Progress Report on Mobile Authentication Trends and Challenges

1. ITU Workshop on “ICT Security Standardizationfor Developing Countries” (Geneva, Switzerland, 15-16 September 2014) Step-up authentication a key enabler of mobile on-line trustProgress report of ITU-T and OASIS Trust Elevation work Abbie Barbir Ph.D., Chair OASIS Trust Elevation TC abarbir@live.ca

2. Mobile Authentication • Talk/slides represents findings From OASIS and ITU work • Mobile going main stream • Adoption of mobile devices for business is on the rise • Organizations are rushing to mobile their applications • Mobile devices are used for providing authentication to applications • Threats to Mobile • Data exposure from lost, stolen, or returned devices • Mobile malware / Zero day attacks • Security risks from 3rd party applications • OS vulnerabilities • Network exposure (Wifi, NFC etc..) • App stores issues • Immature tools and debugging s/w • Mobile Authentication • Contextual based Authentication is emerging • Adoption of cloud based services continuous to grow • Biometric Authentication is on the rise • Using the device as a token

3. Trends of Mobile Authentication • Emerging Needs and Capabilities • Support of context based access • Fine(r) access control • Map user (including device) identity and (may be per app) authentication credentials to SLA • Need to understand and compare user behavior across many devices • Ability to categorize user access to different devices • Be able to set access control based on degrees of validated device identity • Fine grain endpoint IdM • Ability to identify, terminate and restrict access per application/device and other factors.

4. Challenges of Mobile Authentication User experience Authentication Convenience Risk based polices • Mobile App Considerations • Application architecture • Offline vs. online access • Storage of information on device • Various mobile OS • Device ownership: BYOD or Corp Liable • Challenges to SSO on Mobile • No standardized SSO • Native Mobile apps vs. Web • Better user experience • Leverage local device capabilities • SaaS vendor-provided apps authenticate to SaaS backend systems • Web App • Browsers lack access to native device E.g. Camera, • Browsers tend to be underpowered UI for small form factor devices Device Profile User Behaviour Profile Possible Fraud Results Risk Analysis Pass Fail Verify Perform Step up AuthN • Mobile app security challenges: • Broader coverage beyond VPN needed • Check for malicious behavior and threats at app layer • Continuous data monitoring and auth

5. OASIS Trust ElevationTC • Defining a set of standardized protocols to elevate trust in an electronic identity Trust Elevation • Increasing the trust a relying party has that the online entity accessing its resources is the (person or device) it claims to be • Reducing the risk that a relying party assumes that the online entity accessing its resources is not the person or device it claims to be TC Deliverables • Deliverable One: Collect current and imminent trust elevation methods • Deliverable Two: Analysis of collected methods • Deliverable Three: General principles and techniques to elevate trust in a transaction • Deliverable Four: Trust Elevation Protocol and Markup Language

6. Authentication Categories • Physical Biometric • immutable and unique • Facial recognition • Iris Scan/Retinal Scan • Fingerprint Palm Scan/Voice • Liveliness biometric factors include: Pulse. • CAPTCHA; etc • Behavioral Biometric • based on person’s physical behavioural activity patterns • Keyboard signature • Voice • Browsing patterns • Time of access • Type of device • Used in Combination with other methods • It is a big mistake to assume that strong authentication always result when combining multiple authentication attributes/factors. • Only by combining attributes of different kinds (that is, different factors) with different (non-overlapping) sets of vulnerabilities is there a significant increase in resistance to attack and, thus, in authentication strength what you Do Who You Are Biometric Trust elevation (step-up Authentication): • Increasing the strength of trust (Auth) by adding factors from the same or different categories of trust elevation methods that don’t share the same vulnerabilities • There are five categories of trust elevation methods • who you are (biometrics, behavioral attributes), • what you know (shared secrets, public and relationship knowledge), • what you have (devices, tokens - hard, soft, OTP), • what you typically do (described by ITU-T x1254, behavioral habits that are independent of physical biometric attributes)a nd • the context (location, time, party, prior relationship, social relationship and source). • Elevation can be within the classic four X.1254 ITU-T LoA • Location; Time of access; • Subscriber identity module (SIM) • Frequency of access; • Source and endpoint identity attributes Context what you know • User Name and Password (UN/PW), A passphrase, a PIN • Very often used combinations with KBA methods. • Knowledge Based Authentication (KBA) • Static/Dynamic KBA Mostly used to provide Secondary Attributes • One Time Password (OTP) • Smart card • X.509 and PKI • Rarely used alone • Used in combination with UN/PW and a PIN what you have

