17 may 2004 shibboleth: federated identity management renee woodten frost, internet2 middleware and...
TRANSCRIPT
17 May 2004
Shibboleth: Federated Identity Management
Renee Woodten Frost,
Internet2 Middleware and Security
17 May 2004
Copyright Renee Woodten Frost 2004. This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the author.
17 May 2004
A Word from the Sponsors: Internet2 and NSF
Internet2• HE consortium partnering with government and industry• Advanced Network Technologies
NSF Middleware Initiative (NMI)• Analogous to building the NSFnet• Scientists and engineers can transparently use and share
distributed resources, such as computers, data, and instruments• Research and education communities can effectively collaborate
using advanced communications tools• Internet users around the world can benefit.
17 May 2004
Agenda
What is Shibboleth? What is its Current Status? Why Shibboleth? Who is Using Shibboleth? Federations
• InQueue• InCommon
For more information
17 May 2004
What is Shibboleth? (Biblical)
A word which was made the criterion by which to distinguish the Ephraimites from the Gileadites. The Ephraimites, not being able to pronounce “sh”, called the word sibboleth. See --Judges xii.
Hence, the criterion, test, or watchword of a party; a party cry or pet phrase.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
17 May 2004
What is Shibboleth?
An initiative to develop an architecture and policy framework supporting the sharing – between domains -- of secured web resources and services
A framework built on a “Federated” model
A project delivering an open source implementation of the architecture and framework
Deliverables:• Software for Origins (campuses)• Software for Targets (service providers)• Operational Federations (scalable trust)
17 May 2004
Shibboleth Goals
Use federated administration as the lever; have the enterprise broker most services (authentication, authorization, resource discovery, etc.) in inter-realm interactions
Provide security while not degrading privacy• Using Attribute-based Access Control
Foster inter-realm trust fabrics: federations and virtual organizations
Leverage campus expertise and build rough consensus Influence the marketplace; develop where necessary Support heterogeneity and open standards
17 May 2004
Attribute-based Authorization
Identity-based approach• The identity of a prospective user is passed to the controlled
resource and is used to determine (perhaps with requests for additional attributes about the user) whether to permit access.
• This approach requires the user to trust the target to protect privacy.
Attribute-based approach• Attributes are exchanged about a prospective user until the
controlled resource has sufficient information to make a decision. • This approach does not degrade privacy.
17 May 2004
Typical Attributes in the Higher Ed Community
Affiliation “active member of community”
EPPN Identity [email protected]
Entitlement An agreed upon opaque URI urn:mace:vendor:contract1234
OrgUnit Department Economics Department
EnrolledCourse Opaque course identifier urn:mace:osu.edu:Physics201
17 May 2004
Stage 1 - Addressing Four Scenarios
Member of campus community accessing licensed resource• Anonymity required
Member of a course accessing remotely controlled resource• Anonymity required
Member of a workgroup accessing controlled resources• Controlled by unique identifiers (e.g. name)
Intra-university information access• Controlled by a variety of identifiers
Taken individually, each of these situations can be solved in a variety of straightforward ways. Taken together, they present the challenge of meeting the user's reasonable expectations for protection of their personal privacy.
17 May 2004
So… What is Shibboleth?
A Web Single-Signon System (SSO)?
An Access Control Mechanism for Attributes?
A Standard Interface and Vocabulary for Attributes?
A Standard for Adding Authentication and Authorization to Applications?
17 May 2004
Shibboleth Architecture (still photo, no moving parts)
17 May 2004
Shibboleth Status
Software Availability• Version 1.1 available August, 2003• Version 1.2 available May, 2004• Version 1.3 available Summer, 2004
Campus Adoption accelerating…
Working with increasing number of information/service providers
Java target implementation underway
Work underway on some of the essential management tools such as attribute release managers, target resource management, etc.
17 May 2004
Shibboleth Status
Likely to coexist well with Liberty Alliance and may work within the WS framework from Microsoft.
Growing development interest in several countries - providing resource manager tools, digital rights management, listprocs, etc.
UK’s JISC awards just announced for Core Middleware: Technology Development Programme
Used by several federations today – NSDL, InQueue, SWITCH and several more soon (UK, Australia, Finland, etc.)
