[CESG] Re: Results of CESG poll CESG-P-2015-10-003 Approval to publish CCSDS 350.1-G-2, Security Threats against Space Missions (Green Book, Issue 2)
CCSDS Secretariat
tomg at aiaa.org
Mon Dec 14 20:33:13 UTC 2015
Dear CESG Members:
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.
>From: "Weiss, Howard" <Howard.Weiss at parsons.com>
>To: "Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int" <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>, "Thomas
> Gannett" <tomg at aiaa.org>
>Subject: RE: Comment on CCSDS 350.1-G-2
>Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 15:21:28 +0000
>
>Gian Paolo
>
>Thank you!
>
>Howie
>
>
>
>----------
>Howard Weiss
>Technical Director
>
>PARSONS
>7110 Samuel Morse Drive
>Columbia, MD 21046
>443-430-8089 (office)
>410-262-1479 (cell)
>443-430-8238 (fax)
>howard.weiss at parsons.com
>www.parsons.com
>
>Please consider the environment before printing this message
>
>----------
>From: Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int [Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int]
>Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 9:31 AM
>To: Thomas Gannett
>Cc: Weiss, Howard
>Subject: Re: Comment on CCSDS 350.1-G-2
>
>Then Howie can go ahead with whatever he likes better :o)
>
>Condition solved for me.
>
>Ciao
>
>Gian Paolo
>
>
>
>From: "Thomas Gannett" <tomg at aiaa.org>
>To: <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>, "Weiss, Howard"
><Howard.Weiss at parsons.com>
>Cc: "Tom Gannett" <tomg at aiaa.org>
>Date: 08/12/2015 14:37
>Subject: Re: Comment on CCSDS 350.1-G-2
>
>
>
>
>Gian Paolo: "Is applicable to" and "can be applied to" are
>synonymous, so my opinion is that we should choose one. --Tom
>
>
>At 06:33 AM 12/8/2015, Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int wrote:
>Howie,
> I am surely not too strong for this, but I would rather prefer to say
>"This Informational Report can be applied..."
>
>I would like to know Tom's opinion too.
>
>Ciao
>
>Gian Paolo
>
>
>
>
>From: "Weiss, Howard" <Howard.Weiss at parsons.com>
>To: "Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int" <Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int>
>Cc: "Weiss, Howard" <Howard.Weiss at parsons.com>
>Date: 07/12/2015 21:22
>Subject: Comment on CCSDS 350.1-G-2
>
>
>
>
>Gian Paolo,
>
>I have received your comment on CCSDS 350.1-G-2 - Security Threats
>Against Space Missions.
>
>I fully understand that a Green Book is not prescriptive.
>
>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.
>
>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."
>
>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?
>
>Regards
>
>Howie
>
>
>
>----------
>Howard Weiss
>Technical Director
>
>PARSONS
>7110 Samuel Morse Drive
>Columbia, MD 21046
>443-430-8089 (office)
>410-262-1479 (cell)
>443-430-8238 (fax)
>howard.weiss at parsons.com
><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<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]
>
>From: "Weiss, Howard" <Howard.Weiss at parsons.com>
>To: "Mario.Merri at esa.int" <Mario.Merri at esa.int>
>CC: Peter Shames <peter.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>, "tomg at aiaa.org" <tomg at aiaa.org>
>Subject: RE: Comment on CCSDS 350.1-G-2
>Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 15:21:08 +0000
>
>Mario
>
>I will comply with your request.
>
>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.
>
>I have also cc'd Peter Shames and Tom Gannett for their comments.
>
>regards
>
>Howie
>
>
>
>----------
>Howard Weiss
>Technical Director
>
>PARSONS
>7110 Samuel Morse Drive
>Columbia, MD 21046
>443-430-8089 (office)
>410-262-1479 (cell)
>443-430-8238 (fax)
>howard.weiss at parsons.com
>www.parsons.com
>
>Please consider the environment before printing this message
>
>----------
>From: Mario.Merri at esa.int [Mario.Merri at esa.int]
>Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 2:52 AM
>To: Weiss, Howard
>Subject: Re: Comment on CCSDS 350.1-G-2
>
>Howard,
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>Thanks
>
>__Mario
>
>
>
>
>
>From: "Weiss, Howard" <Howard.Weiss at parsons.com>
>To: "mario.merri at esa.int" <mario.merri at esa.int>
>Cc: "Weiss, Howard" <Howard.Weiss at parsons.com>
>Date: 07/12/2015 21:05
>Subject: Comment on CCSDS 350.1-G-2
>
>
>
>
>Mario,
>
>I've received your comment fro the CESG poll on the new version of
>the Security Threats Against Space Missions (350.1-G-2).
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>Personally, I would prefer to leave the figure alone and add the
>words. What do you think?
>
>Regards
>
>Howie
>
>
>
>----------
>Howard Weiss
>Technical Director
>
>PARSONS
>7110 Samuel Morse Drive
>Columbia, MD 21046
>443-430-8089 (office)
>410-262-1479 (cell)
>443-430-8238 (fax)
>howard.weiss at parsons.com
><UrlBlockedError.htm>www.parsons.com
>From: Thomas Gannett [tomg at aiaa.org]
>Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 2:33 PM
>To: Weiss, Howard
>Cc: 'Keith Scott '
>Subject: RE: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 24 November 2015
>
>Howie:
>
. . .
>- 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;
>
>- for the first, if you mean "correct as it stands" rather than
>Keith is correct, I agree. I have CCed him. . . .
>
>(KEITH: The apparently ungrammatical word "threat" is actually the
>term defined in the singular. I think it is OK as it stands (in the
>context of the subsection), but if you like I can italicize it or something.)
. . . .
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Weiss, Howard
>[<mailto:Howard.Weiss at parsons.com>mailto:Howard.Weiss at parsons.com]
>Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 1:40 PM
>To: tomg at aiaa.org
>Subject: FW: [Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 24 November 2015
>
>Tom
>
>Regarding the comments I received on the Threat GB.....
. . .
>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.
>
>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:
>
> Abstain: 0 (0%)
>
> Approve Unconditionally: 4 (66.67%) (Shames, Scott, Suess, Barton)
>
> Approve with Conditions: 2 (33.33%) (Merri, Calzolari)
>
> Disapprove with Comment: 0 (0%)
>
>CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:
>
>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".
>
>Keith Scott (Approve Unconditionally): COMMENTS:
>
>Last sentence in 2.2
>
>This document will concentrate on primarily providing the reader
>with information on threat.
>
>Shouldn't this read '... on threats.'?
>
>======
>
>Section 2.4 page 2-3
>
>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.
>
>Should this really read 'section 0'?
>
>======
>
>I think there's an "ERROR!Reference source not found" in section 4.2
>(second paragraph)
>
>--keith
>
>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"
>
>Total Respondents: 6
>
>No response was received from the following Area(s):
>
>CSS
>
>SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS: Approved with Conditions
>
>PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION: Generate CMC poll after
>conditions have been addressed
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20151214/2d3c53da/attachment.html>
More information about the CESG
mailing list