1 E-Authentication and Web Services Charlie Miller, RIHEAA.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Open Grid Forum 19 January 31, 2007 Chapel Hill, NC Stephen Langella Ohio State University Grid Authentication and Authorization with.
Advertisements

Chapter 14 – Authentication Applications
Authentication Applications. will consider authentication functions will consider authentication functions developed to support application-level authentication.
UDDI v3.0 (Universal Description, Discovery and Integration)
Inter-Institutional Registration UNC Cause December 4, 2007.
Campus Based Authentication & The Project Presented By: Tim Cameron National Council of Higher Education Loan Programs.
5 th Annual Conference on Technology & Standards April 28 – 30, 2008 Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill Electronic Data Exchange Standards.
Lecture 23 Internet Authentication Applications
Environmental Council of States Network Authentication and Authorization Services The Shared Security Component February 28, 2005.
Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) Providing secure communications and authentication over an open network.
Dorian Grid Identity Management and Federation Dialogue Workshop II Edinburgh, Scotland February 9-10, 2006 Stephen Langella Department.
Beispielbild Shibboleth, a potential security framework for EDIT Lutz Suhrbier AG Netzbasierte Informationssysteme (
1 eAuthentication in Higher Education Tim Bornholtz Session #47.
 Key exchange o Kerberos o Digital certificates  Certificate authority structure o PGP, hierarchical model  Recovery from exposed keys o Revocation.
CSE 4482, 2009 Session 21 Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act Payment Card Industry standard Web Trust Sys Trust.
Identity Management and PKI Credentialing at UTHSC-H Bill Weems Academic Technology University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston.
Web services security I
EAuthentication in Higher Education Tim Bornholtz Session 58.
1 Data Strategy Overview Keith Wilson Session 15.
SWITCHaai Team Federated Identity Management.
Copyright © The OWASP Foundation Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the OWASP License. The OWASP.
1 Web Services and E-Authentication Adele Marsh, AES Charlie Miller, RIHEAA Session 35.
Session #43 METEOR Russ Judd, Great Lakes Adele Marsh, AES Tim Cameron, NCHELP Electronic Access Conference December 3-6, 2002.
1 The Partnership Challenge Higher education’s missions are realized in increasingly global, collaborative, online relationships –Higher educations’ digital.
Identity Management Report By Jean Carreon and Marlon Gonzales.
1 Georgia Higher Education Conference, March 5, 2003 Presented by: Russell Judd, Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc.
Meteor Implementation Presented by: Tim Cameron & Justin Greenough Technical Track Session.
1 Multi Cloud Navid Pustchi April 25, 2014 World-Leading Research with Real-World Impact!
Lecture 23 Internet Authentication Applications modified from slides of Lawrie Brown.
TNC2004 Rhodes 1 Authentication and access control in Sympa mailing list manager Serge Aumont & Olivier Salaün May 2004.
WS-Security: SOAP Message Security Web-enhanced Information Management (WHIM) Justin R. Wang Professor Kaiser.
Web Services An introduction for eWiSACWIS May 2008.
Shib-Grid Integrated Authorization (Shintau) George Inman (University of Kent) TF-EMC2 Meeting Prague, 5 th September 2007.
Dr. Bhavani Thuraisingham October 2006 Trustworthy Semantic Webs Lecture #16: Web Services and Security.
Certification and Accreditation CS Phase-1: Definition Atif Sultanuddin Raja Chawat Raja Chawat.
Computer Security: Principles and Practice First Edition by William Stallings and Lawrie Brown Lecture slides by Lawrie Brown Chapter 22 – Internet Authentication.
1 NCHELP Update Common Record for FFELP & Alternative Loans Meteor The High Performance Channel.
Belnet Federation Belnet – Loriau Nicolas Brussels – 12 th of June 2014.
PESC Annual Conference May 7, What is Meteor? Web-based universal access channel for financial aid information Aggregated information to assist.
SAML CCOW Work Item HL7 Working Group Meeting San Antonio - January 2008 Presented by: David Staggs, JD CISSP VHA Office of Information Standards.
1 NCHELP Collaborations Tim Cameron NCHELP Adele Marsh American Education Services.
Helping you Help Students Avoid Default: Debt Management Tools for Schools and Students Russell Judd Great Lakes Higher Education Corp. Doug Falk National.
An XML based Security Assertion Markup Language
Session 52-1 Session 52 Meteor Where it is and where is it going?
Meteor & Mapping Your Future: Leveraging Technology to Provide Enhanced Services 3 rd Annual Conference on Technology & Standards May 2, 2006.
W3C Web Services Architecture Security Discussion Kick-Off Abbie Barbir, Ph.D. Nortel Networks.
Access Control and Markup Languages Pages 183 – 187 in the CISSP 1.
Internet2 Middleware Initiative Shibboleth Ren é e Shuey Systems Engineer I Academic Services & Emerging Technologies The Pennsylvania State University.
1 Protection and Security: Shibboleth. 2 Outline What is the problem Shibboleth is trying to solve? What are the key concepts? How does the Shibboleth.
State of e-Authentication in Higher Education August 20, 2004.
E-Authentication in Higher Education April 23, 2007.
Copyright © 2003 Jorgen Thelin / Cape Clear Software 1 A Web Services Security Framework Jorgen Thelin Chief Scientist Cape Clear Software Inc.
E-Authentication & Authorization Presentation to the EA2 Task Force March 6, 2007.
Connect. Communicate. Collaborate Deploying Authorization Mechanisms for Federated Services in the eduroam architecture (DAMe)* Antonio F. Gómez-Skarmeta.
Meteor General Information May 16, Types of Data Available Meteor –FFELP –Alternative/Private Loans –State Grants & Scholarships (Summer 2006)
Transforming Government Federal e-Authentication Initiative David Temoshok Director, Identity Policy and Management GSA Office of Governmentwide Policy.
Project Presentation to: The Electronic Access Partnership July 13, 2006 Presented by: Tim Cameron, Meteor Project Manager The.
Jan 2002 CSG Meteor Project Real-time access to financial aid information.
Attribute Delivery - Level of Assurance Jack Suess, VP of IT
E-Authentication October Objectives Provide a flexible, easy to implement authentication system that meets the needs of AES and its clients. Ensure.
User Authentication  fundamental security building block basis of access control & user accountability  is the process of verifying an identity claimed.
Authentication Presenter Meteor Advisory Team Member Version 1.1.
INFORMATION ASSURANCE POLICY. Information Assurance Information operations that protect and defend information and information systems by ensuring their.
Access Policy - Federation March 23, 2016
Training for developers of X-Road interfaces
Tim Bornholtz Director of Technology Services
“Real World” METEOR Implementation Issues
InfiNET Solutions 5/21/
NCHELP Update Common Record for FFELP & Alternative Loans Meteor
Presentation transcript:

