There are many techniques to protect document disclosure and
> > alteration.
> > > We
> > > > think the best techniques to prevent from disclosure is by
> encryption,
> > to
> > > > detect alteration is by signing digital signature.
> > > >
> > > > Many MFPs today do not have these security in place, but they will
> > > > eventually when they comply to the security standard.
> > > >
> > > > -Nancy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  *Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com>*
> > > >
> > > > 05/14/2009 01:56 PM
> > > >   To
> > > > nchen at okidata.com, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com>  cc
> > > > mfd at pwg.org  Subject
> > > > Re: Resource Service updates for Security
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Nancy,
> > > >
> > > > OK - I'm fascinated.
> > > >
> > > > What conceivable system security could replace the
> > > > need for onboard antivirus software?
> > > >
> > > > Especially given that many MFDs now update firmware
> > > > via a "special" Print Job - and do NOT have digitally
> > > > signed firmware packages with an unbroken, network-
> > > > accessible chain of authority to a major public Certificate
> > > > Authority.
> > > >
> > > > Certainly scripts and macros invoked in ordinary
> > > > Print Jobs are very easily corrupted - users create
> > > > them, so they aren't digitally signed - verification of
> > > > source does NOT remove the need for verification
> > > > that the source system was not in fact corrupted.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > - Ira
> > > >
> > > > Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> > > > Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> > > > Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
> > > > email: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
> > > > winter:
> > > > 579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176
> > > > 734-944-0094
> > > > summer:
> > > > PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839
> > > > 906-494-2434
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:54 AM, <nchen at okidata.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Ira,
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't seen any security certification requirement that requires
> > > > onboard
> > > > > antivirus on MFP yet.  Not sure what's the basis of your
> prediction.
> > > > > Antivirus software vendors of course will try to push their
> products
> > on
> > > > any
> > > > > platform. If you have not implemented MFP security standard,
> properly
> > > > > configure the system to secure it, antivirus might be a good idea
> to
> > > > have.
> > > > > But once you have proper security instrumented, antivirus is not
> that
> > > > > critical. It's nice to have of course.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Nancy
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  *Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com>*
> > > > >
> > > > > 05/13/2009 06:20 PM
> > > > >   To
> > > > > nchen at okidata.com, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com>  cc
> > > > > mfd at pwg.org  Subject
> > > > > Re: Resource Service updates for Security
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Nancy,
> > > > >
> > > > > Several vendors currently offer MFDs that incorporate virus
> > > > > scanning of all files and executable modules and that CAN
> > > > > integrate into enterprise antivirus update schemes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyway, it was only an EXAMPLE (not a requirement) - though
> > > > > I think you will find that network endpoint attachment protocols
> > > > > and architectures are ALL going to require that you certify
> > > > > that you have healthy onboard antivirus on your MFD in the
> > > > > very near future.
> > > > >
> > > > > MFDs running Linux or other general-purpose operating systems
> > > > > are just too dangerous anymore without antivirus (or firewalls).
