NIH-Educause PKI Pilot: Phase Two Electronic Grant Application With Multiple Digital Signatures Peter Alterman, Ph.D. Director of Operations Office of.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
NIH-EDUCAUSE PKI Interoperability Project Electronic Grant Application With Multiple Digital Signatures Peter Alterman, Ph.D. Director of Operations Office.
Advertisements

Chapter 14 – Authentication Applications
EDUCAUSE 2001, Indianapolis IN Securing e-Government: Implementing the Federal PKI David Temoshok Federal PKI Policy Manager GSA Office of Governmentwide.
Stanley J. Choffrey (202) The Federal Bridge Certification Authority Evolving Issues in Electronic Data Collection January.
Copyright Judith Spencer This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial,
Cryptography and Network Security Third Edition by William Stallings Lecture slides by Lawrie Brown.
CSCE 715: Network Systems Security Chin-Tser Huang University of South Carolina.
Chapter 14 From Cryptography and Network Security Fourth Edition written by William Stallings, and Lecture slides by Lawrie Brown, the Australian Defence.
Lecture 23 Internet Authentication Applications
NIH – EDUCAUSE PKI Interoperability Pilot Update Peter Alterman, Ph.D. Director of Operations, Office of Extramural Research, NIH and Senior Advisor to.
PKI in US Higher Education TAGPMA Meeting, March 2006 Rio De Janeiro, Brazil.
DESIGNING A PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE
The U.S. Federal PKI and the Federal Bridge Certification Authority
16.1 © 2004 Pearson Education, Inc. Exam Planning, Implementing, and Maintaining a Microsoft® Windows® Server 2003 Active Directory Infrastructure.
The 4BF The Four Bridges Forum Higher Education Bridge Certificate Authority.
70-293: MCSE Guide to Planning a Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Network, Enhanced Chapter 9: Planning and Managing Certificate Services.
NIH-EDUCAUSE Interoperability Project, Phase 3: Fulfilling the Promise Dartmouth PKI Implementation Workshop Peter Alterman, Ph.D. Assistant CIO for E-Authentication.
CN1276 Server Kemtis Kunanuraksapong MSIS with Distinction MCTS, MCDST, MCP, A+
CERTIFICATES “a document containing a certified statement, especially as to the truth of something ”
Copyright, 1996 © Dale Carnegie & Associates, Inc. Digital Certificates Presented by Sunit Chauhan.
HEBCA – Higher Education Bridge Certification Authority Presented by Scott Rea and Mark Franklin, Fed/Ed Meeting, 12/14/2005.
The E-Authentication Initiative An Overview Peter Alterman, Ph.D. Assistant CIO for e-Authentication, NIH and Chair, Federal PKI Policy Authority The E-Authentication.
The Federal Bridge Certification Authority – Description and Current Status Peter Alterman, Ph.D. Senior Advisor to the Chair, Federal PKI Steering Committee.
Wolfgang Schneider NSI: A Client-Server-Model for PKI Services.
Digital Certificates With Chuck Easttom. Digital Signatures  Digital Signature is usually the encryption of a message or message digest with the sender's.
1 Lecture 11 Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) CIS CIS 5357 Network Security.
Transforming Education Through Information Technologies Common Solutions Group, January, 2002 (Sanibel Island) HEBCA: Higher Education.
S/MIME Freeware Library IETF S/MIME WG 13 December 2000 Getronics Government Solutions.
HEBCA Overview Internet2 Meeting, Fall 2002 Michael R Gettes Georgetown University
Lecture 23 Internet Authentication Applications modified from slides of Lawrie Brown.
Java Security Pingping Ma Nov 2 nd, Overview Platform Security Cryptography Authentication and Access Control Public Key Infrastructure (PKI)
Public Key Infrastructure (X509 PKI) Presented by : Ali Fanian.
