Federated Administration: The Cutting Edge

1. Federated Administration: The Cutting Edge

2. Topics • Federations: The Basics • Business drivers and the basic model • Technical Considerations and the marketplace • Policy Considerations • A Leading Edge Corporate Experience – Bob Chmura • Liberty Alliance • General Motors • A Leading Edge Public Experience • Shibboleth and InCommon • International federations and inter-federation issues • Where this may lead…open discussion

3. Unified field theory of Trust • Bridged, global hierarchies of identification-oriented, often government based trust – laws, identity tokens, etc. • Passports, drivers licenses • Future is typically PKI oriented • Federated enterprise-based; leverages one’s security domain; often role-based • Enterprise does authentication and attributes • Federations of enterprises exchange assertions (identity and attributes • Peer to peer trust; ad hoc, small locus personal trust • A large part of our non-networked lives • New technology approaches to bring this into the electronic world. • Distinguishing P2P apps arch from P2P trust • Virtual organizations cross-stitch across one of the above

4. Federations • Associations of enterprises that come together to exchange information about their users and resources in order to enable collaborations and transactions • Enroll and authenticate and attribute locally, act federally. • Uses federating software (e.g. Liberty Alliance, Shibboleth, WS-*) common attributes (e.g. eduPerson), and a security and privacy set of understandings • Enterprises (and users) retain control over what attributes are released to a resource; the resources retain control (though they may delegate) over the authorization decision. • Several federations now in construction or deployment

5. Business drivers - corporate • Need to link consumer identities among disparate service providers • Link corporate employees through a company portal to outsourced employee services transparently • Allow supply chain partners to access each others internal web sites with role based controls

6. Business drivers – R&E • Given the strong collaborations within the academic community, there is an urgent need to create inter-realm tools, so • Build consistent campus middleware infrastructure deployments, with outward facing objectclasses, service points, etc. and then • Federate (multilateral) those enterprise deployments with interrealm attribute transports, trust services, etc. and then • Leverage that federation to enable a variety of applications from network authentication to instant messaging, from video to web services, from p2p to virtual organizations, etc. while we • Be cautious about the limits of federations and look for alternative fabrics where appropriate.

7. Requirements for federations • Federation operations • Federating software • Exchange assertions • Link and unlink identities • Federation data schema • Federation privacy and security requirements • Non web services can also leverage federations

8. Federating Software Comparison • Liberty Alliance • V 1.1 of their functional specs released; 2.0 under discussion • Federation itself is out of scope • Open source implementations not emphasized • Current work is linked identities • Shibboleth • V1.2 released; 1.3 and 2.0 under development • Most standards-based; pure open source in widening use • Current work is attribute release focused; linking identities in 2.0. • Can Shibboleth and Liberty converge? SAML 2.0 is key • WS-* • Complex framework, consisting of 9 areas, which can form a whole cloth solution to the problem space, but which need to closely interact with each other to do so. • Standards process and IPR issues uncertain • Will need considerable convention and detail to resolve into a working instantiation • Can Shibboleth/InCommon interoperate with WS-*? Under active discussion with Microsoft

9. Policy Basics for federations • Enterprises that participate need to establish a trusted relationship with the operator of the federation; in small or bilateral federations, often one of the participants operates the federation • Participants need to establish trust with each other on a per use or per application basis, balancing risk with the level of trust • Participants need to agree on the syntax and semantics of the information to be shared • Privacy issues must be addressed at several layers • All this needs to be done on a scalable basis, as the number of participants grow and the number of federations grow

10. Federal guidelines of relevance • NIST Guideline on Risk Assessment Methodologies • NIST Guideline on Authentication Technologies and their strengths • Federal e-Authentication

11. A Leading Edge Corporate Experience

12. Public Sector:Shibboleth and its federations • Shibboleth status • InCommon • Uses • Management • Policies • Shared schema • Other Shibboleth-based federations • Interfederation issues

13. Shibboleth Status • Open source, privacy preserving federating software • Being very widely deployed in US and international universities • Target - works with Apache(1.3 and 2.0) and IIS targets; Java origins for a variety of Unix platforms. • V1.3 likely to include portal support, identity linking, non web services (plumbing to GSSAPI,P2P, IM, video) etc. • Work underway on intuitive graphical interfaces for the powerful underlying Attribute Authority and resource protection • Likely to coexist well with Liberty Alliance and may work within the WS framework from Microsoft. • Growing development activities in several countries, providing resource manager tools, digital rights management, listprocs, etc. • http://shibboleth.internet2.edu/

14. The Point of Privacy Kudos for Shibboleth! Liberty Alliance Has Missed the Point eWeek November 24, 2003 By  Jim Rapoza  http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1396027,00.asp What I'd like to see the group do is add more mechanisms to make it easy for third-party developers to create tools that give users total control over how their data is shared. A good model for this is the Internet2 group's Shibboleth ID management specification, which was designed mainly for academic institutions. In Shibboleth, users have built-in controls that give them final say over how their data is controlled.

15. Federated administration VO VO O T A CM O T CM A Campus 1 Campus 2 T T T Federation

16. Shibboleth-based federations • InQueue • InCommon • Club Shib • SWITCH • NSDL ------------------------------------ • State networks • Medical networks • Financial aid networks • Life-long learning communities

17. InCommon federation • Federation operations – Internet2 • Federating software – Shibboleth 1.1 and above • Federation data schema - eduPerson200210 or later and eduOrg200210 or later • Became operational April 5, with several early entrants to help shape the policy issues. • Precursor federation, InQueue, has been in operation for about six months and will feed into InCommon • http://incommon.internet2.edu

18. Rutgers University University of Wisconsin New York University Georgia State University University of Washington University of California Shibboleth Pilot University at Buffalo Dartmouth College Michigan State University Georgetown Duke The Ohio State University UCLA Internet2 Carnegie Mellon University National Research Council of Canada Columbia University University of Virginia University of California, San Diego Brown University University of Minnesota Penn State University Cal Poly Pomona London School of Economics University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University of Colorado at Boulder UT Arlington UTHSC-Houston University of Michigan University of Rochester University of Southern California InQueue Origins2.12.04

19. InCommon Uses • Institutional users acquiring content from popular providers (Napster) and academic providers (Elsevier, JSTOR, EBSCO, Pro-Quest, etc.) • Institutions working with outsourced service providers, e.g. grading services, scheduling systems • Inter-institutional collaborations, including shared courses and students, research computing sharing, etc.

20. InCommon Management • Operational services by I2 • Member services • Backroom (CA, WAYF service, etc.) • Governance • Executive Committee - Carrie Regenstein - chair (Wisconsin), Jerry Campbell, (USC), Lev Gonick (CWRU), Clair Goldsmith (Texas System), Mark Luker (EDUCAUSE),Tracy Mitrano (Cornell), Susan Perry (Mellon), Mike Teetz, (OCLC), David Yakimischak (JSTOR). • Project manager – Renee Frost (Internet2) • Membership open to .edu and affiliated business partners (Elsevier, OCLC, Napster, Diebold, etc…) • Contractual and policy issues being defined now… • Likely to take 501(c)3 status in the long term

21. Trust pivot points in federations • In response to real business drivers and feasible technologies increase the strengths of Campus/enterprise identification, authentication practices Federation operations, auditing thereof Campus middleware infrastructure in support of Shib (including directories, attribute authorities and other Shib components) and auditing thereof Relying party middleware infrastructure in support of Shib Moving in general from self-certification to external certification

22. Trust in InCommon - initial • Members trust the federated operators to perform its activities well • The operator (Internet2) posts its procedures, attempts to execute them faithfully, and makes no warranties • Enterprises read the procedures and decide if they want to become members • Origins and targets trust each other bilaterally in out-of-band or no-band arrangements • Origins trust targets dispose of attributes properly • Targets trust origins to provide attributes accurately • Risks and liabilities managed by end enterprises, in separate ways

23. InCommon Trust - ongoing • Use trust  Build trust cycle • Clearly need consensus levels of I/A • Multiple levels of I/A for different needs • Two factor for high-risk • Distinctive requirements (campus in Bejing or France, distance ed, mobility) • Standardized data definitions unclear • Audits unclear • International issues

24. Balancing the operator’s trust load • InCommon CA • Identity proofing the enterprise • Issuing the enterprise signing keys (primary and spare) • Signing the metadata • Could be outsourced • InCommon Federation • Aggregating the metadata • Supporting campuses in posting their policies • Less easy to outsource, especially the organic aspects

25. InCommon Federation Operations • InCommon_Federation_Disaster_Recovery_Procedures • An outline of the procedures to be used if there is a disaster with the InCommon Federation. • Internet2_InCommon_Federation_Infrastructure_Technical_Reference • Document describing the federation infrastructure. • Internet2_InCommon_secure_physical_storage • List of the physical objects and logs that will be securely stored. • Internet2_InCommon_Technical_Operations_steps • This document lists the steps taken from the point of submitting CSR, Metadata, and CRL to issuing a signed cert, generation of signed metadata, and publishing the CRL. • Internet2_InCommon_Technical_Operation_Hours • Documentation of the proposed hours of operations.

26. InCommon CA Ops • CA_Disaster_Recovery_Procedure_ver_0.14 • An outline of the procedures to be used if there is a disaster with the CA. • cspguide • Manual of the CA software planning to use. • InCommon_CA_Audit_Log_ver_0.31 • Proposed details for logging related to the CA. • Internet2_InCommon_CA_Disaster_Recovery_from_root_key_compromise_ver_0.2 • An outline of the procedures to be used if there is a root key compromise with the CA. • Internet2_InCommon_CA_PKI-Lite_CPS_ver_0.61 • Draft of the PKI-Lite CPS. • Internet2_InCommon_CA_PKI-Lite_CP_ver_0.21 • Draft of the PKI-Lite CP. • Internet2_InCommon_Certificate_Authority_for_the_InCommon_Federation_System_Technical_Reference_ver_0.41 • Document describing the CA.

27. InCommon Key Signing Process • 2. Hardware descriptions         a. Hardware will be laptop and spare laptop with no network capabilities, thumb drive, CDRW drive, media for necessary software 3. Software descriptions         a. OS, OpenSSL, CSP, Java tools for meta data 4. Log into computer 5. Generation of the CA Private Root key and self-signing 6. Generation of the Metadata signing key 7. Generate CSR for Internet2 origin 8. Signing of new metadata sites and trusts files 9. Backup copies of all private keys and other operational backup data are generated. 10. Verify CD's and MD5 checksum 11. Write down passphrase and put in envelopes and sign envelopes 12. Securely store CA hardware and contents of local safe in safe 13. Log that these actions occurred on the log in safe and then close and lock the safe 14. Put thumb drive into secure db and copy data onto secure db 15. Take private key password archive and other contents to Private Key Password safe deposit box and record in log that this was done. 16. Take operational data archive to Operation Data safe deposit box and record in log that this was done.

28. InCommon Process Tech Review • As a technical review group, we, the undersigned, reviewed the processes and the following components documenting the operations of InCommon, and discussed them with the Internet2 Technical and Member Activities staff. To the best of our knowledge and experience, with no warranty implied, we believe the operational processes and procedures Internet2 provided are acceptable to begin the operations of InCommon. • Scott Cantor, OSU • Jim Jokl, UVa • RL Bob Morgan, UW • Jeff Schiller, MIT

29. REF Cluster InQueue (a starting point) Other clusters Other potential US R+E feds Other national nets SWITCH InCommon NSDL The Shib Research Club State of Penn Fin Aid Assoc The Research and EducationFederation Space Indiana Slippery slope - Med Centers, etc

30. International Activities • International eduPerson and object class registry • Swiss Shibboleth-based Federation (SWITCH-AAI) • UK scaffolding • JISC issued solicitation extending our NMI-EDIT work; see (http://www.jisc.ac.uk/c01_04.html) • Working on virtual organizations, digital rights management, etc • Federation in the works • Australian interest • Planning a solicitation based on our work • Widespread use of Shibboleth and development of GUI’s

31. Upper Slaughter, England

32. International federation peering • Shibboleth-based federations being established in the UK, Netherlands, Finland, Switzerland, Australia, Spain, and others • International peering meeting slated for October 14-15 in Upper Slaughter, England • Issues include agreeing on policy framework, comparing policies, correlating app usage to trust level, aligning privacy needs, working with multinational service providers, scaling the WAYF function • Leading trust to Slaughter…

33. Next Steps • Federated software alignment and interoperability • Fully establishing persistent federations • End-user ARP management tools (Autograph) • Coordination of federation policy underpinnings • Escalating levels of trust