1. InCommon Silver @ Michigan State Common Solutions Group, January 2011 Matt Kolb mk@msu.edu

2. Goals  Improve our Identity Management infrastructure  Higher Levels of Assurance  Better documentation of process and procedures  Enable collaboration  Build trust with external partners  Facilitate access to services

3. Initial Challenges  Difficulty interpreting the Bronze/Silver Identity Assurance Profile (IAP)  Infrastructure incompatibility (password policy)  Sorely lacking:  Documentation  Policy  Scope  Taming wild provisioning processes  Where’s the killer app? (Motivation)

4. Approach  Work with other institutions (CIC, etc)  Partner with campus stakeholders  Identify a subset of the population for Silver  Likely a pilot comprised of research faculty  Leverage our ID Office  Verification process  Credentialing  Investigating second credential (certificates) through iClass ID Cards

5. Reasons for Hope  Flexible technical architecture  Solid person registry  MIT Kerberos  Shibboleth  ID Office  Created in Central IT, migrated existing physical and digital provisioning activities  Cross functional campus participation  Specifically strong commitment from Internal Audit  We’re not alone (CIC Partners)

6. Future State  Assert LoA Silver through our Shibboleth Identity Provider (IdP)  Authentication-time calculated attribute  Continue to maintain a single IdP for all Levels of Assurance (we hope)  Implement multifactor Authentication  This puts us on a track for Gold (someday)  Silver credential provisioning through ID Office

7. A Haiku; for InC Silver Spring of assurance collaboration the goal; Silver, together