7. Mobile Application Threat Model External Services (Can be Malicious) Malicious user bypassing Mobile client Local App Storage Local Key Chain Mobile Device Mobile App User Can be Malicious Enterprise Server and Services Malicious Mobile App Device File System • Spoofing Users to the Mobile App • Borrowed/Stolen Device • Other Malicious Application • Spoofing: Web Services to Mobile App • Borrowed Device • Other Malicious App • Tampering: Mobile App • Borrowed/Stolen Device • Other Malicious Application • Disclosure: Device Data Stores or Residual Data • Borrowed/Stolen Device • Malicious App Functionality • Attacks from Mobile Web Services • Disclosure: Mobile App to Web Service • Attacks from Local Network • Other Malicious App • Denial of Service: Mobile App • Elevation of Privilege: Mobile App or WS

8. Tackling mobile security risks Balancing act between risk and convenience • Application Centric • Server Side protection • Development • App Store • Platforms • Device Centric • MDM • Device Policy • Data Encryption • Containers Data Centric • Limit Data on Device • Traffic Encryption • Virtualization

9. Trust Elevation Core Model User Accesses Online Resource with identity and/or attribute data (may consist of credential) Resource Assesses Trustworthiness of Asserted Identity According to Policy Resource Determines Insufficient Trustworthiness rejection Resource Engages Previously-Determined Trust Elevation Process access resource for the transaction reapplication of yet another trust elevation cycle

10. 4th Deliverable “TE” Protocol and Markup Language What we considered so far? • OAuth, OpenID Connect, UMA, OATH, SAML What we found • OAuth, OpenID and UMA are services that manage authorization. These services may utilize Trust Elevation before or after executing their service. • SAML can Support Step UP also • OATH is an open framework for strong authentication; primarily focused on device credential and authentication interfaces. It does not have a standard format for trust elevation (or am I missing something?) What we proposed • Would support existing authentication and authorization specification but will remain independent of them. • Would ensure existing identity assertion frameworks are supported • Would be in XML and JSON formats

11. Trust Elevation Sequence

12. OASIS Trust Elevation Story End-User accesses online resource using a device with an asserted identity and/or attributes. Device sends End-User’s identity and/or attribute data to Relying Party (RP) RP requests an Identity Provider (IdP) to assess the asserted identity. RP validates each and every asserted attributes, if they are available, using an Attribute Provider (AP). The AP could be independent, part of RP or part of a third party. RP may involve multiple APs in a single transaction to validate various attributes. RP engages LoA Assessor (LA) to assess LoA for the verified identity and/or attributes strength. RP determines if the asserted identity and attributes offer sufficient trustworthiness. For sufficient trustworthiness, present the resource [13, 14]. For insufficient trustworthiness, follow Trust Elevation steps [7 - 12]. If there is no opportunity to elevate trust, then reject the request [13, 14] RP engages Trust-Elevation Method Determiner (MD) to determine the best possible type of method be used for Trust Elevation. The MD is a repository of predetermined Trust Elevation methods for transactions involving various combinations of type of devices, RPs, IdPs, APs and LAs. The MD could be independent, part of RP or part of a third party. RP, based on feedback from MD, requests valid authentication factors through the device. The device could provide factors with/without End-User Intervention.

13. Trust Elevation Sequence - Story RP requests an Identity Provider (IdP) to assess the asserted identity. RP validates each and every asserted attributes, if they are available, using an Attribute Provider (AP). The AP could be independent, part of RP or part of a third party. RP may involve multiple APs in a single transaction to validate various attributes. RP engages LoA Assessor (LA) to assess LoA for the verified identity and/or attributes strength. RP determines if the asserted identity and attributes offer sufficient trustworthiness. For sufficient trustworthiness, present the resource . For insufficient trustworthiness, follow Trust Elevation steps If there is no opportunity to elevate trust, then reject the request RP presents information to device Device present information to End-User

14. Conclusions and Recommendations • Step up Authentication will play a critical role in mobile space • OASIS and ITU are working to Create a generalizable framework for implementing non-credential-based, online authentication best practices based on current and near-future implementations • Expands and extends options for multi-factor authentication implementations Mobility • It is all about App security • Application fine grain Auth N/Z for one or more Apps • Move from static to continuous Auth • Fine grain policy enforcement • Cloud … Cloud ….Cloud • Challenging but in progress • More opportunities for simplification and innovation