17 May 2004
Shibboleth -- Next Steps
Full implementation of Trust Fabric• Supporting Multi-federation origins and target
Support for Dynamic Content (Library-style Implementation in addition to web server plugins)
Sysadmin GUIs for managing origin and target policy Grids, Virtual Organizations ?Saml V2.0, Liberty Alliance, WS-Fed NSF grant to Shibboleth-enable open source collaboration tools LionShare - Federated P2P
17 May 2004
Why Shibboleth?Improved Access Control
Use of attributes allows fine-grained access control• Med School Faculty get access to additional resources
• Specific group of students have access to restricted resources
Simplifies management of access to extended functionality• Librarians, based on their role, are given a higher-than-usual level of
access to an online database to which a college might subscribe
• Librarians and publishers can enforce complicated license agreements that may restrict access to special collections to small groups of faculty researchers
17 May 2004
Why Shibboleth?Federated Administration
Flexibly partitions responsibility, policy, technology, and trust
Leverages existing middleware infrastructure at origin - authentication, directory
• Users registered only at their “home” or “origin” institution• Target does NOT need to create new userids
Authorization information sent instead of authentication information
• when possible, use groups instead of people on ACLs• identity information still available for auditing and for applications that require it
17 May 2004
Why Shibboleth?Privacy
Higher Ed has privacy obligations• In US, “FERPA” requires permission for release of most
personal identification information; encourages least privilege in information access
• HIPAA requires privacy in medical records handling
General interest and concern for privacy is growing
Shibboleth has active (vs. passive) privacy provisions “built in”
17 May 2004
Benefits to Campuses
Much easier Inter-Domain Integration• With other campuses• With off-campus service provider systems
Integration with other campus systems, intra-domain• Learning Management Systems• Med School……
Ability to manage access control at a fine-grained level Allows personalization, without releasing identity Implement Shibboleth once…
• And then just manage attributes that are released to new targets
17 May 2004
Benefits to Targets/Service Providers
Unified authentication mechanism from the vendor perspective• Much more scalable• Much less integration work required to bring a new customer online.
Ability to implement fine-grained access control (e.g. access by role), allowing customer sites to effectively control access by attributes and thus control usage costs, by not granting access unnecessarily
Once the initial Shibboleth integration work has been completed on the vendor’s systems
• The incremental cost of adding new customers is relatively minimal• In contrast to the current situation -- requiring custom work for each new
customer
Ability to offer personalization Enables attribute-based Service Level Model If universities have Shibboleth implemented already, easy
implementation for them
17 May 2004
What are Federations? Associations of enterprises that come together to exchange
information about their users and resources in order to enable collaborations and transactions
Enroll and authenticate and attribute locally, act federally.
Uses federating software (e.g. Liberty Alliance, Shibboleth, WS-*) common attributes (e.g. eduPerson), and a security and privacy set of understandings
Enterprises (and users) retain control over what attributes are released to a resource; the resources retain control (though they may delegate) over the authorization decision.
Several federations now in construction or deployment
17 May 2004
Unified Field Theory of Trust
Bridged, global hierarchies of identification-oriented, often government based trust – laws, identity tokens, etc.
• Passports, drivers licenses • Future is typically PKI oriented
Federated enterprise-based; leverages one’s security domain; often role-based
• Enterprise does authentication and attributes• Federations of enterprises exchange assertions (identity and attributes
Peer to peer trust; ad hoc, small locus personal trust• A large part of our non-networked lives• New technology approaches to bring this into the electronic world.• Distinguishing P2P apps arch from P2P trust
Virtual organizations cross-stitch across one of the above
17 May 2004
Federated Administration
Given the strong collaborations within the academic community, there is an urgent need to create inter-realm tools, so . .
Build consistent campus middleware infrastructure deployments, with outward facing objectclasses, service points, etc. and then
Federate (multilateral) those enterprise deployments with inter-realm attribute transports, trust services, etc. and then
Leverage that federation to enable a variety of applications from network authentication to instant messaging, from video to web services, from p2p to virtual organizations, etc. while we
Be cautious about the limits of federations and look for alternative fabrics where appropriate.
