70 likes | 188 Views
InCommon Silver @ Michigan State. Common Solutions Group, January 2011 Matt Kolb < mk@msu.edu >. Goals. Improve our Identity Management infrastructure Higher Levels of Assurance Better documentation of process and procedures Enable collaboration Build trust with external partners
E N D
InCommon Silver @ Michigan State Common Solutions Group, January 2011 Matt Kolb <mk@msu.edu>
Goals • Improve our Identity Management infrastructure • Higher Levels of Assurance • Better documentation of process and procedures • Enable collaboration • Build trust with external partners • Facilitate access to services
Initial Challenges • Difficulty interpreting the Bronze/Silver Identity Assurance Profile (IAP) • Infrastructure incompatibility (password policy) • Sorely lacking: • Documentation • Policy • Scope • Taming wild provisioning processes • Where’s the killer app? (Motivation)
Approach • Work with other institutions (CIC, etc) • Partner with campus stakeholders • Identify a subset of the population for Silver • Likely a pilot comprised of research faculty • Leverage our ID Office • Verification process • Credentialing • Investigating second credential (certificates) through iClass ID Cards
Reasons for Hope • Flexible technical architecture • Solid person registry • MIT Kerberos • Shibboleth • ID Office • Created in Central IT, migrated existing physical and digital provisioning activities • Cross functional campus participation • Specifically strong commitment from Internal Audit • We’re not alone (CIC Partners)
Future State • Assert LoA Silver through our Shibboleth Identity Provider (IdP) • Authentication-time calculated attribute • Continue to maintain a single IdP for all Levels of Assurance (we hope) • Implement multifactor Authentication • This puts us on a track for Gold (someday) • Silver credential provisioning through ID Office
A Haiku; for InC Silver Spring of assurance collaboration the goal; Silver, together