diwd concordia

1projectconcordia.org

Bootstrapping the Identity Metasystem

Mary Ruddy (Meristic), Patrick Harding (Ping ID) & Paul

Madsen (NTT)


Agenda

Bootstrapping? Project Concordia A Matrix of possibilities SAML-> OpenID (Paul) Infocards->ID-WSF (Mary) SAML->OAuth (Patrick) References Discussion


Bootstrapping

We enjoy/confront a number of different 'standards' for federated identity protocols/systems, e.g. SAML, OpenID, Oauth, Infocards, ID-WSF, WS-Federation,

Such heterogeneity is both a boon and a bane, while it gives deployers freedom to choose, it creates interoperability challenges across the systems

More and more, the protocols are expected to be deployed in combination (but they weren't necessarily designed with this expectation)

Bootstrapping refers to mechanisms that, when two or more protocols are chained together, enable the transition(s) between them


Project Concordia

“Agreement, understanding, and marital harmony”... Public forum driving interop among identity protocols

Used together in practice but not originally designed to fit together

Practical focus on real-life issues Gathering deployer input is an explicit goal

No technology is off-limits PKI, SAML, WS-Fed, OpenID, InfoCard, ID-WSF ...

Scenarios are explored, tested, and clarified in turn If further specification work is needed, Concordia may

champion its standardization in the appropriate forum


The Matrix

Frontchannel attributes

Backchannel attributes

Authn

SSO

SLO

OpenID SAML Infocards WS-Fed ID-WSF OAuth

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Paul

Mary

Patrick


SAML ->OpenID


SAML->OpenID

Both SAML & OpenID define mechanisms to support statements such as I require the user to be authenticated with a password The user was authenticated at Level Of Assurance 'Gold'

SAML defines Authentication Context, OpenID the Provider Authentication Policy Extension (PAPE)

Both effectively ride on top of the core SSO protocol, giving RP & IDP enhanced ability to express such policies

AC & PAPE are logically equivalent, differ in syntax


SAML Authentication Context

SAML Authentication allows IDP/SP to indicate policy on SSO messages wrt Identity proofing (e.g. Email verification or f2f) Security processes (e.g. Key storage) Authentication specifics (e.g. Biometric or OTP) Assurance levels (work under way)

Authentication Context 'classes' capture common combinations of above aspects - SSTC defined a number, e.g. 'mobile-nocontract'

New classes can be defined by other some communities (not without some difficulty)


OpenID PAPE

OpenID Provider Authentication Policy Extension PAPE is a (relatively) simple mechanism PAPE standardizes 3 URIs

Multi-factor Multi-factor Hard token Phishing Resistant

Also allows providers to indicate assurance in terms of NIST 800 63 levels


Motivating Use Case

A SAML IDP provides strong authentication services to a community of RPs IDP focuses on strong authentication, and outsources low assurance

requests to OPs through OpenID Value

For SAML RPs, leveraging their existing IDP relationship to mediate those with OPs

For OpenID OPs, (indirect) access to those erstwhile exclusively SAML RPs

If and when a SAML RP uses saml:AuthnContext to ask for a low assurance authentication, SAML IDP will proxy that request to the user specified OP – with openid:PAPE

Implies that SAML AC class URIs & PAPE URIs must be mapped

OpenID

SAML

SAMLrequestedauthncontext(password)

authncontext(password)

pape(password)

RP IdP/RP OP

pape(password)

logon(pwd)

service?

service

1

2

3

4

Sequence


<Ointment><Fly/><Fly/></Ointment>

PAPE does not define a password URI SAML does not (yet) define how to bind the NIST

800 63 assurance levels to Authn Context Can we presume that the two protocols are

equivalent with respect to LoA? PAPE gives non-normative guidance on how

typical authentication mechanisms (some overlap with SAML's classes) map into the PAPE URIs


Information Cards -> ID-WSF


Infocards->ID-WSF

Overview of protocols Motivation for use case Approach


ID-WSF

Identity Web Services Framework Developed by Liberty Alliance Framework to support Federated Web Services Specification released in 2003 Supports circles of trust “Back Channel Identify”


Today you go from site to site filling in forms and

passwords

Copyright © 2008 Parity. Made available under EPL 1.0 16

Type, type, type. Click, click. Here a password, there a password. Everywhere a password.Here a form, there a form, ...

Websites…


Information Cards Put You in Control

Copyright © 2008 Parity. Made available under EPL 1.0 17

Each card is a slice of the digital you (or a friend of yours) held in some data silo.

