Slide1 l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 41

Promoting Web services interoperability across platforms, applications and programming languages PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 100 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Promoting Web services interoperability across platforms, applications and programming languages. Paul Cotton, Microsoft June, 2004. Introduction WS-I goals WS-I organization and deliverables Web services security standards OASIS WS-Security TC WS-I Basic Security Profile Working Group

Download Presentation

Promoting Web services interoperability across platforms, applications and programming languages

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Slide1 l.jpg

Promoting Web services interoperability across platforms,

applications and programming languages

Paul Cotton, Microsoft

June, 2004


Outline l.jpg

Introduction

WS-I goals

WS-I organization and deliverables

Web services security standards

OASIS WS-Security TC

WS-I Basic Security Profile Working Group

WS-I Security Scenarios

WS-I Basic Security Profile 1.0

Questions

Outline


The context l.jpg

The shift to Web services is underway

An Internet-native distributed computing model based on XML standards has emerged

Early implementations are solving problems today and generating new requirements

The Web services standards stack is increasing in size and complexity to meet these requirements

The fundamental characteristic of Web services is interoperability

THE CONTEXT


The challenge l.jpg

“[the] architecture of Web services is not fully crystallized. Without guidance, standards may fragment”

Gartner

“Inevitably, companies involved with Web services will define them in their own way. The term Web services will be a messy catchall phrase.”

Intelligent Enterprise

“standards…allow Web services to overcome the barriers of different programming languages, operating systems, and vendor platforms so multiple applications can interact.”

eWeek

THE CHALLENGE


The opportunity l.jpg

HTTP, HTML

XML

Web Services

THE OPPORTUNITY

Market Impact

199519971999200120032005

WS-I formed


What is needed l.jpg

Guidance

A common definition for Web services

Implementation guidance and support for Web services adoption

Interoperability

Across platforms, applications, and languages

Consistent, reliable interoperability between Web services technologies from multiple vendors

A standards integrator to help Web services advance in a structured, coherent manner

WHAT IS NEEDED?


Goals l.jpg

Achieve Web services interoperability

Across platforms, applications and languages

Encourage Web services adoption

Among customers, industries and end users

Accelerate Web services deployment

GOALS


Achieve interoperability l.jpg

Promote a common, clear definition for Web services

Integrate specifications from various standards bodies

Provide a visible representation of conformance through use of WS-I logo

ACHIEVE INTEROPERABILITY


Encourage adoption l.jpg

Build industry consensus to reduce early adopter risks

Provide a forum for end users to communicate requirements

Act as a customer advocate to raise awareness of business requirements

ENCOURAGE ADOPTION


Accelerate deployment l.jpg

Offer implementation guidance and best practices

Deliver tools and sample applications

Provide a forum for Web services developers to collaborate and share expertise

ACCELERATE DEPLOYMENT


Organization l.jpg

Board of directors

Management and administration body

Ensure the organization and its working groups adhere to their defined scope

Working groups

Develop materials and other deliverables to aid Web services interoperability

Membership

Vote to approve adoption and distribution of any materials developed by the working groups

ORGANIZATION


Technical working groups l.jpg

Basic Profile

Chris Ferris, IBM

Scenarios and Sample Applications

Marc Goodner, SAP

Testing Tools and Materials

Narendra Patil, Optimyz Software

Basic Security Profile

Paul Cotton, Microsoft

Requirements Gathering

Rimas Rekasius, IBM

TECHNICAL WORKING GROUPS


Working group deliverables l.jpg

Profiles

Named groups of specifications at given version levels with conventions about how they work together

Use cases and usage scenarios

Solution scenarios based on customer requirements

Sample code and applications

Test suites and supporting materials

Conformance testing tools

Supporting documentation and white papers

WORKING GROUP DELIVERABLES


Sample deliverables l.jpg

usage scenarios

profiles

use cases

SAMPLE DELIVERABLES

sample

applications

scenarios and sample applications

web services

basic profile

testing

tools

other test

materials

testing tools

and materials


Profiles l.jpg

Provide guidance on general purpose Web services functionality

Address interoperability at a level above specification-by-specification

Supporting specifications and standards will be considered from multiple industry sources

