110 likes | 230 Views
Cross-Enterprise Privacy Policy (XPP) - revised -. Profile Proposal for 2008/09 presented to the IT Infrastructure Technical Committee Kuhlisch, Caumanns, Rode (eCR, Fraunhofer ISST) November, 19th 2008. Actors and Transactions. 1. Transaction 1: Resource Access. request comes with:.
E N D
Cross-Enterprise Privacy Policy (XPP)- revised - Profile Proposal for 2008/09 presented to the IT Infrastructure Technical Committee Kuhlisch, Caumanns, Rode (eCR, Fraunhofer ISST) November, 19th 2008
Transaction 1: Resource Access request comes with: XUA(policy pull) XUA, Access Assertion(policy cache) XUA, Access Assertion, Policy Assertion(policy push) PT – Protection Token ST – SupportingTokens
Transaction 2: PD request • Integration of PDP and PEP should not be specified as an explicit transaction • Advantages: • message flow between PDP and PEP can be implementation specific and the profile does not set restriction on the attributes exchanged and the policy encoding used profile complexity is minimized But: The XPP Access Control Interceptor must support at least one policy encoding (e. g. XACML)
Transaction 3a: requestAccessAssertion • SOAP based communication (WS Trust RST/RSTR) RST: • Security Header: (SAML Token) • XUA Assertion (Subject information) • Body: (CustomExchange element) • Resource • Action e.g. encoding as XACML request RSTR: • Body: (RequestedSecurityToken element) • Access Assertion (contains policy reference) • Policy Reference Encoding: • e.g. XACML Policy(Set)IdReference
Transaction 3b: requestPolicyAssertion • SOAP based communication (WS Trust RST/RSTR) RST: • Security Header: (SAML Token) • XUA • Access Assertion (Policy Reference information) • Body: (CustomExchange element) • requested Policy Encoding RSTR: • Body: (RequestedSecurityToken element) • Policy Assertion (contains concrete policy in requested encoding) • Policy Encoding: • e.g. XACML, P3P, EPAL, ...
Conclusion (1/2) • For the eCR it took 18 month of discussion to get to the solution as proposed with this profile proposal • Performance is an issue • Lessons learned at Siemens with their eCR implementation • About 145 forum interactions between the Siemens development team for eFA security and the WSIT team at Sun over 6 months. About 10 bugs were reported [and fixed by SUN]. • We did not get the impression that other projects worldwide were burdening the properties of this WS-stack to the same degree as we had to do.
Conclusion (2/2) • Federated authorization is an issue for cross-domain XDS • But: Federated authorization is still not well understood • And: Decoupling (authentication and) authorization from business services (actors) is not state-of-the-mind in healthcare IT • BUT: • With XUA IHE is on a very good way towards a state-of-the-art security infrastructure based on the paradigms of SOA security • XPP is the logical next step
Suggestion • White Paper: Authorization for IHE ITI Profiles • motivation and use cases • cross-domain (federated) authorization • IHE ITI authorization framework • data flow (policy push vs. policy pull) • PEP, PDP, PAP, PIP deployment and integration • provider-enforced BPPC • safeguarding IHE transactions (cookbook) • Profile: Policy Provisioning (XPP) • transactions 3a/3b (PAP interaction) • Profile on SAML and WS Trust • Profile: XDS Access Control Policies • XACML profile for safeguarding XDS actors andresources