Any kind of information:your preferences, favorite songs, employee id numbers, drivers licenses, affiliations, your health plan id, ...you get the idea, can be accessed using a card.

This wallet-like thing is an app called an Identity Selector


Sample Use Case


The information card ID-WSF bootstrap

The opportunity: Information Cards can be handy human consumable

ID-WSF Containers (representing Discovery Service Endpoint References [DS-EPRs] EPRs and relationships such as subscriptions)

Or from the other perspective, the DS provides a web services interface to the information card service


Bootstrap Flow

Identity Selector

Browser Extension & Client App

Identity Provider

Relying Party Website or App

Cards are generated and downloaded from here. Token Service issues tokens as requested by Selector.

Cards are stored and selected here

Tokens containing claim data are requested and received here ( tag on Website contains a reference for an ID-WSF service)


ID-WSF integration- Higgins IdP

Identity Selector

IdAS

LDAP Server

ID-WSF

Layer

ID-WSF Personal Profile Service

ID-WSF CP

LDAPCP

PP CP

I-card Services

DS ISASID-WSFSTS


SAML -> OAuth


SSO + Data

SAML handles federated browser SSO Secure Internet SSO Attribute Sharing Account Linking between different sites

OAuth handles delegated web service authentication secure API authentication Secure access to web service data API’s Generally with explicit user consent


Sample Use Case

Online Brokerage partners with third party Calculators site

Online Brokerage requires Calculators site to implement SSO via SAML Automated upload of account balances and holdings via API

Online Brokerage requires user consent and user presence before releasing user account balances to Calculators Site

Similar Use Cases Benefits Provider partners with Wellness Site Cable Operator partners with Gaming Site


SP-Initiated SAML

Brokerage.com

Identity Provider

Brokerage.com

Identity Provider

Calculators.com

Service Provider

Calculators.com

Service Provider

BrowserBrowser

1. SAML MetaData Exchange(i.e. Certs/Keys, EndPoints)

5. User redirect backwith SAML Token

4. UserAuthenticates &Handles User Consent

3.User redirect withSAML AuthN Request

6. Get Account Balances with SAML Token

2. ViewCalculators 7. Display

Calculators

APIAPI


Step 6

Leveraging SAML SSO Token for Web Service Requests SAML SSO Token not profiled for delegated web service

authentication Violates multiple SAML processing rules

TTL’s, AudienceRestrictions, SubjectConfirmation, InResponseTo IdP must ignore the SAML Token validation failures Not profiled for interoperability between Federation products and

Web Service Security tools Limited utility

’


OAuth

Brokerage.com

OauthService Provider

Brokerage.com

OauthService Provider

Calculators.com

OAuth Consumer

Calculators.com

OAuth Consumer

BrowserBrowser

1. Consumer Key and Secret

6. User Redirect back with Authorized Request Token


4. User Redirect with Unauthorized Request Token

8. Get Account Balances with Access Token

2. View Calculators

3. Get Unauthorized Request Token

7. Exchange Authorized Token for AccessToken APIAPI

10. Display Calculators


Bootstrapping Possibilities

Leverages existing SAML partner PKI certificates for oAuth RSA signatures Eliminate consumer key and secret used for HMAC signatures

Leverage SAML messages to carry oAuth Request Tokens Eliminates second round of oAuth browser redirects SAML Request includes oAuth Unauthorized Request Token SAML Response includes oAuth Authorized Request Token

Can also works for IdP initiated SAML SSO Alternate SAML bindings such as Artifact


SAML + oAuth

Brokerage.com

Identity Provider

Brokerage.com

Identity Provider

Calculators.com

Service Provider

Calculators.com

Service Provider

BrowserBrowser

1. SAML MetaData Exchange(i.e. Certs/Keys, EndPoints)

5. User redirect backwith SAML Token + oAuth Authorised Token


3.User redirect withSAML AuthN Request + oAuth Unauthorized Token

2. ViewCalculators 8. Display

Calculators

APIAPI

7. Get Account Balances with Access Token

6. Exchange Authorized Token for AccessToken


Optimization

Reduce operational complexity Simplify monitoring/troubleshooting

Improve User Performance & Latency Eliminate extra browser redirects

Leverage existing capabilities and infrastructure given SAML important without oAuth

IdP requires vanilla SAML SSO with other partners OAuth important without SAML

SP requests data from other oAuth enabled sites


Questions?

diwd concordia

Technology