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > - Ira
> > > > >
> > > > > Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> > > > > Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> > > > > Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
> > > > > email: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
> > > > > winter:
> > > > > 579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176
> > > > > 734-944-0094
> > > > > summer:
> > > > > PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839
> > > > > 906-494-2434
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 5:49 PM, <nchen at okidata.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Ira,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree that
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The threat is EXECUTING those Resources on an Imaging
> > > > > > System (the one hosting the Resource Service or ANY other
> > > > > > Imaging System) or even a desktop client system."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The Resource Service spec should NOT say anything,
> > > > > > anywhere about internal versus external storage and
> > > > > > should NEVER reference a Resource Repository."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But I don't think "virus scan" is practical for an Imaging System
> > > like
> > > > an
> > > > > > MFD or HCD to verify whether the stored or retrieved Executable
> > > > Resources
> > > > > is
> > > > > > safe to execute. There are many other techniques to verify the
> > > > integrity
> > > > > of
> > > > > > these type of resources that are more practical for an MFD or
> HCD.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Did I misunderstand something?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Nancy
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  *Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com>*
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 05/13/2009 05:01 PM
> > > > > >   To
> > > > > > nchen at okidata.com, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com>
> > > > > >  cc
> > > > > > mfd at pwg.org  Subject
> > > > > > Re: Resource Service updates for Security
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Nancy,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Internal or external storage of the Resouces has NOTHING to
> > > > > > do with the security threat in 11.4 below.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The threat is EXECUTING those Resources on an Imaging
> > > > > > System (the one hosting the Resource Service or ANY other
> > > > > > Imaging System) or even a desktop client system.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Resource Service spec should NOT say anything,
> > > > > > anywhere about internal versus external storage and
> > > > > > should NEVER reference a Resource Repository.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Every reference in 11.1 through 11.3 to Resource
> > > > > > Repository should be deleted.  Users do NOT know
> > > > > > where a Resource Service stores things - if a vendor
> > > > > > does such an extension, then that vendor has broken
> > > > > > good security practice in their system design and
> > > > > > will justifiably fail independent security audits.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Resource Service is completely responsible *on its
> > > > > > own* for every Resource that it stores (anywhere) or allows
> > > > > > an authenticated user to retrieve (from the Resource
> > > > > > Service, that is).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any network system that hosts a Resource Service
> > > > > > is, by definition, an Imaging System - it may not be
> > > > > > dedicated (single-purpose), but it's still an Imaging
> > > > > > System.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Another way of putting it is that "Imaging System"
> > > > > > is NOT simply a synonym for "Multifunction Device"
> > > > > > - it's a wider definition that includes Spoolers and
> > > > > > network server-hosted Imaging Services.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > - Ira
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> > > > > > Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> > > > > > Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
> > > > > > email: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
> > > > > > winter:
> > > > > > 579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176
> > > > > > 734-944-0094
> > > > > > summer:
> > > > > > PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839
> > > > > > 906-494-2434
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:16 PM, <nchen at okidata.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Ira,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the text for the Security Consideration.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here are something I need to clarify, and some comments.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 11.4  - Security Threats from Executable Resources
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's not clear to me whether the security problem described
> here
> > is
> > > > for
> > > > > -
> > > > > > > 1) storing Executable Resources at an external storage location
> > > that
> > > > > > > involves an external system for storing the resource, and the
> > > > Resource
> > > > > > > Service is hosted by an Imaging System. Or,
> > > > > > > 2) storing Executable Resources internally within the Imaging
> > > System
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > hosts the Resource Service.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In both cases the security threat is to the Imaging System.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If it's case 1) - I agree that the external system "SHOULD
> verify
> > > the
> > > > > > > safety of such resources (e.g., by virus scanning)". But we
> > agreed
> > > in
> > > > > > last
> > > > > > > face-to-face meeting that it's out of scope of Resource Service
> > to
> > > > > > consider
> > > > > > > anything related to the external storage system. What Resource
> > > > Service
> > > > > > > should consider is the restriction of the storage and retrieval
> > > > > > operations
> > > > > > > on such resources to authorized users. How the external storage
> > > > system
> > > > > > > should protect the stored executable resources is out of scope.
> > > > > Although
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > prefer to recommend some security objectives to be considered
> by
> > > the
> > > > > > > external storage system.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If it's case 2) - I don't think we should give "virus scanning"
> > as
> > > an
> > > > > > > example to an Imaging System to protect the stored Executable
> > > > > Resources.
> > > > > > > Virus scanning or intrusion detection techniques are common in
> > PCs,
> > > > but
> > > > > > > rarely existent in Imaging Systems. It's simply not that
> > practical
> > > > for
> > > > > an
> > > > > > > Imaging System to have such software implemented which involves
> > > > > constant
> > > > > > > maintenance of upto-date virus signatures by external systems.
> At
> > > the
> > > > > > > abstract level, we can provide some good security objectives to
> > > > > consider
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > the Imaging System, such as protection of confidentiality and
> > > > integrity
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the resources and their related metadata. Like case 1), the
> > storage
> > > > and
> > > > > > > retrieval of operations on such resources must to restricted to
> > > > > > authorized
> > > > > > > users.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A Resource Service could be hosted by a computer remote to the
> > > > Imaging
> > > > > > > System that is under security consideration. We should consider
> > > this
> > > > > case
> > > > > > > too.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 11.5 - Security Threats from Static Resources
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Static resources that have associated Intellectual Property
> > rights
> > > or
> > > > > > > license rights that involves metadata such as
> > DateTimeOfExpiration
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > should also be protected for alteration. Therefore, not only
> > > storage
> > > > or
> > > > > > > retrieval operations on Resources must be restricted, other
> > > > operations
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > resource metadata must be restricted too.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Aslo the security problem you described here is for storing
> > Static
> > > > > > > Resources internally in an Imaging System that hosts the
> Resource
> > > > > > Service.
> > > > > > > We should also consider the case when the Resource Service
> could
> > be
> > > > > > hosted
> > > > > > > by a computer remote to the Imaging System.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > -Nancy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > Principal Engineer
> > > > > > > Solutions and Technology
> > > > > > > Oki Data
> > > > > > > 2000 Bishops Gate Blvd.
> > > > > > > Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054
> > > > > > > Phone: (856) 222-7006
> > > > > > > Email: nchen at okidata.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  *Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com>*
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 05/12/2009 03:15 PM
> > > > > > >   To
> > > > > > > mfd at pwg.org, NancyChen <nchen at okidata.com>, Ira McDonald <
> > > > > > > blueroofmusic at gmail.com>  cc
> > > > > > >   Subject
> > > > > > > Resource Service updates for Security
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Nancy,                                          Tuesday (12
> > May
> > > > > 2009)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Per my action from the Resource Service review during the April
> > PWG
> > > > > > > meeting, below is some text for the Security Considerations
> > section
> > > > of
> > > > > > > the Resource Service.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 11.4 Security Threats from Executable Resources
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Resources with a ResourceCategory of 'Executable' MUST be
> handled
> > > > with
> > > > > > > special care by implementations of the Resource Service.  Such
> > > > > resources
> > > > > > > can pose serious threats to the integrity of the Imaging System
> > > that
> > > > > > > hosts the Resource Service.  In particular, such Resources can
> be
> > > > used
> > > > > > > to introduce Trojan Horses to the Imaging System.  If an
> > > > implementation
> > > > > > > of the Resource Service supports Executable resources, then
> that
> > > > > > > implementation MUST restrict the storage of such resources
> (e.g.,
> > > to
> > > > > > > authorized administrators and manufacturers) and SHOULD verify
> > the
> > > > > > > safety of such resources (e.g., by virus scanning).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 11.5 Security Threats from Static Resources
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Resources with ResourceCategory of 'Static' SHOULD be treated
> > with
> > > > > > > special care by implementations of the Resource Service.  Fonts
> > > that
> > > > > > > have associated Intellectual Property rights (e.g., as part of
> > > their
> > > > > > > network licenses) can pose serious threats to the availability
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > > Imaging System that hosts the Resource Service - security
> audits
> > > can
> > > > > > > result in the shutdown or physical removal of the Imaging
> System.
> > >  If
> > > > > an
> > > > > > > implementation of the Resource Service supports Static
> resources
> > > that
> > > > > > > have associated Intellectual Property rights, then that
> > > > implementation
> > > > > > > SHOULD restrict the storage of such resources (e.g., to
> > authorized
> > > > > > > administrators and manufacturers) and SHOULD restrict the
> > retrieval
> > > > of
> > > > > > > such resources (e.g., to a configured group of authorized
> users).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Comments?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > - Ira
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> > > > > > > Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> > > > > > > Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
> > > > > > > email: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
> > > > > > > winter:
> > > > > > > 579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176
> > > > > > > 734-944-0094
> > > > > > > summer:
> > > > > > > PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839
> > > > > > > 906-494-2434
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
>

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/mfd/attachments/20090514/ef86fca4/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the mfd mailing list