Computer Security: Principles and Practice First Edition by William Stallings and Lawrie Brown Lecture slides by Lawrie Brown Chapter 22 – Internet Authentication.
Unit 1: Protection and Security for Grid Computing Part 2
Configuring Directory Certificate Services Lesson 13.
Chapter 23 Internet Authentication Applications Kerberos Overview Initially developed at MIT Software utility available in both the public domain and.
Certificate-Based Operations. Module Objectives By the end of this module participants will be able to: Define how cryptography is used to secure information.
Bridge Certification Architecture A Brief Demo by Tim Sigmon and Yuji Shinozaki June, 2000.
Digital Signatures A Brief Overview by Tim Sigmon April, 2001.
The NIH PKI Pilots Peter Alterman, Ph.D. … again.
CERTIFICATES. What is a Digital Certificate? Electronic counterpart to a drive licenses or a passport. Enable individuals and organizations to secure.
HEPKI-PAG Policy Activities Group David L. Wasley University of California.
Module 9: Fundamentals of Securing Network Communication.
NSF Middleware Initiative Renee Woodten Frost Assistant Director, Middleware Initiatives Internet2 NSF Middleware Initiative.
Public Key Infrastructure (X509 PKI) Presented by : Ali Fanian
Configuring and Troubleshooting Identity and Access Solutions with Windows Server® 2008 Active Directory®
Update on PKI Activities in the Spanish Academic Network PKI-COORD November 26, Amsterdam.
PKI and the U.S. Federal E- Authentication Architecture Peter Alterman, Ph.D. Assistant CIO for e-Authentication National Institutes of Health Internet2.
1. 2 Overview In Exchange security is managed by assigning permissions in Active Directory Exchange objects are secured with DACL and ACEs Permissions.
Internet2 Middleware PKI: Oy-vey! Michael R. Gettes Principal Technologist Georgetown University
HEBCA Overview CSG, uWash, 2002 Michael R Gettes Georgetown University
Who’s watching your network The Certificate Authority In a Public Key Infrastructure, the CA component is responsible for issuing certificates. A certificate.
The Federal PKI Or, How to Herd Worms Peter Alterman Senior Advisor, Federal PKI Steering Committee.
Leveraging Campus Authentication for Grid Scalability Jim Jokl Marty Humphrey University of Virginia Internet2 Meeting April 2004.
Cryptography and Network Security Chapter 14 Fourth Edition by William Stallings Lecture slides by Lawrie Brown.
PKI Future Directions 29 November 2001 Russ Housley RSA Laboratories CS – Class of 1981.
Security fundamentals Topic 5 Using a Public Key Infrastructure.
Configuring and Troubleshooting Identity and Access Solutions with Windows Server® 2008 Active Directory®
Module 2: Introducing Windows 2000 Security. Overview Introducing Security Features in Active Directory Authenticating User Accounts Securing Access to.
Creating and Managing Digital Certificates Chapter Eleven.
Bridge Certification Architecture A Brief Overview by Tim Sigmon May, 2000.
Active Directory. Computers in organizations Computers are linked together for communication and sharing of resources There is always a need to administer.
1 Public Key Infrastructure Dr. Rocky K. C. Chang 25 February, 2002.
1 Public Key Infrastructure Rocky K. C. Chang 6 March 2007.
Trusted Electronic Communications for Federal Student Aid Mark Luker Vice President EDUCAUSE Copyright Mark Luker, This work is the intellectual.
Interoperability and the Evolving Federal PKI Richard Guida, P.E. Member, Government Information Technology Services Board Chair, Federal PKI Steering.
Cryptography and Network Security
کاربرد گواهی الکترونیکی در سیستمهای کاربردی (امضای دیجیتال)
U.S. Federal e-Authentication Initiative
Inter-institutional Trust Fabric Overview and Synergies
Presentation transcript:

