150 likes | 168 Views
This workshop explores the challenges and requirements of privilege and policy management for secure and trustworthy cyber infrastructures. Topics discussed include models, architecture, enforcement, usability, and the relationship to I3P and workshop themes.
E N D
Privilege and Policy Management for Cyber Infrastructures Dennis Kafura Markus Lorch Support provided by: Commonwealth Security Information Center Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory IBM March 14-15, 2005
Organization • Grand Challenges • Problems • Requirements • PRIMA – a privilege-based approach • Models • Architecture/Mechanisms • Research challenges • Policy • Obligations • Enforcement • Usability • Relationship to I3P and Workshop Themes March 14-15, 2004
Grand Challenge Problems • Societal infrastructures “Develop tools and principles that allow construction of large-scale systems for important societal applications that are highly trustworthy despite being attractive targets.” • Dynamic, pervasive computing environments “For the dynamic, pervasive computing environments of the future, give computing end-users security they can understand and privacy they can control. From: CRA Workshop on “Grand Research Challenges in Information Security and Assurance,” November 2003. March 14-15, 2004
Cyber Infrastructure Requirements March 14-15, 2004
PRIMA Models March 14-15, 2004
PRIMA Properties March 14-15, 2004
Privilege Structure • Privilege Properties • Fully associated • Directly applicable • Time limited • Externalized • Secure • Non-repudiation • Implementation • Container: X.509 Attribute Certificate • Privilege: XACML rule construct March 14-15, 2004
Enforcement Concepts • Policy Enforcement Point (PEP) checks privileges for: • Applicability (to resource and requestor) • Validity (of time frame and signature) • Authority (with respect to privilege management policy) • All permissible privilege constitute a dynamic policy for a request • Policy Decision Point (PDP): • Makes coarse decision • Adds obligations for PEP March 14-15, 2004
Dynamic Policy March 14-15, 2004
Obligations • Additional constraints to an authorization decision • If PEP cannot fulfill an obligation then it disallows access • Obligation address the mismatch in level of detail between request and policies • Obligations help in maintaining system state March 14-15, 2004
Research Challenges: Policy • What can be adapted from software engineering research for policy: • Testing • Debugging • Formal Analysis • Requirements engineering • Policy extensions • Threat/environment aware March 14-15, 2004
Research Challenges: Obligations • Granularity mismatch • Too many rights to be externalized • Partially addressed by dynamic policy • With respect to the request • Need to add restrictions finer-grained than request March 14-15, 2004
Research Challenges: Enforcement • Evaluation of mechanisms • Dynamic user accounts • Virtual machine/sandboxing • Service containers • Model • Distributing privileges to dynamically provision an execution environment, vs. • Pre-provisioning an execution environment and distributing a privilege for it March 14-15, 2004
Research Challenges: Usability • What are the right conceptual models? • Privileges • Roles • Others? Several? Combinations? • How can users manage their rights? • P3P • Shibboleth release policies • Least-privilege control March 14-15, 2004
Addressing I3P and Workshop Themes I3P Agenda Workshop Themes March 14-15, 2004