Profile development will reflect market needs and requirements

PROFILES


Use of deliverables l.jpg

The public is free (and encouraged) to

Download, use, and review each Profile

Download and use test tools and material to test their applications

Download, use, modify, and redistribute WS-I sample applications

Adopters may (in addition to the above)

Reproduce and redistribute specifications with their products

Members may (in addition to all of the above)

Ship test tools and material (as is or modified) within their products

USE OF DELIVERABLES


Key milestones l.jpg

Delivered Basic Profile 1.0 (Aug, 2003)

Profile of SOAP 1.1, WSDL 1.1, UDDI 2.0

Delivered Sample Applications 1.0 (Dec, 2003)

Delivered Basic Profile 1.1, Attachments Profile 1.0 and Simple SOAP Binding Profile 1.0 Working Group Drafts (Dec, 2003)

Reorganization of Basic Profile 1.0

Profile of SOAP with Attachments

Delivered Security Scenarios Working Group Draft (Feb, 2004)

Delivered Testing Tools 1.0 (Mar, 2004)

Delivered Basic Security Profile Working Draft (May, 2004)

Future

Final materials on BP 1.1, AP 1.0, SSBP 1.0

Final materials on BSP 1.0

More Testing and Sample Apps materials

KEY MILESTONES


Ws i and standards bodies l.jpg

Web services standards come from a variety of bodies

W3C, OASIS, IETF, ISO, ECMA, etc.

WS-I is a standards integrator

Downstream from standards organizations

Upstream from industry and industry consortia

Ensure interoperability of implementations

Collaboration with other bodies is a requirement

WS-I AND STANDARDS BODIES


Ws i standards and industry l.jpg

WS-I, STANDARDS AND INDUSTRY

Standards and

Specifications

Requirements

Implementation

Guidance

Requirements

Businesses, Industry Consortia, Developers, End-Users


Ws i and standards bodies20 l.jpg

Support relationships with standards bodies who own specifications referenced by WS-I profiles

Ensure consistency

Minimize redundancy

Foster communication and cooperation with industry consortia and other organizations

WS-I AND STANDARDS BODIES


Web services security standards l.jpg

XKMS

SAML

XACML

SPML

WEB SERVICES SECURITY STANDARDS

WS-SecureConversation

WS-Federation

WS-Authorization

WS-Policy

WS-Trust

WS-Privacy

WS-Security

XMLDigitalSignature

SOAP Foundation

XMLEncryption


Oasis ws security tc l.jpg

OASIS WS SECURITY TC

  • OASIS Web Services Security TC created September, 2002

  • Interoperability testing Summer 2003

  • Voted Committee Draft September, 2003

    • Core specification plus Username and X.509 tokens

  • Public Review completed October, 2003

  • Adopted as OASIS standard in January, 2004

  • REL (XRML) token type voted CD June, 2004

  • Other token types under interoperability testing

    • Kerberos, SAML, etc.


Oasis wss l.jpg

OASIS WSS

  • Security Header

    • Can contain mustUnderstand

    • Can be addressed to Role

  • Tokens

    • Associated with signature or encryption or otherwise used to identify party to message exchange

    • Binary Token - encapsulates binary object

      • X.509 certificate – defined by ITU/IETF

      • Kerberos ticket – defined by IETF/Microsoft

    • XML Token – inserted as is

      • Username Token – defined by OASIS WSS TC

      • SAML Assertion – defined by OASIS SS TC

      • REL (XrML License) – defined by ContentGuard


Oasis wss24 l.jpg

OASIS WSS

  • Security Token Reference

    • Points to or encapsulates a token

    • Four types

      • Direct – URI or URI fragment

      • Key Identifier – specific to token type – identifies key, certificate, ticket, assertion, etc.