1 E-Authentication and Web Services Charlie Miller, RIHEAA

2 Web Services  Web applications that use programmatic interfaces for application to application communications.  Most definitions include these technologies: –XML –SOAP –WSDL –UDDI

3 Concerns  Using web services for basic system integration and XML interfaces is relatively stable  Largest concern today is on securing web services

4 Security Requirements  Three capabilities must exist for secure web services: –Credential Transfer –Message Integrity –Message Confidentiality

5 Why isn’t SOAP secure?  SOAP is simply a standard for sending messages over HTTP using XML  The SOAP specification does not address security at all.  SOAP contains no protocol limitations –Can use HTTP or HTTPS –Can use just about any known protocol

6 Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML)  Framework for exchanging security information –Assertions about subjects (people or computers) which have an identity in the network. –Assertions are issued by SAML authorities - authentication authorities, attribute authorities, and policy decision points.

7 SAML Assertions  Authentication –Previous authentication acts –Assertions should not usually contain passwords  Attributes –Profile information –Preference information  Authorization –Given the attributes, should access be allowed?

8 Typical Assertion Typical Assertion  Issuer ID and issuance timestamp  Assertion ID  Subject  Name and security domain  Conditions under which the assertion is valid  Assertion validity period  Audience restrictions  Target restrictions (intended URLs for the assertion)  Application specific conditions

9 XML Signatures  The SAML assertion is signed by the entity that created it.  When signed, all irrelevant white-space is removed.  Once signed, the document may not be modified in any way.  The entire request is not signed.

10 Planning an Implementation  When planning your own Web Services: –Gain a detailed understanding of the potential risks (viruses, hackers, natural disasters) –Make a proactive analysis of the consequences and countermeasures in relation to risks –Create an implementation strategy for integrating security measures into your enterprise network.

11  Provide a flexible, easy to implement authentication system that meets the needs of your organization and your clients.  Ensure compliance with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), federal guidelines, and applicable state privacy laws. E-Authentication Objectives

12  Assure data owners that only appropriately authenticated end users have access to data.  Ensure compliance to internal security and privacy guidelines. E-Authentication Objectives

13 Authentication  Worked with Shibboleth - Shibboleth, a project of Internet2/Mace, is developing architectures, policy structures, practical technologies, and an open source implementation to support inter- institutional sharing of web resources subject to access controls. In addition, Shibboleth will develop a policy framework that will allow inter- operation within the higher education community.  Shibboleth project participants include Brown University, Ohio State, Penn State and many other colleges and universities.