17 May 2004
Federated Administration
O
TO
T
T T
Apps CMCM Apps
VOVO
T
Campus 1Campus 2
Federation
Otherfeds
17 May 2004
Shibboleth-based Federations
InQueue InCommonClub ShibSwiss Education and Research Network (SWITCH)National Science Digital Library (NSDL)
------------------------------------State networksMedical networksFinancial aid networksLife-long learning communities
17 May 2004
The Research and EducationFederation Space
REFCluster
InQueue(a starting point)
InCommon
SWITCH
The ShibResearch Club
Other national nets
Other clustersOther
potential USR+E feds
State of Penn Fin Aid Assoc
NSDL
Slippery slope- Med Centers, etc
Indiana
17 May 2004
InQueue
The “holding pond”
Is a persistent federation with “passing-through” membership…
Operational today. Can apply for membership via http://shibboleth.internet2.edu/ InQueue Federation guidelines
Requires eduPerson attributes
Operated by Internet2; open to almost anyone using Shibboleth in an R&E setting or not…
Fees and service profile to be established shortly: cost-recovery basis
17 May 2004
InQueue Origins2.12.04
Rutgers University
University of Wisconsin
New York University
Georgia State University
University of Washington
University of California Shibboleth Pilot
University at Buffalo
Dartmouth College
Michigan State University
Georgetown
Duke
The Ohio State University
UCLA
Internet2
Carnegie Mellon University
National Research Council of CanadaColumbia UniversityUniversity of VirginiaUniversity of California, San DiegoBrown UniversityUniversity of MinnesotaPenn State UniversityCal Poly PomonaLondon School of EconomicsUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillUniversity of Colorado at BoulderUT ArlingtonUTHSC-HoustonUniversity of MichiganUniversity of RochesterUniversity of Southern California
17 May 2004
Major Targets
Campuses that are also origins, wanting to share campus-based content
Content providers – EBSCO, OCLC, JSTOR, Elsevier, Napster, etc
Learning Management Systems – WebCT, Blackboard, WebAssign, OKI, etc
Outsourced Service Providers – purchasing systems, dormitory management companies, locksmiths, etc.
17 May 2004
InCommon Federation
A permanent federation for the R&E US sectorFederation operations – Internet2Federating software – Shibboleth 1.1 and above Federation data schema - eduPerson200210 or later and
eduOrg200210 or later Became operational April 5, with several early entrants to
help shape the policy issues.Precursor federation, InQueue, has been in operation for
about six months and will feed into InCommon http://www.incommonfederation.org
17 May 2004
InCommon Management
Operational services by I2• Member services • Backroom (CA, WAYF service, etc.)
Governance • Executive Committee - Carrie Regenstein - chair (Wisconsin), Jerry Campbell (USC), Lev
Gonick (CWRU), Clair Goldsmith (Texas System), Mark Luker (EDUCAUSE),Tracy Mitrano (Cornell), Susan Perry (Mellon), Mike Teets (OCLC), David Yakimischak (JSTOR)
• Two Executive Committee working groups – Policy – Tracy Mitrano, Chair– Communications, Membership, Pricing and Packaging – Susan Perry, Chair
• Technical Advisory Group – Scott Cantor (OSU), Steven Carmody (Brown), Bob Morgan (Washington), Renee Shuey (PSU)
• Project manager – Renee Frost (Internet2)
Membership open to .edu and affiliated business partners Contractual and policy issues being defined now… Likely to take 501(c)3 status
17 May 2004
Trust in InCommon - Initial
Members trust the federated operations to perform its activities well
• The operator (Internet2) posts its procedures, attempts to execute them faithfully, and makes no warranties
• Enterprises read the procedures and decide if they want to become members
Origins and targets trust each other bilaterally in out-of-band or no-band arrangements
• Origins trust targets dispose of attributes properly• Targets trust origins to provide attributes accurately• Risks and liabilities managed by end enterprises, in separate ways
17 May 2004
InCommon Trust - Ongoing
Use trust Build trust cycle
Clearly need consensus levels of I/A
Multiple levels of I/A for different needs• Two factor for high-risk• Distinctive requirements (campus in Bejing or France, distance ed,
mobility)
Standardized data definitions unclear
Audits unclear
International issues
17 May 2004
Balancing the Work
InCommon CA• Identity proofing the enterprise• Issuing the enterprise signing keys (primary and spare)• Signing the metadata
InCommon Federation• Aggregating the metadata• Supporting campuses in posting their policies
17 May 2004
InCommon Operations Docs
InCommon_Federation_Disaster_Recovery_Procedures_ver_0.1 • An outline of the procedures to be used if there is a disaster with the InCommon
Federation.
Internet2_InCommon_Federation_Infrastructure_Technical_Reference_ver_0.2
• Document describing the federation infrastructure.
Internet2_InCommon_secure_physical_storage_ver_0.2 • List of the physical objects and logs that will be securely stored.
Internet2_InCommon_Technical_Operations_steps_ver_0.35 • This document lists the steps taken from the point of submitting CSR, Metadata,
and CRL to issuing a signed cert, generation of signed metadata, and publishing the CRL.