      • Key Name – identifies token by content, e.g. SubjectName

      • Embedded – encapsulates token, allows association of additional information with token

  • Signature element

    • New transform - STR Dereference Transform

  • Encryption ReferenceList or EncryptedKey elements

  • Timestamp element

    • Only applies to security mechanisms

    • Created and/or Expires


Ws i basic security profile wg l.jpg

WS-I BASIC SECURITY PROFILE WG

  • BSP WG chartered in March, 2003

  • Two initial deliverables

    • Security Scenarios

    • Basic Security Profile 1.0

      • Based of Basic Profile 1.0 and the following technologies:

        • HTTP over TLS

        • SOAP with Attachments

        • WSS and X.509, username & Kerberos tokens

    • Complete by 9 months after WSS is Committee Draft (Sep, 2003)

  • Large WG with over 20 active member companies


Security scenarios working draft l.jpg

SECURITY SCENARIOS WORKING DRAFT

  • Security Challenges

  • Threats

  • Security Solutions and Mechanisms

    • Transport Layer & Message (SOAP) Layer

  • Scenarios

    • Generic Requirements (no scenario-specific ones yet)

    • Scenarios (From WS-I Sample Applications)

      • One-way

      • Synchronous Request/Response

      • Basic Callback

      • Others?

  • Feb 2004 draft for public comment

    • http://ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicSecurity/2004-02/SecurityScenarios-0.15-WGD.pdf


Security scenario sections l.jpg

Threats

Challenges

Mechanisms

Scenarios

SECURITY SCENARIO SECTIONS


Threats in scope l.jpg

THREATS – IN SCOPE

  • In scope

    • Message Alteration

    • Attachment Alteration

    • Confidentiality

    • Falsified Messages

    • Man in the Middle

    • Principal Spoofing

    • Repudiation

    • Forged Claims

    • Replay of Message Parts

    • Replay

    • Denial of Service - Amplifier


Threats out of scope l.jpg

THREATS – OUT OF SCOPE

  • Out of Scope

    • Key Attack / Weak Algorithm

    • Traffic Analysis

    • Host Penetration / Access

    • Network Penetration / Access

    • Timing

    • Covert Channels

    • Message Archives

    • Network Spoofing

    • Trojan Horse

    • Virus

    • Tunneling

    • Denial of Service - Other


Security solutions and mechanisms l.jpg

SECURITY SOLUTIONS AND MECHANISMS

  • Integrity, Confidentiality, Authentication, Attributes

  • Transport Layer (HTTP/HTTPS)

    • HTTP & SSL/TLS mechanisms

  • Message Layer

    • WSS mechanisms

  • Combinations

    • Large number of theoretically possible combinations

    • Identified nine believed to be of practical utility

  • Security Considerations

    • Properties, Threats addressed, Limitations


Security challenges l.jpg

SECURITY CHALLENGES

  • Peer Identification and Authentication

  • Data Origin Identification and Authentication

  • Data Integrity

    • Transport Data Integrity

    • SOAP Message Integrity

  • Data Confidentiality

    • Transport Data Confidentiality

    • SOAP Message Confidentiality

  • Message Uniqueness

  • Out of Scope

    • Credentials Issuance


Scenarios l.jpg

SCENARIOS

  • Notations and conventions

  • Generic requirements

    • Peer Authentication

    • Integrity

    • Confidentiality

    • Origin Authentication

  • Scenario descriptions

    • One-Way

    • Synchronous Request / Response

    • Basic Callback

    • Others?


Security scenarios current work l.jpg

SECURITY SCENARIOS - CURRENT WORK

  • How to secure SOAP with Attachments used by Attachment Profile 1.0?

  • WG Charter originally proposed S/MIME

  • WG has decided that it is better to extend Web Services Security to handle AP 1.0

  • OASIS WSS TC now working on a proposed solution

  • Final Security Scenarios expected in Aug, 2004


Ws i basic security profile bsp 1 0 l.jpg

WS-I BASIC SECURITY PROFILE (BSP) 1.0

  • Guiding principles of profile design

    • No guarantee of interoperability

    • Focus profiling effort

    • Application semantics

    • Testability

    • Strength of requirements

    • Restriction vs. relaxation

    • Multiple mechanisms

    • Future compatibility

    • Compatibility with deployed services

    • Focus on interoperability

    • Conformance targets

    • Do no harm


Ws i basic security profile bsp 1 035 l.jpg

WS-I BASIC SECURITY PROFILE (BSP) 1.0

  • Methodology

    • Reviewed WSS Documents (WSS core, username, X.509)

      • Comments to WSS TC

      • Generated potential profiling points (captured as issues)

    • Reviewed underlying documents

      • IETF RFCs covering TLS

      • XML Signature, XML Encryption

  • Identified 90+ potential profiling points by looking for anything other than MUST (e.g. optionality in spec)

  • Many have since been dropped

  • First public WD published May, 2004

    • http://ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicSecurityProfile-1.0-2004-05-12.html


Bsp 1 0 questions and answers l.jpg

BSP 1.0 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

  • Cover SSL?

    • Yes, mentioned in WS-I Basic Profile 1.0

  • Address SOAP Intermediaries?

    • Yes, must be considered because of security implications

  • What will document look like?

    • Identify constraints by category, as in Basic Profile

  • If and how to handle security considerations?

    • Added security considerations section even though it is not testable

  • One profile or several?

    • BSP 1.0 will be one document

    • Subsequent token profiles can be published separately

  • How to secure Attachment Profile 1.0?

    • Decided to use WSS and to request OASIS TC to do this work


Example requirement l.jpg

EXAMPLE REQUIREMENT

4. Transport Layer Security

This section of the Profile incorporates the following specifications by reference, and defines extensibility points within them:

  • HTTP over TLSExtensibility points:

    • E0001 - Ciphersuites - Additional ciphersuites may be specified.

      4.1 SSL and TLS

      The following specifications (or sections thereof) are referred to in this section of the Profile;

      HTTP over TLS: Section 2.2.1

      SSL and TLS are both used as underlying protocols for HTTP/S. This profile places the following constraints on those protocols:

      4.1.1 Use of SSL 2.0

      SSL 2.0 has known security issues and all current implementations of HTTP/S support more recent protocols. Therefore this profile prohibits use of SSL 2.0.

      R2001 A SENDER MUST NOT use SSL 2.0 as the underlying protocol for HTTP/S

      R2002 A RECEIVER MUST NOT use SSL 2.0 as the underlying protocol for HTTP/S


Other bsp 1 0 deliverables l.jpg

usage scenarios

profile

use cases

OTHER BSP 1.0 DELIVERABLES

sample

applications

scenarios and sample applications

web services

basic security profile

testing

tools

other test

materials

testing tools

and materials


Testing and demonstrating bsp 1 0 l.jpg

TESTING AND DEMONSTRATING BSP 1.0

  • How to test Basic Security Profile 1.0?

    • BP 1.0 Testing Tools used a man in the middle testing strategy

    • Will this work for BSP 1.0 since one of its objectives is to stop man in the middle attacks?

    • What level does the testing take place at?

      • Highest level message syntax?

      • After parts of the message have been decrypted?

  • BSP sample applications and usage scenarios

    • Based on sample application for BP 1.0 adding security aspects


Future work plans l.jpg

FUTURE WORK PLANS

  • Security Scenarios

    • Add text for attachments using WSS

    • Final material ETA: Aug, 2004

  • Basic Security Profile 1.0

    • Small number of issues pending work by OASIS TC

    • Add text for attachments using WSS pending work by OASIS TC

    • Final material ETA: Sep, 2004

  • Additional token profiles

    • Candidates include Kerberos, REL, SAML

    • Depends on progress by OASIS TC

    • Final material ETA: Nov, 2004


Questions l.jpg

QUESTIONS

  • Today

  • Later

    • mailto:[email protected]

  • Comments on BSP documents

    • mailto:[email protected]

  • Security Scenarios published Feb, 2004

    • http://ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicSecurity/2004-02/SecurityScenarios-0.15-WGD.pdf

  • BSP 1.0 WD published May, 2004

    • http://ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicSecurityProfile-1.0-2004-05-12.html


  • Login