300 likes | 503 Views
Identity Governance Framework (“IGF”) Overview and Status. Phil Hunt and Prateek Mishra. Agenda. Introduction Use Cases Standardization Path Q&A. Liberty Alliance. Standards development organization focused around enterprise use-cases enable a networked world based on open standards
E N D
Identity Governance Framework (“IGF”) Overview and Status Phil Hunt and Prateek Mishra
Agenda • Introduction • Use Cases • Standardization Path • Q&A
Liberty Alliance • Standards development organization focused around enterprise use-cases • enable a networked world based on open standards • Range of activitiies around assurance, federation, privacy • Standards developed include ID-FF (precursor to SAML 2.0), ID-WSF, Identity Assurance frameworks • http://www.projectliberty.org
Observations about Identity Data • Names, home addresses, phone numbers, social security number, rank, e-mail address,… • Essential to enterprises and web sites providing services to customers • Business applications cannot function without identity information • Multiple sources of data (attribute authorities) • Enterprise View: HR, CRM, Partners, IT Directory, Departmental Systems, … • Internet View: Portals, users, banks, employers, governments, retail, identity processors (background and credit checks)
Concerns about identity data • Increasing legal and regulatory focus • Privacy concerns: HIPAA, SB 1386, theft • Compliance: SOX, GLB, EU legislation • Industry vertical regulations: credit bureaus, credit-card processors (PCI standard) • With each new heist or problem, new regulation or best practice model • There are going to be more issues in the future • How can the enterprise reduce risk associated with storing and using identity data? • Lock it all up! • With each new regulation conduct forensic scanning and analysis of systems • Invest in an architecture that supports a governance model for identity
Identity Governance Framework • Open architecture that addresses governance of identity related information within the enterprise • Standards development ongoing at the Liberty Alliance • Open source implementation being created at http://www.openliberty.org • Addresses gap between high-level assurance and regulatory requirements and lower-level protocols and architecture • Privacy aware architecture that can express many different constraints and requirements • Overlays on existing infrastructure at enterprises
impacts impacts
IGF Focus • How to reduce the risk associated with creation, maintenance and use of identity data? • Who has access to my social security number or account number, and, under what conditions? • Declarative statements (aka policies) published by consumers (applications, services) and sources of identity data (attribute authorities) • Enterprises can audit and implement governance against these policies
Observations on Key Roles • Users • Capture what agreements the user accepted • Reflect consent and purpose of data use • But IGF does not directly address interactions with users • Application developers are not identity experts • How can they express application identity requirements? • Tools and frameworks for developers are a key focus for IGF • Identity Administrators • Identity-related data is distributed & web based • User consent must be supported and enforced • Enable owners of identity data to express use constraints
Agenda • Introduction • Components and Use Cases • Standardization Path • Q&A
IGF Components • CARML – Defines application identity requirements • what identity information an application needs and how the application will use it. • AAPML – Defines identity use policies (XACML) • Constraints on user and application access to personal data • obligations and conditions under which data is to be released • Attribute Service – Links applications to identity data • Developer APIs/Tools – Developers can express identity requirements at a business level at development time • Key to IGF adoption/use
Components • CARML (“kaar-mull”): Client Attribute Requirements Markup Language • Declarative model for identity interactions by applications • List of required/optional attributes and types, other properties • Includes some support for update of identity data • Developers focus on app business requirements for identity-related data • Developers and deployers express privacy rules followed by application • Will the data be stored by the app? For how long? • What purpose is it being used for?
CARML Use-Case • Application developer lists their identity requirements in CARML file • Last four digits of user social security number • User home address • Office location in which user is employed • None of this data is stored or forwarded to other applications • Application is delivered to customers • WidgetFactory, Inc. uses AD for employment level and office location, Oracle database for social security numbers • AcmeCo uses MySQL database for office location, employment level, proprietary application for social security number. • Administrators review CARML file and connect to appropriate back-end resources • Ensure that enterprise privacy constraints are met by applications
Components • Attribute Authorities • AAPML (“aap-mull”): Attribute Authority Policy Markup Language • Describes constraints on use of attribute data • Declarative policy model for authorities that provide attributes • Contextual rule support – who is asking for the data? On whose behalf? For what purpose? • User-consent support • Direct enforcement policy • Obligations & declarations • Proposed as XACML Profile
Sample AAPML Rules • Users can update only their own contact information and personal data • List of attributes: telephone number, contact information, mailing address, emergency information • Authorized Subjects: Application “SelfService”, authenticated user • Target Records: must match the authenticated user context. • Auth Requirements: Proof of application authentication required • Rights: Read + Write • Consent: Not required • Marketing applications can access certain user attributes provided explicit user-consent is available • List of attributes: name, address, e-mail • Authorized Subjects: Any authenticated user with attribute “employee”, Any application in marketing • Auth Requirements: None • Target Records: any • Rights: Read • Consent: consent record based on agreement of Dec 10, 2006 must be available
Components • Identity Service: • Many possible realizations or implementations • Could be client integrated, middleware server, or source-server integrated based service • Read/Write attributes from many different sources using various protocols
Sample Architecture .NET Perl Java API Applications Applications API Applications API Existing Applications Client Apps Optional:LDAP, legacy protocolsWS-Trust STS Query ProtocolSAML / ID-WSF /SPML CARML :Attribute Requirements CARML :Attribute Requirements CARML :Attribute Requirements CARML :Attribute Requirements View A View B Identity PolicyEngine Identity Service Admins reconcile sources and policies with client CARML requirements to create “views” Delivery/Gateway/Enforcement AAPML :Attribute Use Policy AAPML :Attribute Use Policy AAPML :Attribute Use Policy LDAP, ODBC, SAML Query, SAML Assertions, … Authority1 End-User(s) Authority2 ExternalPartners Authority3 HR Systems Authority4 Departmental Systems Authority5 EnterpriseDirectory Identity Sources Legend StandardComponents Run-Time Interactions Admin Deploy Time Interactions Existing or non-specified Admin Deploy & Run-Time Interactions
IGF Part 1: Foundations Multi-protocol (LDAP, SQL, SAML, ID-WSF, ..)Focus on producers and consumers of identity data
IGF Part 2: AAPML Many distributed authorities, each capable of expressing constraints on use of identity data
IGF Part 3: Declarative Applications Applications publish requirements for identity data
IGF Part 4: App Developer and Enterprise Administrators • Application Developer • Identity needs of business applications expressed at a high-level • Application developers lack identity middleware expertise • Declarative model is preferred • Ability to express identity requirements at a business-level without regard to sources • Enterprise Administrators • Support for deployment-time binding to specific identity architectures which vary over time and between enterprises • Declarative approach simplifies compliance and configuration
Agenda • Introduction • Use Cases • Standardization Path • Q&A
Nov 2006: Oracle Announces IGF • Open-vendor initiative to address handling of identity related information within enterprise lead by Oracle • Released key draft specifications • CARML and AAPML • Sample CARML API • Announced intention to submit to a standards org • Key vendors supported initiative • CA, Layer 7, HP, Novell, Ping Identity, Securent, Sun Microsystems
1H2007: Liberty Alliance • Start of broader review on gathering expanded use-cases and market requirements • Oracle makes IGF “straw-man” specifications available royalty-free • Participation from: • Computer Associates, France Telecom/Orange, Fugen, HP, Intel, NEC, New Zealand, NTT, Oracle • IGF Market Requirements Document Released July 2007 • Use-cases, Scenarios, End-to-End Examples • www.projectliberty.org/index.php/liberty/strategic_initiatives/identity_governance
Next Steps (2007-2008) • Two parts - • Development of open source components at www.openliberty.org • Anticipate release of some components in 1H08 • Technical work – specifications and profiles – to continue at Liberty Alliance and complete in 2H-2008 • Follows successful completion and publication of IGF Market Requirements Document within Liberty Alliance • Anticipate release of some working drafts in 1H08 • Supported by HP, CA, NEC, NTT, Novell, SUN and other partners
Open Source • Hosted at www.openLiberty.com • Based upon Apache 2.0 license • Create software libraries aimed at developers • Aligned with open source ecosystem (Higgins, Bandit) • Re-use existing components wherever possible • In parallel with creation of Liberty final specification drafts • Draft of CARML-compliant Attribute Services API available today
Summary • Identity Governance Framework • Open initiative for identity governance across enterprise systems • Key draft specifications provide initial policy components • CARML, AAPML • Intent to ratify as full standards at an existing standards body • Under Liberty Alliance Leadership • Broad input and support in an open standards process • Legal community review • IP clearances - open standards for everyone to use
Learn More • www.projectliberty.org/index.php/liberty/strategic_initiatives/identity_governance • IGF Overview Whitepaper • FAQ • Use Cases (MRD) • Links to Oracle draft specifications: CARML, AAPML, Client API • Inquiries to • Mail: phil.hunt@oracle.com & prateek.mishra@oracle.com • Blog: blogs.oracle.com/identityprivacy