1. Shibboleth at USMAI David Kennedy davekenn@umd.edu http://usmai.umd.edu/auth Spring 2006 Internet2 Member Meeting, April 24-26, 2006 – Arlington, VA

2. USMAI Consortium of Libraries Univ. System of Maryland and Affiliated Institutions http://usmai.umd.edu/ 16 Libraries from the 12 campuses of the USM & 2 affiliated Maryland higher ed institutions Began in 1982 with a subset of these institutions Over 7,000,000 items in catalog Approximately 200,000 patrons Built on a resource sharing model Hosted at the University of Maryland Governed by the Council of Library Directors (CLD)

3. USMAI Consortium of Libraries Shared IT products and services, e.g.: –Systems Administration, Development, & Help Desk –E-Resource licensing & procurement –Consortium-wide ID management (patron database) –Library Information Management System (Aleph) –OpenURL resolver (SFX) –E-Resource Portal (MetaLib) –Proxy services (EZproxy) –ILL (ILLiad) –Institutional Repository (DSpace) –E-Resource Management (Verde)

4. What is the problem? Multiple logins for multiple services Need to secure flow of data for multiple logins for different applications Username/password embedded in URLs to give appearance of single sign on

5. Why Shibboleth? Other considered solutions: PDS, CAS, Pubcookie Shibboleth –Single sign on –Secure handling of user attributes –Flexibility to use different AuthZ criteria per service –Designed to function across domains –Ability to authenticate for different vendors’ products

6. Shib architecture Shibboleth – an architecture for handling authentication and attribute assertion in a secure and controlled manner Service Provider (SP) – resource Identity Provider (IdP) – AuthN source WAYF – Where Are You From WebISO – Web Initial Sign On

7. Shib architecture

8. Investigation Installed generic single institution IdP Installed generic service provider (script that prints out attributes) Proof of concept

9. Implementation Chose EZproxy and Ex Libris’ Metalib/PDS as initial SPs EZproxy was already shibboleth-enabled, so easily configured Had to implement multiple identity providers for institutions in the consortium

10. IdP Implementation Multiple institutions in one installation Multiple configurations for attributes and trust settings –Separate Tomcat servlets per institution Multiple ldap settings in WebISO for user verification

11. Multiple Identity Providers – Virtually Separate Totally separate identity providers as far as service providers are concerned Unique access points Separate trust relationships

12. EZproxy Host EZproxy instances for 14 institutions Now shib-enabled Access to online resources by user attributes

13. PDS Patron Directory Service Single Sign On between ExLibris applications AuthN and AuthZ

14. Role of PDS in Shib Environment Dual role of WAYF and SP AuthN AuthZ at the application level (Metalib, in our case)

15. PDS as WAYF PDS to present list of institutions (WAYF) Choice of institutions redirects to an institution specific URL within PDS

16. PDS as SP Each URL protected by different institution’s Identity Provider IdP handles authentication and attribute assertion SP receives attributes back from IdP and establishes PDS session

17. Shib SP configuration Shibboleth.xml – settings for SP Multiple applications defined, each with a different Identity Provider RequestMap defined – map URLs to shib applications

18. Logout No logout provided in shibboleth architecture Created a logout for identity provider, with an optional redirect back to service provider

19. ILLiad InterLibrary Loan software, Atlas Systems Consortial implementation – 8 institutions, 2 stand-alone installations to be shibbed ILLiad is now aware of 1 shib attribute, identifier Future – work with Atlas so that ILLiad can take advantage of other attributes (v 7.2?)

20. Before

21. After

22. Project Details Began investigation – March 2005 1 staff member 16 IdPs, 3 SPs into production, April 2006 Hardware: –Test – Sun Fire V480, 2x900MHz UltraSparc III, 8GB RAM (shared server) –Production – Sun Fire V880, 4x900MHz UltraSparc III+, 16GB RAM (shared server) Documentation

23. Challenges Technical –Consortia – virtually separate identity providers –Logout –LDAP – hook into our ldap, single ldap for all institutions, only use institution specific attributes Learning curve, needed concentrated chunks of staff time Making shibboleth a priority

24. What’s next? We are rolling out more service providers ILLiad going into production within the month Aleph to be shib service provider by year’s end Online resources Consortial members implementing their own identity providers

25. David Kennedy davekenn@umd.edu Shib project page: http://usmai.umd.edu/auth