NIH-Educause PKI Pilot: Phase Two Electronic Grant Application With Multiple Digital Signatures Peter Alterman, Ph.D. Director of Operations Office of Extramural Research

The Problem NIH receives over 40,000 applications for new grants annually. Each application averages over 40 pages long; 20 copies of each are often required; each application must be duplicated and sent to over a dozen reviewers. Do the math. While NIH has been developing strategies to convert paper to electronic processes, good solutions to the problem of electronic signature implementation have been lacking; Institutions are busy deploying PKIs and issuing digital certificates to their faculties and staffs.

Phase One Conceptual Design Create electronic versions of grant application form; Distribute TrustID digital certificates; Distribute E-Lock Assured Office to affix verify two different certificates to dummy electronic applications (business process requirement); signed applications to NIH.

Phase One Completed Successfully Multiple MS Word templates signed with two different digital certificates received from UW-Madison, UA- Birmingham and Dartmouth College; ACES Certificate Arbitration Module (CAM) installed and configured at NIH; E-Lock Assured Office, CAM-aware, installed and configured at NIH and at Institutions; All certificates verified and validated two ways by NIH: directly to the DST OCSP Responder and indirectly through the CAM.

Phase Two Goal Receive application in electronic form signed with two different, validated, digital certificates each digital certificates issued by Institution several different vendors represented

Participating Institutions University of Texas - Houston

What’s Different About Phase Two? Institutions use certificates they issue; Verify and validate digital signatures through ACES Certificate Arbitration Module (CAM); Trust path discovery uses Federal Bridge CA cross-certified with Higher Education Bridge CA, creating an Internet-based trust infrastructure; Use of multiple certificate providers tests interoperability within standards.

Phase Two Target Outcome 1.P.I. logs on to Internet at his/her workstation; 2.P.I. links to NIH website and downloads electronic application form (PHS 398) – grants.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm; 3.P.I. fills out 398 at workstation; 4.P.I. forwards signed 398 to AOR; 5.AOR completes and signs it using his/her Institution-issued digital certificate; 6.P.I. Signs completed 398 with his/her Institution-issued digital certificate; 7.P.I. Mails the signed 398 to NIH as an attachment (encryption to be tested at a future date); 8.NIH receives signed 398, downloads it, verifies and validates signatures, and initiates internal processing.

The Methodology Build upon the results of Phase 1 Create a controlled environment for proof of concept –Definition: Performed in a test laboratory environment to prove that the concepts and technologies to be utilized can be implemented Transition the controlled environment of the proof of concept into a controlled pilot –Definition: Performed outside of the test laboratory to better simulate real-world situations

Intermediate Requirements (NIH cross-certifies “its” CA with the FBCA) Stand up a Higher Education Bridge Certification Authority (HEBCA); Cross-certify the Federal Bridge CA with the Higher Education Bridge CA; Institutions configure directories, cross- certify their CAs with the HEBCA

Phase Two Concept of Operations (CONOPS) NIH OER Recipient E-Lock Assured Office Digital Signed Grant Appl E-Lock Assured Office CAM-enabled NIH CAM Server FBCA HEBCA Cert Status Cert Status Certificate Validation University B Certificate Validation University A Certificate Validation University C

Proof of Concept Architecture NIH User NIH Trust Domain NIH Test CA Directory Higher Education Trust Domain Directory DST ARP Test CA Firewall Prototype Federal Bridge Certificate Authority Cross Certified CAs Directory System Agent Cross certificates CRL FIP L3 Crypto Cross certificates CRL Cross certificates ARL RSA CA Entrust CA iPlanet CA Alabama RSA CA i500 Directory California Verisign CA Wisconsin Texas Dartmouth

Proof of Concept CA Interoperability Configuration Entrust CARSA CA Prototype Federal Bridge Certification Authority NIH NIH Test CA Client Wisconsin Client Higher Education Bridge Certification Authority RSA CA Texas VeriSign CA Client Alabama DST ARP Test CA Client iPlanet CA Dartmouth Client California VeriSign CA Client Entrust CA

Proof of Concept Directory Interoperability Configuration c=US; o=U.S. Government;ou=FBCA IP address: DSP port:102 LDAP port:389 TSEL: TCP/IP Prototype FBCA (Peerlogic) cn=FBCA_Directory NIH c=US; o=U.S. Government; ou=NIH IP address: DSP port:102 LDAP port: 389 TSEL:TCP/IP cn=nihstandin Chaining c=US; o=edu; ou=HEBCA IP address: DSP port:102 LDAP port:389 TSEL:TCP/IP HEBCA (Critical Path) cn=HEBCA Alabama cn= ARP Test Client CA California, Texas cn= Wisconsin, Dartmouth cn= Chaining c=US; o=Digital Signature Trust Co; ou=ARP Testing IP address: DAP/DSP port:102 LDAP port:389 c= ; o= ; ou= IP address: DAP/DSP port: LDAP port: c= ; o= ; ou= IP address: DAP/DSP port: LDAP port:

NIH ca trust anchor “DAVE” (Discovery and Validation Engine) sender (UA) receiver (NIH) NIH directory FBCA dir cross cert cross cert DAVECAME-Lock software ca directory HEBCA dir cross cert UA ca UA dir issued get Cert,CRL via directory chaining

DAVE Components CML Libraries [Getronics] ASN1 parsing (SNACC) S/MIME parsing (SFL) Cryptographic engine LDAP and local directory retrieval (SFL) Path discovery engine (CPL) DAVE Functions Perform proper sequential calling of CML functions (i.e., the business logic) Provide call-back functions needed by CML functions Provide all CAM communications and protocol transformations Wraps CML functions into an NT service (multithreaded, failure and recovery modes, logging, etc.)

Verification & Validation Details CAM Server Certificate Authority/ Validation Request CAM/CA OCSP Msg Data Discovery and Validation Engine (DAVE) Agency App/ CAM Search for issuer to validate CRL OSCP Responder If chained, path reverses If not chained, LDAP queries Agency App = E-Lock Assured Office CAM-enabled Passing Certificate E-Lock Assured Office verifies the signature Verifies the document has not been changed Verifies the validity period of the certificate Once verified, the certificate is sent to the CAM for certificate validation to ensure that it has not been revoked

CAM Log – Startup and Status Request 1.CAM Sees the Request from the Agency Application, e.g. E-Lock Assured Office 2.If the request is not an ACES request, it is sent to the Discovery and Validation Engine (DAVE) 3.DAVE responds by listing the nodes in the trust path 4.If the node in the cert path is found, a status of “0” (valid) is returned to the application

Proof of Concept - CAM Log LOG STARTED: 10:12:19 > 10:12:19: CAM server startup 10:12:20: listener: holding to receive request #0 10:14:45: listener: holding to receive request #1 10:14:45: [0] validation request from AA: installed agency application (user should change this upon install) 10:14:46: [0] validate: serial: serial_number:01 10:14:46: [0]: validate: using default validation method 10:14:46: [0]: validate: CA found: link:localhost:123 10:14:46: [0] verification deferred to linked CAM 10:14:47: CA MESSAGE: path node: stand-in for NIH CA,OU=CA,O=Mtek stand-in for NIH,C=US path node: stand-in for FBCA,OU=FBCA,O=Mtek stand-in for U.S. Gov,C=US path node: stand-in for HEBCA,OU=HEBCA,O=Mtek stand-in for EDU,C=US path node: stand-in for university CA,OU=CA,O=Mtek stand-in for HEBCA university,C=US path node: stand-in for user,OU=Users,O=Mtek stand-in for HEBCA university,C=US Validation: usage=74e058, usageCrit=0 10:14:47: [0] validate: status: 0, aces code: 0x1600) 10:14:47: [0]: periodic memory tracking : memory usage is: :22:19: timer: running recurring save-state and ICL clean-up

DAVE Server Startup Verification

DAVE Server – Path Discovery and Status Return 1.Path discovery – this is the validation phase as CRLs are retrieved 2.If the CRL is retrieved, a status of “0” (valid) is returned to the CAM

Proof of Concept – DAVE Log LOG STARTED: 10:11:59 > 10:11:59: startup... 10:12:00: Trust anchor subject DN: stand-in for NIH CA,OU=CA,O=Mtek stand-in for NIH,C=US 10:12:00: listening on port :14:46: [0] saw request; aa_id=installed agency application (user should change this upon install) 10:14:46: Initial cert subject: stand-in for user,OU=Users,O=Mtek stand-in for HEBCA university,C=US 10:14:46: dave-get-request: stand-in for university CA,OU=CA,O=Mtek stand-in for HEBCA university,C=US [tm=7, lm=8] 10:14:46: dave-get-answer: retrieved CA cert from LDAP database 10:14:46: dave-get-request: stand-in for HEBCA,OU=HEBCA,O=Mtek stand-in for EDU,C=US [tm=7, lm=8] 10:14:46: dave-get-answer: retrieved CA cert from LDAP database 10:14:46: dave-get-request: stand-in for FBCA,OU=FBCA,O=Mtek stand-in for U.S. Gov,C=US [tm=7, lm=8] 10:14:46: dave-get-answer: retrieved CA cert from LDAP database 10:14:46: dave-get-request: stand-in for NIH CA,OU=CA,O=Mtek stand-in for NIH,C=US [tm=7, lm=f]

