<html>
<body>
Dear CESG Members:<br><br>
Conditions for approval to publish CCSDS 350.1-G-2, Security Threats
against Space Missions (Green Book, Issue 2) have been addressed to the
satisfaction of the ADs who posited them. The Secretariat will now
initiate CMC polling.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">From: "Weiss, Howard"
<Howard.Weiss@parsons.com><br>
To: "Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int"
<Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int>, "Thomas<br>
Gannett" <tomg@aiaa.org><br>
Subject: RE: Comment on CCSDS 350.1-G-2<br>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 15:21:28 +0000<br><br>
Gian Paolo<br><br>
Thank you!<br><br>
Howie<br><br>
<font size=2><br>
<hr>
</font>Howard Weiss<br>
<font size=1>Technical Director</font><br><br>
<font size=2>PARSONS</font><font size=1><br>
7110 Samuel Morse Drive<br>
Columbia, MD 21046<br>
443-430-8089 (office)<br>
410-262-1479 (cell)<br>
443-430-8238 (fax)<br>
howard.weiss@parsons.com<br>
<a href="http://www.parsons.com/" eudora="autourl">www.parsons.com</a><br>
<br>
Please consider the environment before printing this message</font><br>
<hr>
<font face="Tahoma" size=2><b>From:</b> Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int
[Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, December 08, 2015 9:31 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Thomas Gannett<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Weiss, Howard<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Comment on CCSDS 350.1-G-2<br>
</font><br>
<font size=2>Then Howie can go ahead with whatever he likes better
:o)</font> <br><br>
<font size=2>Condition solved for me.</font> <br><br>
<font size=2>Ciao</font> <br><br>
<font size=2>Gian Paolo</font> <br><br>
<br><br>
<font size=1 color="#5F5F5F">
From:
</font><font size=1>"Thomas Gannett"
<tomg@aiaa.org></font> <br>
<font size=1 color="#5F5F5F">
To:
</font><font size=1><Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int>, "Weiss,
Howard" <Howard.Weiss@parsons.com></font> <br>
<font size=1 color="#5F5F5F">
Cc:
</font><font size=1>"Tom Gannett" <tomg@aiaa.org></font>
<br>
<font size=1 color="#5F5F5F">
Date:
</font><font size=1>08/12/2015 14:37</font> <br>
<font size=1 color="#5F5F5F">
Subject:
</font><font size=1>Re: Comment on CCSDS 350.1-G-2</font> <br>
<br>
<br><br>
<br>
Gian Paolo: "Is applicable to" and "can be applied
to" are synonymous, so my opinion is that we should choose one.
--Tom<br><br>
<br>
At 06:33 AM 12/8/2015, Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int wrote: <br>
<font size=2>Howie,</font> <font size=2><br>
I am surely not too strong for this,
but I would rather prefer to say</font> <font face="Tahoma" size=2><br>
"This Informational Report can be applied..."</font> <br>
<font size=2><br>
I would like to know Tom's opinion too.</font> <br>
<font size=2><br>
Ciao</font> <br>
<font size=2><br>
Gian Paolo</font> <br><br>
<br><br>
<font size=1 color="#5F5F5F"><br>
From:
</font><font size=1>"Weiss, Howard"
<Howard.Weiss@parsons.com></font>
<font size=1 color="#5F5F5F"><br>
To:
</font><font size=1>"Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int"
<Gian.Paolo.Calzolari@esa.int></font>
