23 April 2004 Shibboleth: Federated Identity Management Renee Woodten Frost, Internet2 Middleware...
-
Upload
damon-sharp -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
0
Transcript of 23 April 2004 Shibboleth: Federated Identity Management Renee Woodten Frost, Internet2 Middleware...
23 April 2004
Shibboleth: Federated Identity Management
Renee Woodten Frost,
Internet2 Middleware and Security
Copyright Renee Woodten Frost 2004. This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the author.
Agenda
What is Shibboleth? Background and Status Why Shibboleth? Who is Using Shibboleth? Federations
• InQueue• InCommon
For more information
What is Shibboleth? (Biblical)
A word which was made the criterion by which to distinguish the Ephraimites from the Gileadites. The Ephraimites, not being able to pronounce “sh”, called the word sibboleth. See --Judges xii.
Hence, the criterion, test, or watchword of a party; a party cry or pet phrase.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
What is Shibboleth?
An initiative to develop an architecture and policy framework supporting the sharing – between domains -- of secured web resources and services
Built on a “Federated” Model
A project delivering an open source implementation of the architecture and framework
Deliverables:• Software for Origins (campuses)• Software for Targets (service providers)• Operational Federations (scalable trust)
Shibboleth Goals
Use federated administration as the lever; have the enterprise broker most services (authentication, authorization, resource discovery, etc.) in inter-realm interactions
Provide security while not degrading privacy.• Attribute-based Access Control
Foster inter-realm trust fabrics: federations and virtual organizations
Leverage campus expertise and build rough consensus Influence the marketplace; develop where necessary Support for heterogeneity and open standards
Attribute-based Authorization
Identity-based approach• The identity of a prospective user is passed to the controlled
resource and is used to determine (perhaps with requests for additional attributes about the user) whether to permit access.
• This approach requires the user to trust the target to protect privacy.
Attribute-based approach• Attributes are exchanged about a prospective user until the
controlled resource has sufficient information to make a decision. • This approach does not degrade privacy.
Typical Attributes in the Higher Ed Community
Affiliation “active member of community”
EPPN Identity [email protected]
Entitlement An agreed upon opaque URI urn:mace:vendor:contract1234
OrgUnit Department Economics Department
EnrolledCourse Opaque course identifier urn:mace:osu.edu:Physics201
Stage 1 - Addressing Four Scenarios
Member of campus community accessing licensed resource• Anonymity required
Member of a course accessing remotely controlled resource• Anonymity required
Member of a workgroup accessing controlled resources• Controlled by unique identifiers (e.g. name)
Intra-university information access• Controlled by a variety of identifiers
Taken individually, each of these situations can be solved in a variety of straightforward ways. Taken together, they present the challenge of meeting the user's reasonable expectations for protection of their personal privacy.
So… What is Shibboleth?
A Web Single-Signon System (SSO)?
An Access Control Mechanism for Attributes?
A Standard Interface and Vocabulary for Attributes?
A Standard for Adding Authentication and Authorization to Applications?
Shibboleth Architecture (still photo, no moving parts)
Shibboleth Status
Software Availability• Version 1.1 available August, 2003• Version 1.2 available April, 2004• Version 1.3 available Summer, 2004• Target implementation - works with Apache and IIS targets
Campus Adoption accelerating…
Working with second round of information vendors/service providers
Java target implementation underway
Work underway on some of the essential management tools such as attribute release managers, target resource management, etc.
Shibboleth Status
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.
Used by several federations today – NSDL, InQueue, SWITCH and several more soon (JISC in UK, Australia, etc.)
Shibboleth -- Next Steps
Full implementation of Trust Fabric• Supporting Multi-federation origins and targets
Support for Dynamic Content (Library-style Implementation in addition to web server plugins)
Sysadmin GUIs for managing origin and target policy Grid, Virtual Organizations ? Saml V2.0, Liberty, WS-Fed NSF grant to Shibboleth-enable open source collaboration tools LionShare - Federated P2P
Why Shibboleth?Improved Access Control
Use of attributes allows fine-grained access control• Med School Faculty get access to additional resources
Simplifies management of access to extended functionality• Librarians, based on their role, are given a higher-than-usual level of access to an
online database to which a college might subscribe.
