Federations and PKI The rough differences are payload format (SAML vs X.509) and typical length of validity of assertion (real-time vs long-term) Federations use enterprise-oriented PKI heavily and make end-user PKI both more attractive and more tractable. The analytic framework (evaluation methodologies for risk in applications and strength of credentials) developed for PKI is useful for federations. The same entity can offer both federation and PKI services PKI-oriented infrastructure (e.g. FBCA) can be leveraged in support of federations Federations work because they don’t have to scale to a global level
Shib Update Project formation - Feb 2000 Stone Soup OpenSAML release – July 2002 Shib v1.0 April 2003 Shib v1.1 July 2003 V1.2 April 2004 V1.3 1Q05 – portal services, e-Auth certified, WS-Fed, etc OpenSAML 2.0 – relatively soon Refactored Shib 2.0 – 3Q05?
Shib happens Core Shib V 1.3 1Q 2005 SAML 2.0 and Shib 2.0 E-Auth and MS WS-Fed Shib-related Components System and end-user attribute release policy GUI Federation meta-data management Next-generation WAYF Shib-enriched applications Digital repositories Sakai, OKI, Chandler, etc. (inter vs intra institutional) Collaboration and communication apps – Sympa, video, etc Globus
Shib management Modeled after Apache/Mozilla/Winsock Technical area – a meritocracy IdP = origin Service Provider = target GUI, Federation, etc. to follow Project management – a small coordinating group, focus is on core shib components and recommendations to advisory group Advisory group – a broad priority and investment mechanism
Globus – Shib integration Initially, an NSF-funded NMI project that will allow GT4 to allow Grid proxies to be Shib targets (do SAML), so that local campus credentials can get access to Grids The approach (thought not the code) apparently is backwardly compatible to GT2 and GT3 What really needs to happen in Grid – federation integration? Native Shib in Globus and Signet to manage authority Schema registry Trust coordination among federations
InCommon federation Federation operations – Internet2 Federating software – Shibboleth 1.1 and above Federation data schema - eduPerson200210 or later and eduOrg200210 or later Became fully operational mid-September, with several early entrants shaping the policy issues. Precursor federation, InQueue, has been in operation for about six months and will feed into InCommon; approximately 150 members http://www.incommonfederation.org
InCommon Principles Support the R&E community in inter-institutional collaborations InCommon itself operates at a high level of security and trustworthiness InCommon requires its participants to post their relevant operational procedures on identity management, privacy, etc InCommon will be constructive and help its participants move to higher levels of assurance as applications warrant InCommon will work closely with other national and international federations
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.
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 were not easy and will evolve Initially an LLC; likely to take 501(c)3 status in the long term
InCommon participants Two types of participants: Higher ed institutions -.edu-ish requirements Service providers – partners sponsored by higher ed institutions, e.g. content providers, outsourced service providers (WebAssign, Roomschedulers, etc) Participants can function in roles of credential/identity providers and resource/service providers Higher ed institutions are primarily credential providers, with the potential for multiple service providers on campus Service providers are primarily offering a limited number of services, but can serve as credential providers for some of their employees as well
InCommon pricing Goals Cost recovery Manage federation “stress points” Prices Application Fee: $700 (largely enterprise I/A, db) Yearly Fee –Higher Ed participant: $1000 per identity management system –Sponsored participant: $1000 –All participants: 20 Resourceproviderids included; additional resourceproviderids available at $50 each per year, available in bundles of 20
Federal government Federal E-Authentication has a number of pilots under way. One of them is now Shib. Phase 1 and Phase 2 efforts funded, with deliverables due over the next six months Policy framework comparison submitted Oct 7 Technical interop demonstrated October 14 Policy discussions and applications meetings next month Potential phase 3 and 4 would include working on a federal federation and peering with Higher Ed and other federations.
WS-Fed and Shib Verbal agreements to build WS-Fed interoperability Contract work commissioned by Microsoft, executed by Shib core development; contracts executed by mid-September, but work likely not til Spring WS-Federation + Passive Requestor Profile + Passive Requestor Interoperability Profile Discussions broached, by Microsoft, in building Shib interoperabilty into WS-Fed Devils in the details Can WS-Fed-based SPs work in InCommon without having to muck up federation metadata with WS-Fed-specifics? All the stuff besides WS-Fed in the WS-* stack
Diagnostics Complex, impossible problem that needs to be broken down into simple, impossible problems A result of dumb users coping with fine-grain access controls riding on top of a non-diagnostic network layer… Lots of parts to the solution A measurable, manageable network (e2e perf) Desktop diagnostic tools (e.g.Surfnet detective) Common event records ccBay (eddY) to query event records Applications that understand diagnostics Interrealm policies and tools
Setting some limits Focus is on operational problems, not install/config time errors Focus is on diagnostics, not services; e.g. network security diagnostics focuses on problems that network security can insert into an end-end transaction,or information that network security can provide to an end- end diagnostic service rather than the activities in identifying and diagnosing network security problems Trouble ticket systems, knowledgebases out of scope Scoping our work is critical to reduce an utterly impossible problem into a set of smaller, intractable ones.
Identifying the customers End-user Surfnet detective as a sample desktop –Accent is on network layer tools right now –Can be significantly extended with central logging capabilities Diagnostician Set of tools, including component specific tools and access to compound tools Role-based controls for interdomain operations Several types of diagnosticians – general, domain specific Developers Design diagnostics into their tools Output error logs in CER
Policy Dimensions Riddled with privacy issues, especially in interdomain instances Federated and role based access controls, with anonymization mechanisms may help Riddled with archival issues Massive amounts of data Data stored is data subpoenable Riddled with lack of standards Massive embedded base of log files in ad hoc formats
Operational needs “Manual” messaging systems such as noc lists need to be entered into discoverable and processable formats Registration of active tests, so that their effects can be included in diagnostics Benchmarks are essential for establishing normal behavior
Classes of problems Simple – single component oriented problems, best addressed by component diagnostic services– e.g. SunOne directory manager console Compound – problems that span multiple systems, creating the need for threaded analysis Interdomain – problems that span multiple domains, creating the need for broad standards, privacy and security tools, etc.
Classes of diagnostic tools Tool specific – e.g. SunOne directory console Domain specific – e.g. tracing a failed authorization among the systems integrated with Signet (an authority engine) on a campus General diagnostic tool – e.g. ccBay tracking an inability for an enrolled student to complete an office-hour videoconference with a remote faculty member e.g. ccBay using netlogger and syslogs
Common Event Record XML based event descriptor Base Event \ Nested Sub-Schemas
Common Event Record Cont. A combination of four sub-schemas can describe a single event Base Event Nested Sub-Schema Events System – Host-wide information, i.e. /var/log/messages. Application – Specific service or program logs, i.e. Shibboleth. Security – Security data and events, i.e. Snort. Network – Network connection data, i.e. NetFlow.
Common Event Record Cont. XML Sub-Schema Nesting to describe the four type of events Base Event ProcessEvent SystemEvent Base Event ProcessEvent Application Event Base Event NetworkEvent SecurityEvent Base Event NetworkEvent Illustration of nested XML elements.
Common Event Record Cont. Normalization Example Raw entry from /var/log/messages: Jul 29 15:07:27 cmu1 sshd: Failed password for illegal user Administrator from ::ffff:192.168.2.6 port 4324 ssh2 Is represented as, System Event Process Event Base Event
Common Event Record Cont. Raw entry normalized as XML: Jul 29 15:07:27 cmu1 192.168.2.2 cmu1 192.168.2.2 ccbay-slogd 0.1 info Failed password for illegal user Administrator from ::ffff:192.168.2.6 port 4324 ssh2 sshd 11157 User
Pilot Objectives Study the normalization strategies of the diagnostic data Provide simple operators to manipulate data Collect and distribute the data in a highly flexible manner via piping of diagnostic data streams Enable basic forensic applications Leverage resources of other initiatives where possible to achieve a common goal Build an ultra modular architecture where the impact of its evolution is minimized
Pilot Design Highly modular architecture utilizing standard building blocks. Focus on a simple and extensible lightweight design. Utilize existing libraries, utilities, modules and standards instead of existing systems. We have looked at many, but there is no existing software that does all we need. Use Python as a full-featured development language. Great language for development of pilot and beyond. Widely included with Linux distributions. Works well in the Windows environment.
Pilot Architecture Normalization agents to convert raw event and logging data to ccBay XML documents. Each event is a file, more efficient approach needed beyond pilot. For pilot, normalization agents for Linux syslogd/klogd data, Windows system events, Snort alerts, NetFlow streams and Windows WMI application events. Forwarding agents move XML documents between storage agents. Transfer of XML files to storage agent using SCP. Simple design for pilot, not a production approach.
Meetings IdM CAMP in San Diego CAMP Med – early Feb in Tempe, Arizona Next TF-EMC2 meeting – where and when?????? Spring I2 Member Meeting – May 2-5 in Washington, D.C. Advanced CAMP sometime late spring Liberty Alliance – end Jan in Palo Alto, March in Dublin
NMI releases Release 6 end-of-December 04 Surprisingly good (compared to anything else) PR mechanism Open to all middleware Permis Spocp A-Select Is there a map of the known world emerging
Opportunities Digital content initiative Real-time communication (not collaboration) Open source sturm and drang Salsa and its work groups Net-auth Netc –IPv6 security tools –Firewalls and multi-homing –Etc Avoiding the future hell