[MOIMS-NAV-EXEC] FW: [EXTERNAL] CESG-P-2019-10-004 CESG Approval Poll

[Berry, David S (US 3920)]

All:  I forgot to add the WG on copy to this response to Peter Shames.

David


From: "Berry, David S (US 3920)" <david.s.berry at jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 at 12:33 AM
To: "Shames, Peter M (US 312B)" <peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: CCSDS Secretariat <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] CESG-P-2019-10-004 CESG Approval Poll




Peter:



Regarding Condition #1:  Yes, it is possible that an RDM could be tampered with, but as you point out this is a more general consideration within the CCSDS. When the Navigation WG discussed the prospect of adding a checksum, we came up with a couple of potential drawbacks to the approach. One thing that comes to mind is that if a checksum is computed on an XML version, and that message is converted to a KVN format, the checksum would likely no longer be valid. The use of a checksum is more often used to detect errors in transfer rather than tampering; someone knowledgeable of the content could re-engineer the checksum. There are other issues as well... We are not knowledgeable as to whether or not the CCSDS Security Working Group has any guidance on these matters.



Regarding Condition #2:  I propose to address Condition #2 by changing "in the registry" to "in any of the above listed registries" (there are 7, including the XML schema, 2 pre-existing registries, and 4 new registries, all of which are "Approved").



Please advise as to the acceptability of these responses to the conditions.



Best Regards,

David

Navigation WG









On 10/21/19, 2:26 AM, "CCSDS Secretariat" <thomas.gannett at tgannett.net> wrote:



    David:



    The CESG poll to approve publication of CCSDS 508.1-B-1, Re-entry

    Data Message (Blue Book, Issue 1) concluded with conditions. Please

    negotiate disposition of the conditions directly with the AD(s) who

    voted to approve with conditions and CC the Secretariat on all

    related correspondence.



    Tom







    >CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2019-10-004 Approval to publish

    >CCSDS 508.1-B-1, Re-entry Data Message (Blue Book, Issue 1)

    >Results of CESG poll beginning 4 October 2019 and ending 18 October 2019:

    >

    >                 Abstain:  1 (20%) (Calzolari)

    >Approve Unconditionally:  3 (60%) (Merri, Burleigh, Cola)

    >Approve with Conditions:  1 (20%) (Shames)

    >Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)

    >CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

    >

    >     Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions):   In Sec B.1.2, re

    > consequnce of not applying security, isn't it possible that an RDM

    > could be tampered with and there is no mechanism defined to detect

    > this?  This is surely a more general concern in CCSDS in general,

    > but the addition of a simple checksum, or a digital signature,

    > would provide a significant boost in data confidence.

    >

    >In sec B2, the last paragraph, there is the statement:

    >

    >    "The registration rule for new entries in the registry is the

    > approval of new requests by the CCSDS Area or Working Group

    > responsible for the maintenance of the RDM at the time of the request. "

    >

    >I am left wondering "new entries in which registry"?  AFAIK there is

    >no new registry specified in this document.  Is this intended to

    >reference the registry of the XML spec?  If so, that should be

    >clear.  Likewise any process for updating the spec and marking a new version.

    >

    >

    >Total Respondents:  5

    >

    >No response was received from the following Area(s):

    >

    >     CSS

    >     SOIS

    >

    >

    >

    >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/moims-nav-exec/attachments/20191023/ab2a35b1/attachment-0001.html>