Internet2_InCommon_Technical_Operation_Hours_ver_0.12 • Documentation of the proposed hours of operations.
17 May 2004
InCommon CA Operations Docs
CA_Disaster_Recovery_Procedure_ver_0.14 • An outline of the procedures to be used if there is a disaster with the CA.
cspguide • Manual of the CA software planning to use.
InCommon_CA_Audit_Log_ver_0.31 • Proposed details for logging related to the CA.
Internet2_InCommon_CA_Disaster_Recovery_from_root_key_compromise_ver_0.2
• An outline of the procedures to be used if there is a root key compromise with the CA.
Internet2_InCommon_CA_PKI-Lite_CPS_ver_0.61 • Draft of the PKI-Lite CPS.
Internet2_InCommon_CA_PKI-Lite_CP_ver_0.21 • Draft of the PKI-Lite CP.
Internet2_InCommon_Certificate_Authority_for_the_InCommon_Federation_System_Technical_Reference_ver_0.41
• Document describing the CA.
17 May 2004
InCommon Key Signing Process 2. Hardware descriptions
a. Hardware will be laptop and spare laptop with no network capabilities, thumb drive, CDRW drive, media for necessary software 3. Software descriptions a. OS, OpenSSL, CSP, Java tools for meta data 4. Log into computer 5. Generation of the CA Private Root key and self-signing 6. Generation of the Metadata signing key 7. Generate CSR for Internet2 origin 8. Signing of new metadata sites and trusts files 9. Backup copies of all private keys and other operational backup data are generated. 10. Verify CD's and MD5 checksum 11. Write down passphrase and put in envelopes and sign envelopes 12. Securely store CA hardware and contents of local safe in safe 13. Log that these actions occurred on the log in safe and then close and lock the safe 14. Put thumb drive into secure db and copy data onto secure db 15. Take private key password archive and other contents to Private Key Password safe deposit box and record in log that this was done. 16. Take operational data archive to Operation Data safe deposit box and record in log that this was done.
17 May 2004
InCommon Operations Process Steps
InCommon Process Technical Reviewers• Scott Cantor, OSU• Jim Jokl, University of Virginia• RL Bob Morgan, University of Washington • Jeff Schiller, MIT
Key Signing Party • March 30, 2004 in Ann Arbor• Videotaped• Witnessed
Phase One participants vetting process and documentation
17 May 2004
The Potential for InCommon
The federation as a networked trust facilitator
Needs to scale in two fundamental ways• Policy underpinnings need to move to normative levels among the
members; “post and read” is a starting place…• Inter-federation issues need to be engineered; we are trying to align
structurally with emerging federal recommendations
Needs to link with PKI and with federal and international activities
If it does scale and grow, it could become a most significant component of cyberinfrastructure…
17 May 2004
Beyond Web Services…
Federated security services• Collaborative incident correlation and analysis • Trust-mediated transparency and other security-aware capabilities
Federated extensions to other architectures• Lionshare project for P2P file sharing• IM• Federated Grids
17 May 2004
Virtual Organizations (VOs)
Need a model to support a wide variety of use cases• Native VO infrastructure capabilities, differences in enterprise
readiness, etc.• Variations in collaboration modalities• Requirements of VOs for authorization, range of disciplines, etc
JISC in the UK has lead; solicitation (see (http://www.jisc.ac.uk/c01_04.html); builds on NSF NMI
Tool set likely to include seamless listproc, web sharing, shared calendaring, real-time video, privilege management system, etc.
17 May 2004
Acknowledgements
Design Team: David Wasley (U of C); RL ‘Bob’ Morgan (U of Washington); Keith Hazelton (U of Wisconsin - Madison);Marlena Erdos
(IBM/Tivoli); Steven Carmody (Brown); Scott Cantor (Ohio State)
Important Contributions from: Ken Klingenstein (Internet2); Michael Gettes (Duke), Scott Fullerton (Madison)
Coding: Derek Atkins (MIT), Parviz Dousti (CMU), Scott Cantor (OSU), Walter Hoehn (Columbia/U of Memphis)
17 May 2004
For More Information
NSF Middleware Initiative-sponsored workshop:
“CAMP Shibboleth”• June 28-30 in Broomfield, Colorado
• Features a Shib Install Fest
Websites
http://middleware.internet2.edu
http://shibboleth.internet2.edu
http:/www.incommonfederation.org
Renee Woodten Frost [email protected]