<font size=1 color="#5F5F5F"><br>
Cc:
</font><font size=1>"Weiss, Howard"
<Howard.Weiss@parsons.com></font>
<font size=1 color="#5F5F5F"><br>
Date:
</font><font size=1>07/12/2015 21:22</font>
<font size=1 color="#5F5F5F"><br>
Subject:
</font><font size=1>Comment on CCSDS 350.1-G-2</font> <br><br>
<br><br>
<font face="Tahoma" size=2><br>
Gian Paolo,<br><br>
I have received your comment on CCSDS 350.1-G-2 - Security Threats
Against Space Missions.<br><br>
I fully understand that a Green Book is not prescriptive. <br><br>
However, I want to point out that the wording of that paragraph was
carried over without change from the existing, published version of the
Threat Green Book.<br><br>
I would also like to point out that the section you are commenting about
is titled "Applicability." Hence, the use of the word
"applicability" in the text. "Applicability"
does not imply that anything is mandatory. It simply means that it
is "relevant." Other related words are
"suitable," "appropriate," "valid,"
"related," "pertinent," "fitting," or
"proper."<br><br>
The latest Security WG GB published (Algorithms GB 350.9-G-1), in the
Applicability section says: "This Informational Report is applicable
to all CCSDS space missions with a requirement for information
confidentiality, authentication, or integrity." Would you be
agreeable if I changed "This document is applicable...." to
"This Informational Report is applicable..." in order to make
it more clear that nothing contained in the document is
mandatory?<br><br>
Regards<br><br>
Howie</font> <br>
<font face="Tahoma" size=2><br><br>
<hr>
<b>Howard Weiss</b></font><font face="Tahoma" size=1><br>
Technical Director</font><font face="Tahoma" size=2><b><br><br>
PARSONS</b></font><font face="Tahoma" size=1><br>
7110 Samuel Morse Drive<br>
Columbia, MD 21046<br>
443-430-8089 (office)<br>
410-262-1479 (cell)<br>
443-430-8238 (fax)<br>
howard.weiss@parsons.com</font><font face="Tahoma" size=1 color="#0000FF">
<u><br>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.parsons.htm&d=BQMBAg&c=Nwf-pp4xtYRe0sCRVM8_LWH54joYF7EKmrYIdfxIq10&r=dT3K0y3n0RD9-56k-UVMPMP98PIQRd2Kzfa-AwqQOww&m=yuIJmNoSJKnljqpBMuVormnTpqQs8Y7tNiv55xFM9lg&s=IsKtZpZda2qMaJTP4biV4QR5pG4euYymoYupmIvttKU&e=">
www.parsons.com</a></u></font>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.parsons.htm&d=BQMBAg&c=Nwf-pp4xtYRe0sCRVM8_LWH54joYF7EKmrYIdfxIq10&r=dT3K0y3n0RD9-56k-UVMPMP98PIQRd2Kzfa-AwqQOww&m=yuIJmNoSJKnljqpBMuVormnTpqQs8Y7tNiv55xFM9lg&s=IsKtZpZda2qMaJTP4biV4QR5pG4euYymoYupmIvttKU&e=">
[parsons.htm]</a><font face="Tahoma" size=1 color="#3F8080"><br><br>
</font>From: "Weiss, Howard"
<Howard.Weiss@parsons.com><br>
To: "Mario.Merri@esa.int" <Mario.Merri@esa.int><br>
CC: Peter Shames <peter.shames@jpl.nasa.gov>,
"tomg@aiaa.org" <tomg@aiaa.org><br>
Subject: RE: Comment on CCSDS 350.1-G-2<br>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 15:21:08 +0000<br><br>
Mario<br><br>
I will comply with your request.<br><br>
However, I'm very confused regarding the relationship of the
"London Agreement" with this issue. In no way are we
implying, advocating, or prescribing an architecture in the figure.
We are not overlapping with anything being done by CSTS or MOIMS.
It is simply meant to be illustrative.<br><br>
I have also cc'd Peter Shames and Tom Gannett for their
comments.<br><br>
regards<br><br>
Howie<br><br>
<font size=2><br>
<hr>
</font>Howard Weiss<br>
<font size=1>Technical Director</font><br><br>
<font size=2>PARSONS</font><font size=1><br>
7110 Samuel Morse Drive<br>
Columbia, MD 21046<br>
443-430-8089 (office)<br>
410-262-1479 (cell)<br>
443-430-8238 (fax)<br>
howard.weiss@parsons.com<br>
<a href="http://www.parsons.com/" eudora="autourl">www.parsons.com</a><br>
<br>
Please consider the environment before printing this message</font><br>
<hr>
<font face="Tahoma" size=2><b>From:</b> Mario.Merri@esa.int
[Mario.Merri@esa.int]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, December 08, 2015 2:52 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Weiss, Howard<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Comment on CCSDS 350.1-G-2<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>Howard,</font> <br><br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>as I said, we should avoid to
deliver architectural messages that are also in contradiction with the
"London Agreement". Therefore, I would prefer if you could just
leave the "wires" in the picture and remove the labels. This
should be a minimal effort task. Obviously, if you plan to add additional
text, you should not describe in words what you had removed from the
picture. I assume you will share with me your proposed final
solution.</font> <br><br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>If you are not aware of what the
"London Agreement" is, I attached below the 1 slide that
describes this agreement and that had been endorsed by CESG and CMC. This
will give you the perspective from where my comments are coming
from.</font> <br><br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>Thanks</font> <br><br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>__Mario</font> <br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<font size=1 color="#5F5F5F">
From:
</font><font size=1>"Weiss, Howard"
<Howard.Weiss@parsons.com></font> <br>
<font size=1 color="#5F5F5F">
To:
</font><font size=1>"mario.merri@esa.int"
<mario.merri@esa.int></font> <br>
<font size=1 color="#5F5F5F">
Cc:
</font><font size=1>"Weiss, Howard"
<Howard.Weiss@parsons.com></font> <br>
<font size=1 color="#5F5F5F">
Date:
</font><font size=1>07/12/2015 21:05</font> <br>
<font size=1 color="#5F5F5F">
Subject:
</font><font size=1>Comment on CCSDS 350.1-G-2</font> <br>
<br>
<br><br>
<br>
<font face="Tahoma" size=2>Mario,<br><br>
I've received your comment fro the CESG poll on the new version of the
Security Threats Against Space Missions (350.1-G-2).<br>
<br>
I understand your concern regarding SLE and FTP being shown on Figure
3.3. However, may I point out, the figure was actually carried over
from the existing, published version of 350.1-G although currently it
appears in Section 4.6 (page 4-12). The intent is to illustrate a
"real-life" cross support environment as can be seen by
"company A" and "company B" being shown. The
idea was to illustrate, as much as possible, how such a cross-support
environment could be affected by security issues. Since SLE and FTP
are really used, that's why they are in the illustration.<br><br>
I certainly could remove mention of SLE and FTP and just leave the
illustration with "wires" between the sites. But I could
also add more to the paragraph referencing the figure to state that its a
depiction of a real-life cross-support environment and how security
problems might affect it.<br><br>
Personally, I would prefer to leave the figure alone and add the
words. What do you think?<br><br>
Regards<br><br>
Howie</font> <br><br>
<font face="Tahoma" size=2><br>
<hr>
<b>Howard Weiss</b></font><font face="Tahoma" size=1><br>
Technical Director</font><font face="Tahoma" size=2><br>
<b><br>
PARSONS</b></font><font face="Tahoma" size=1><br>
7110 Samuel Morse Drive<br>
Columbia, MD 21046<br>
443-430-8089 (office)<br>
410-262-1479 (cell)<br>
443-430-8238 (fax)<br>
howard.weiss@parsons.com<br>
<a href="UrlBlockedError.htm">www.parsons.com</a><br>
</font></blockquote><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font face="Tahoma" size=2><b>
From:</b> Thomas Gannett [tomg@aiaa.org]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 07, 2015 2:33 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Weiss, Howard<br>
<b>Cc:</b> 'Keith Scott '<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 24 November
2015<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Howie:<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"></font></blockquote>. . .<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font face="Calibri">-</font>
<font face="Calibri">the second two are Word "gotcha" errors
that never show up until printing (but I failed nonetheless to go back
and check for them) and are my problem in any event;<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">- for the first, if you mean "correct as
it stands" rather than Keith is correct, I agree.</font>
<font face="Calibri">I have CCed him. . . .<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri" color="#FF0000">(KEITH:</font>
<font face="Calibri" color="#FF0000">The
apparently</font><font face="Calibri">
</font><font face="Calibri" color="#FF0000">ungrammatical
word</font><font face="Calibri">
</font><font face="Calibri" color="#FF0000">"threat"</font>
<font face="Calibri"> </font><font face="Calibri" color="#FF0000">is
actually the term defined in the</font><font face="Calibri">
</font><font face="Calibri" color="#FF0000">singular. I
think</font><font face="Calibri">
</font><font face="Calibri" color="#FF0000">it</font><font face="Calibri">
</font><font face="Calibri" color="#FF0000">is</font><font face="Calibri">
</font><font face="Calibri" color="#FF0000">OK as it stands (in the
context of the subsection), but if you like I can italicize it or
something.)<br>
</font></blockquote>. . . .<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font face="Calibri">
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Weiss, Howard
[<a href="mailto:Howard.Weiss@parsons.com">
mailto:Howard.Weiss@parsons.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 1:40 PM<br>
To: tomg@aiaa.org<br>
Subject: FW: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 24 November
2015<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Tom<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Regarding the comments I received on the Threat
GB.....<br>
</font></blockquote>. . .<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font face="Calibri">It appears
that two of Keith's issues are Word-related. The one about
"threat" vs. "threats" is correct since its
commenting on the section that also discusses risk and threat. <br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">CESG E-Poll Identifier: CESG-P-2015-10-003 Approval
to publish CCSDS 350.1-G-2, Security Threats against Space Missions
(Green Book, Issue 2) Results of CESG poll beginning 30 October 2015 and
ending 20 November 2015:<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">
Abstain: 0 (0%)<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> Approve Unconditionally: 4 (66.67%)
(Shames, Scott, Suess, Barton)<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> Approve with Conditions: 2 (33.33%)
(Merri, Calzolari)<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri"> Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Mario Merri (Approve with Conditions): Figure 3-3:
The ground connections between the Spacecraft Control Centre owned by
Agency A and the Instrument Control Centre owned by Agency B is indicated
to be SLE. Please remove SLE and put something like "Ground
Communications". Please do the same where "FTP" is
indicated. Despite these are only examples, we should avoid to deliver an
architectural message that is also in contradiction with the "London
Agreement".<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Keith Scott (Approve Unconditionally):
COMMENTS:<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Last sentence in 2.2<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">This document will concentrate on primarily
providing the reader with information on threat.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Shouldn't this read '... on threats.'?<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">======<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Section 2.4 page 2-3<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">The relationship between threat agents and mission
impacts is illustrated figure 2-2. A list of threats specifically
applicable to CCSDS mission infrastructures is presented and discussed in
section 0.<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Should this really read 'section 0'?<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">======<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">I think there's an "ERROR!Reference source not
found" in section 4.2 (second paragraph)<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">--keith<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Gian Paolo Calzolari (Approve with Conditions):
Statement "THIS DOCUMENT IS APPLICABLE TO MISSION PLANNERS FOR ALL
CCSDS COMPLIANT SPACE MISSIONS" cannot be included in a Green Book
as they support but not prescribe. Reword to e.g. "THIS DOCUMENT can
support MISSION PLANNERS FOR ALL CCSDS COMPLIANT SPACE
MISSIONS"<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">Total Respondents: 6<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">No response was received from the following
Area(s):<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">CSS<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:
Approved with Conditions<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Calibri">PROPOSED SECRETARIAT
ACTION:
Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed<br>
</font></blockquote><br>
</body>
</html>