14  User was required to provide an ID and a shared secret.  Assignment and delivery of shared secret must be secure.  Assignment of shared secret is based on validated information.  Reasonable assurances that the storage of the IDs shared secrets are secure. E-Authentication Requirements

15  Member must ensure appropriate authentication for each end user  Member must provide authentication policy to central authority  Member must provide central authority with 30 day advance notice of changes to authentication policy E-Authentication Policies

16  Member must agree to appropriate use of data  Additional requirements to be defined by legal representatives (may include auditing/logging requirements) E-Authentication Policies

17  End user authenticates at member site  Member creates authentication assertion  Member signs authentication assertion with digital certificate  Control is passed to partner site E-Authentication Process

18  Partner site verifies assertion using the member’s public key stored in the registry.  End user is provided access to appropriate web service E-Authentication Process

19 What is Meteor?  Web-based universal access channel for financial aid information  Aggregated information to assist the FAP with counseling borrowers and with the aid process in general  Collaborative effort  A gift to schools and borrowers

20 The Meteor Process One Two Access Providers Data Providers Financial Aid Professional/Student Three Index Providers

21 How does Meteor Work? Meteor uses the concepts of Access Providers, Data Providers and Index Providers.  A Meteor Access Provider allows inquirers to obtain information through its web site by hosting a copy of the Meteor software, which generates the request to the Data Providers for the borrower’s information.  Access providers can be Schools, Guarantors, Lenders, Servicers, or Secondary Markets.

22 Current Access Providers  AES/PHEAA  EAC  Connecticut  Florida  KHEAA  Montana  NELA  Rhode Island  SLMA  TGSLC

23 How does Meteor Work?  A Meteor Data Provider hosts a copy of the Meteor software that enables them to respond to the Access Provider’s request for information, supplying data from their system.  Data Providers are typically Lenders, Servicers, Guarantors, and Secondary Markets.  In the future, the Dept. of ED, State Grant authorities, Schools, and others could become Data Providers.

24 Current Data Providers –AES/PHEAA –Arkansas –Connecticut –EAC –Florida –Georgia –Great Lakes –Illinois (Default Information) –Kentucky –Louisiana –Maine –Michigan –Montana –NELA –New Mexico –North Dakota –Oklahoma –Rhode Island –Sallie Mae –Texas –USAF

25 How does Meteor Work?  A Meteor Index Provider is used to identify the location(s) of the requested student/borrower information.  The current Meteor Index Provider is the National Student Clearinghouse  In the future, other indices will be added based on the type of data to be incorporated into the network.

26  Each participant will be required to register, sign a participation agreement, and submit policies and procedures surrounding their authentication process. Centralized Registry

27 Centralized Registry  Meteor uses a centralized LDAP server to contain: –Public keys of all participants –Network status information (active, pending, suspended) –Contact Information

28 SAML Assertions  Meteor SAML Assertions contain –Authentication Statement Timestamp, Creator, and Locality (machine) –Attributes Subject (Creator) Attribute Name Attribute Namespace Attribute Value

29  Role of end user  Social Security Number  Authentication Process ID  Level of Assurance  Opaque ID Additional Assertion Attributes Additional Assertion Attributes

30 Authentication  Each Access Provider uses their existing authentication model (single sign-on)  Level of Assurance assigned at registration –Level 0 (Unique ID) –Level 1 (Unique ID & 1 piece of validated public data) –Level 2 (Unique ID & 2 pieces of validated public data) –Level 3 (Unique/User ID & shared secret)

31 Meteor Security All security in Meteor is through the use of industry standard technologies.  Centralized registry  SAML  XML Signatures  SSL

32 Encryption Meteor does not use XML Encryption  The Specification was not available when we began development  Plan to move to this as the technology matures  Currently all communication is over SSL

33 Meteor Security Requirements Three capabilities must exist for secure web services:  Credential Transfer –SAML Assertions  Message Integrity –XML Signatures and SSL  Message Confidentiality –SSL

34 Building Trust and Integrity Building Trust and Integrity  The Meteor Advisory Team sought input and expertise regarding privacy and security from the sponsoring organizations and the NCHELP Legal Committee.  Analysis was provided in relation to GLB and individual state privacy laws.  The analysis revealed that Meteor complied with both GLB and known state privacy provisions.

35 Technical Assistance We appreciate your feedback and comments. We can be reached: Charlie Miller Phone: