1. Federal and State PKI Bridge Evolution: Cutting Across Stovepipes EDUCAUSE 2000 October 12th, 2000

2. Shirley Payne UVa Security Director Tim Sigmon UVa Advanced Technology Director Chip German UVa Policy/Planning Director Rich Guida Federal PKI Steering Committee Chair

3. Agenda Federal PKI Approach –Elements of Interoperability –Bridge Approach –Current Status –Critical Interoperability Issues Commonwealth of Virginia PKI Approach –Context –Early Conclusions –Final Design Decisions –Lessons Learned

4. Federal PKI Approach

5. Elements of Interoperability Technical –Mesh (cross-certification) –Bridge (cross-certification with central hub) –Hierarchy (one-way certification) –Trust list (browser model) Policy –Levels of assurance for certificates –X.509 policy processing framework

6. Federal PKI Approach Establish Federal PKI Policy Authority (for policy interoperability) Implement Federal Bridge CA using COTS (for technical interoperability) Deal with directory issues in parallel –Border directory concept Use ACES for public transactions

7. Federal PKI Policy Authority Voluntary interagency group - NOT “agency” Governing body for interoperability through FBCA – Agency/FBCA certificate policy mappings Oversees operation of FBCA, authorizes issuance of FBCA certificates Six charter agency members - DOJ, DOC, Treasury, DOD, OMB, GSA

8. Federal Bridge CA Non-hierarchical hub (“peer to peer”) Maps levels of assurance in disparate certificate policies (“policyMapping”) Ultimate bridge to CAs external to Federal government Directory initially contains only FBCA- issued certificates and CARLs Use NOT mandatory Concept successfully tested - EMA 4/00

9. FBCA Architecture Multiple CAs inside membrane, cross certified –Adding CAs straightforward albeit not necessarily easy Solves inter-product interoperability issues within membrane - which is good Single consolidated X.500 directory (but also support LDAP access) Not susceptible to DOS or intrusive attack

10. Current Status Prototype FBCA: Entrust, Cybertrust –Initial operation 2/8/00 –Replacing Cybertrust with Unicert Production FBCA: add other CAs –Operation by late 00 (funding permitting) FBCA Operational Authority is GSA (Mitretek technical lead and host site) FBCA Certificate Policy by late-00 FPKIPA stood up 7/00

11. Internal Directory Infrastructure PCA 2 FBCA DSA Internal Directory Infrastructure Border DSA 2 X.500 DSA Border DSA 1 LDAP Server Internal Directory Infrastructure PCA 1 PCA 3 Agency 1 Agency 2 Agency 3 FBCA LDAP Query-Response X.500 - DSP chaining Border Directory Concept

12. Access Certs for Electronic Services “No-cost” certificates for the public For business with Federal agencies only (but agencies may allow other uses on case basis) On-line registration, vetting with legacy data; information protected under Privacy Act Regular mail one-time PIN to get certificate Agencies billed per-use and/or per-certificate

13. Access Certs for Electronic Services RFP 1/99; bids received 4/99; first award 9/99 (DST), second award 10/99 (ORC), third award 10/99 (AT&T) Provisions for ACES-enabling applications, and developing customized PKIs Agencies do interagency agreement with GSA 500K “free” certs (no issuance cost) President used ACES in signing E-sign Act 6/00

14. Critical Interoperability Issues Directory interoperability Namespace control Client ability to create and process trust paths to X.509 standard Policy mapping of certificate assurance levels Legal liability

15. Commonwealth of Virginia PKI Approach

16. Context Political environment Project genesis State agency and local government pilot projects University of Virginia’s role

17. Early Conclusions No single hierarchy Multiple PKIs Focus on identity, not authorization, certificates Storage of encrypted documents discouraged

18. Final Decisions Simplicity in early implementation phase Virginia Online Transaction (VOLT) Certificates for citizens Mechanism to expand trust, e.g. bridge architecture Interoperability promoted through open standards Attraction, not compulsion

19. Lessons Learned Models are important, especially ones that help decide when to use digital signatures Uses should add value Process reengineering is essential Policy content should be deferred in favor of concept Best help comes from a few experts Auditors should be involved early on

20. Lessons Learned - cont’d Legal and/or political questions still surround most obvious best uses, e.g. online voting Successful implementation requires range of options, such as: –autonomy for state agencies & local govts. –central PKI service for those who need it –open standards aimed at interoperability with flexibility

21. Lessons Learned - cont’d Most Importantly….. Get involved in state initiatives and devote sufficient resources  Provides education & help where needed  Helps protect interests of higher education

22. Further Information Sources Federal Steering Committee http://gits-sec.treas.gov Commonwealth of Virginia Digital Signatures Initiative http://www.sotech.state.va.us/cots/dsi/index.htm Commonwealth of Virginia Bridge Certification Architecture Project at the University of Virginia http://www.itc.virginia.edu/oit/technology/pki/home.html

23. Questions?