Proof of Concept – DAVE Log (cont’d) 10:14:46: dave-get-answer: retrieved CA cert from LDAP database 10:14:47: successfully build trust path 10:14:47: node: stand-in for NIH CA,OU=CA,O=Mtek stand-in for NIH,C=US 10:14:47: node: stand-in for FBCA,OU=FBCA,O=Mtek stand-in for U.S. Gov,C=US 10:14:47: node: stand-in for HEBCA,OU=HEBCA,O=Mtek stand-in for EDU,C=US 10:14:47: node: stand-in for university CA,OU=CA,O=Mtek stand-in for HEBCA university,C=US 10:14:47: node: stand-in for user,OU=Users,O=Mtek stand-in for HEBCA university,C=US 10:14:47: dave-get-request: stand-in for NIH CA,OU=CA,O=Mtek stand-in for NIH,C=US [tm=18, lm=f] 10:14:47: dave-get-answer: retrieved CRL from LDAP database 10:14:47: dave-get-request: stand-in for FBCA,OU=FBCA,O=Mtek stand-in for U.S. Gov,C=US [tm=18, lm=f] 10:14:47: dave-get-answer: retrieved CRL from LDAP database 10:14:47: dave-get-request: stand-in for FBCA,OU=FBCA,O=Mtek stand-in for U.S. Gov,C=US [tm=7, lm=f] 10:14:47: dave-get-answer: retrieved user cert from client database

Proof of Concept – DAVE Log (cont’d) 10:14:47: dave-get-request: stand-in for NIH CA,OU=CA,O=Mtek stand-in for NIH,C=US [tm=7, lm=f] 10:14:47: dave-get-answer: retrieved user cert from client database 10:14:47: dave-get-request: stand-in for NIH CA,OU=CA,O=Mtek stand-in for NIH,C=US [tm=18, lm=f] 10:14:47: dave-get-answer: retrieved {special type} from client database 10:14:47: dave-get-request: stand-in for HEBCA,OU=HEBCA,O=Mtek stand-in for EDU,C=US [tm=18, lm=f] 10:14:47: dave-get-answer: retrieved CRL from LDAP database 10:14:47: dave-get-request: stand-in for university CA,OU=CA,O=Mtek stand-in for HEBCA university,C=US [tm=18, lm=f] 10:14:47: dave-get-answer: retrieved CRL from LDAP database 10:14:47: validation successful 10:14:47: Validation: usage=74e058, usageCrit=0 10:14:47: [0] answered with status: 0

Development Status (as of Friday, 10/26/2001) Representative Directory Structures; –Cross-certs issued: NIH-stand-in*  FBCA, FBCA  HEBCA, HEBCA  ARP Test (DST) Also have fully working test environment with temporary stand-ins for all 4 CAs –Corresponding directory chaining and cross references –NIH-stand-in is DAVE’s trust anchor, and is only directory DAVE speaks to directly –Directory clock synchronization Correct CA cert retrieval, directory traversal, and cross-cert retrieval; Correct communications with CAM.

End-to-end Directory Chaining In Place:DITS for all 4 Directories Appear On One PC - NIH, HEBCA, FBCA, and DST

Issues and Resolutions Directory Structures and Services –Issue: No underscores in DNs (CML altered) –Issue: Some directories change binary data upon import and upon return via chaining agreements!!! Resolution: Some certs changed to indefinite length ASN1 encoding. Temporarily solved via another version of the I.500 directory. Resolution: PKCS7 cross-cert pairs stripped of certain ASN1 sets. Temporarily solved via same directory and by loading each individual cross-cert pair element in cACertificate attribute (not combined in the crossCertificatePair attributes)

Observation DST Business Model Common elements in PKI domains negate need to traverse bridges –CML goes up issuing chain, finds cross-cert with FBCA, correctly recognizes UAB end- entity cert and NIH trust anchor in same PKI domain, bypasses HEBCA bridge –This is correct PKI functionality, not a problem Self-Signed Root Non-issuing CA Issuing CA cross-certifies with HEBCA cross-certifies with FBCA (as NIH trust anchor) UAB end-entity certs NIH end-entity certs

Current Development Focus To move from Proof of Concept to Pilot: –Path traversal and discovery always works! However, the CPL occasionally does not recognize that it has discovered the complete path (works with test CAs and test certs). –Some CRLs are not parsed correctly by the CML –The CML may or may not be able to parse a true cross-cert pair (not yet attempted) –Expansion of the interface from the CAM to the Agency Application to utilize OCSP extensions

Next Steps Complete Development and Test of DAVE and CAM and have all working bits talking to each other in recognizable language; Replace Stand-in CAs and Directories with Institutions’ CAs and Directories; Verify and Validate Institution-issued digital signatures on electronic grant applications; Go out and celebrate!

Want More? Peter Alterman: Deb Blanchard: Monette Respress: