Shibboleth and InCommon: An Update and Next Steps

1. Shibboleth and InCommon:An Update and Next Steps

2. Topics • Developments and designs • Shibboleth and InCommon • Signet – an authority system • Integrated diagnostics • Discussion • International trust fabrics • Virtual organization support • Coordinated software development

3. Shibboleth Status • Open source, privacy preserving federating software • Being very widely deployed in US and international universities • Target - works with Apache(1.3 and 2.0) and IIS targets; Java origins for a variety of Unix platforms. • V2.0 likely to include portal support, identity linking, non web services (plumbing to GSSAPI,P2P, IM, video) etc. • Work underway on intuitive graphical interfaces for the powerful underlying Attribute Authority and resource protection • Likely to coexist well with Liberty Alliance and may work within the WS framework from Microsoft. • Growing development interest in several countries, providing resource manager tools, digital rights management, listprocs, etc. • http://shibboleth.internet2.edu/

4. Adoption • Over 40 + universities using it for access to OCLC, JSTOR, Elsevier, WebAccess, Napster, etc. • Common status is “moving into production” • The hard part is not installing Shibboleth but running “plumbing” to it: directories, attributes, authentication • Deployments in Europe and the UK • Development efforts broadening to the UK and Australia • Likely to be the interrealm aspect to Sakai, Lionshare, video

5. Federated administration • Given the strong collaborations within the academic community, there is an urgent need to create inter-realm tools, so • Build consistent campus middleware infrastructure deployments, with outward facing objectclasses, service points, etc. and then • Federate (multilateral) those enterprise deployments with interrealm attribute transports, trust services, etc. and then • Leverage that federation to enable a variety of applications from network authentication to instant messaging, from video to web services, from p2p to virtual organizations, etc. while we • Be cautious about the limits of federations and look for alternative fabrics where appropriate.

6. Federated administration VO VO O T A CM O T CM A Campus 1 Campus 2 T T T Federation

7. InCommon federation • Federation operations – Internet2 • Federating software – Shibboleth 1.1 and above • Federation data schema - eduPerson200210 or later and eduOrg200210 or later • Becomes operational April 5, with several early entrants to help shape the policy and membership issues. • Precursor federation, InQueue, has been in operation for about six months and will feed into InCommon • http://www.incommonfederation.org

8. Rutgers University University of Wisconsin New York University Georgia State University University of Washington University of California Shibboleth Pilot University at Buffalo Dartmouth College Michigan State University Georgetown Duke The Ohio State University UCLA Internet2 Carnegie Mellon University National Research Council of Canada Columbia University University of Virginia University of California, San Diego Brown University University of Minnesota Penn State University Cal Poly Pomona London School of Economics University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University of Colorado at Boulder UT Arlington UTHSC-Houston University of Michigan University of Rochester University of Southern California InQueue Origins2.12.04

9. InCommon Management • Operational services by I2 • Member services • Backroom (CA, WAYF service, etc.) • Governance • Executive Committee - Carrie Regenstein - chair (Wisconsin), Jerry Campbell, (USC), Lev Gonick (CWRU), Clair Goldsmith (Texas System), Mark Luker (EDUCAUSE),Tracy Mitrano (Cornell), Susan Perry (Mellon), Mike Teetz, (OCLC), David Yakimischak (JSTOR). • Project manager – Renee Frost (Internet2) • Membership open to .edu and affiliated business partners (Elsevier, OCLC, Napster, Diebold, etc…) • Contractual and policy issues being defined now… • Likely to take 501(c)3 status

10. Trust in InCommon - initial • Members trust the federated operations to perform its activities well • The operator (Internet2) posts its procedures, attempts to execute them faithfully, and makes no warranties • Enterprises read the procedures and decide if they want to become members • Origins and targets trust each other bilaterally in out-of-band or no-band arrangements • Origins trust targets dispose of attributes properly • Targets trust origins to provide attributes accurately • Risks and liabilities managed by end enterprises, in separate ways

11. InCommon Trust - ongoing • Use trust  Build trust cycle • Clearly need consensus levels of I/A • Multiple levels of I/A for different needs • Two factor for high-risk • Distinctive requirements (campus in Bejing or France, distance ed, mobility) • Standardized data definitions unclear • Audits unclear • International issues

12. REF Cluster InQueue (a starting point) Other clusters Other potential US R+E feds Other national nets SWITCH InCommon NSDL The Shib Research Club State of Penn Fin Aid Assoc The Research and EducationFederation Space Indiana Slippery slope - Med Centers, etc

13. The potential for InCommon • The federation as a networked trust facilitator • Needs to scale in two fundamental ways • Policy underpinnings need to move to normative levels among the members; “post and read” is a starting place… • Inter-federation issues need to be engineered; we are trying to align structurally with emerging federal recommendations • Needs to link with PKI and with federal and international activities • If it does scale and grow, it could become a most significant component of cyberinfrastructure…

14. Beyond web services… • Federated security services • Collaborative incident correlation and analysis • Trust-mediated transparency and other security-aware capabilities • Federated extensions to other architectures • Lionshare project for P2P file sharing • IM • Federated Grids

15. Virtual Organizations • Geographically distributed, enterprise distributed community that shares real resources as an organization. • Examples include team science (NEESGrid, HEP, BIRN, NEON), digital content managers (library cataloguers, curators, etc), life-long learning consortia, etc. • On a continuum from interrealm groups (no real resource management, few defined roles) to real organizations (primary identity/authentication providers) • Want to leverage enterprise middleware and external trust fabrics

16. Virtual organizations • Need a model to support a wide variety of use cases • Native v.o. infrastructure capabilities, differences in enterprise readiness, etc. • Variations in collaboration modalities • Requirements of v.o.’s for authz, range of disciplines, etc • JISC in the UK has lead; solicitation is on the streets (see (http://www.jisc.ac.uk/c01_04.html); builds on NSF NMI • Tool set likely to include seamless listproc, web sharing, shared calendaring, real-time video, privilege management system, etc.

17. Leveraging V.O.s Today VO User Federation Enterprise Target Resource

18. Leveraged V.O.s Tomorrow VO User Collaborative Tools Authority System etc Federation Enterprise Target Resource

19. Stanford Authz Model

20. Signet Deliverables The deliverables consist of • A recipe, with accompanying case studies, of how to take a role-based organization and develop apprpriate groups, policies, attributes etc to operate an authority service • Templates and tools for registries and group management • a Web interface and program APIs to provide distributed management (to the departments, to external programs) of access rights and privileges, and • delivery of authority information through the infrastructure as directory data and authority events.

21. Home

22. Grant Authority Wizard

23. Person

24. Steps to Enable Diagnostic Applications • Establish the common event record • Enable the collection of events from a wide array of event sources • Network: NetFlow, SNMP, RMON, etc • Security: IDS, Snort, firewalls, etc • Applications: Shib, Dir, IM, P2P, smtpd, named, httpd, Kerberos, etc • Hosts: /var/log/*, Syslog, etc

25. Steps to Enable Diagnostic Applications (2) • Build tools to create dissemination infrastructures that, • Allows access to the diagnostic data • Provides operators to filter, anonymize, aggregate, tag, store and archive the data • Enables pipelining of data operators to organize and manipulate diagnostic data based on an organization or federations policies • Provide a common API so applications can access the diagnostic data

26. Security Related Events Middleware Related Events Enabling Diagnostic ApplicationsWith a Common Event Descriptor Diagnostic applications (Middleware, Network, Security) can extract event data form multiple data sets Dissemination Network Collection and Normalization of Events Network Related Events

27. Discussion • International trust fabrics • national federations • International peering • Virtual organization support • the nature of our collaborations • Difficult issues of inconsistent level of campus and country middleware infrastructure • Coordinated software development