• Librarians and publishers can enforce complicated license agreements that may restrict access to special collections to small groups of faculty researchers
Why Shibboleth?Federated Administration
Flexibly partitions responsibility, policy, technology, and trust Leverages existing middleware infrastructure at origin- authn, directory
• Users registered only at their “home” or “origin” institution• Target does NOT need to create new userids
Authorization information sent, instead of authentication information• when possible, use groups instead of people on ACLs• identity information still available for auditing and for applications that require it
Why Shibboleth?Privacy
Higher Ed has privacy obligations• In US, “FERPA” requires permission for release of most personal
identification information; encourages least privilege in information access
General interest and concern for privacy is growingShibboleth has active (vs. passive) privacy provisions “built in”
Benefits to Campuses
Much easier Inter-Domain Integration• With other campuses• With off-campus vendor systems
Integration with other campus systems, intra-domain• LMS• Med School……
Ability to manage access control at a fine-grained level Allows personalization, without releasing identity Implement Shibboleth once…
• And then just manage attributes that are released to new targets
Benefits to Targets/Service Providers
Unified authentication mechanism from the vendor perspective• Much more scalable• Much less integration work required to bring a new customer online.
Ability to implement fine-grained access control (e.g. access by role), allowing customer sites to effectively control access by attributes and thus control usage costs, by not granting access unnecessarily
Once the initial Shibboleth integration work has been completed on the vendor’s systems
• The incremental cost of adding new customers is relatively minimal• In contrast to the current situation -- requiring custom work for each new
customer
Ability to offer personalization Enables attribute-based Service Level Model If your customers have Shibboleth implemented, easy implementation
for them
What are Federations? Associations of enterprises that come together to exchange
information about their users and resources in order to enable collaborations and transactions
Enroll and authenticate and attribute locally, act federally.
Uses federating software (e.g. Liberty Alliance, Shibboleth, WS-*) common attributes (e.g. eduPerson), and a security and privacy set of understandings
Enterprises (and users) retain control over what attributes are released to a resource; the resources retain control (though they may delegate) over the authorization decision.
Several federations now in construction or deployment
Unified Field Theory of Trust
Bridged, global hierarchies of identification-oriented, often government based trust – laws, identity tokens, etc.
• Passports, drivers licenses • Future is typically PKI oriented
Federated enterprise-based; leverages one’s security domain; often role-based
• Enterprise does authentication and attributes• Federations of enterprises exchange assertions (identity and attributes
Peer to peer trust; ad hoc, small locus personal trust• A large part of our non-networked lives• New technology approaches to bring this into the electronic world.• Distinguishing P2P apps arch from P2P trust
Virtual organizations cross-stitch across one of the above
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.
Federated Administration
O
TO
T
T T
Apps CMCM Apps
VOVO
T
Campus 1Campus 2
Federation
Otherfeds
Federation Considerations
Federation update• Federating software• Bilateral and multilateral federations• InCommon
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. Used by several federations today – NSDL, InQueue, SWITCH and
several more soon (JISC, Australia, etc.) http://shibboleth.internet2.edu/
Shibboleth-based Federations
InQueue InCommonClub ShibSwiss Education and Research Network (SWITCH)National Science Digital Library (NSDL)
------------------------------------State networksMedical networksFinancial aid networksLife-long learning communities
The Research and EducationFederation Space
REFCluster
InQueue(a starting point)
InCommon
SWITCH
The ShibResearch Club
Other national nets
Other clustersOther
potential USR+E feds
State of Penn Fin Aid Assoc
NSDL
Slippery slope- Med Centers, etc
Indiana
InQueue
The “holding pond”
Is a persistent federation with “passing-through” membership…
Operational today. Can apply for membership via http://shibboleth.internet2.edu/ InQueue Federation guidelines
Requires eduPerson attributes
Operated by Internet2; open to almost anyone using Shibboleth in an R&E setting or not…
Fees and service profile to be established shortly: cost-recovery basis
InQueue Origins2.12.04
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 CanadaColumbia UniversityUniversity of VirginiaUniversity of California, San DiegoBrown UniversityUniversity of MinnesotaPenn State UniversityCal Poly PomonaLondon School of EconomicsUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillUniversity of Colorado at BoulderUT ArlingtonUTHSC-HoustonUniversity of MichiganUniversity of RochesterUniversity of Southern California
Major Targets
Campuses that are also origins, wanting to share campus-based content
Content providers – EBSCO, OCLC, JSTOR, Elsevier, Napster, etc
Learning Management Systems – WebCT, Blackboard, WebAssign, OKI, etc
Outsourced Service Providers – purchasing systems, dormitory management companies, locksmiths, etc.
InCommon Federation
A permanent federation for the R&E US sectorFederation operations – Internet2Federating 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 issues.Precursor federation, InQueue, has been in operation for
about six months and will feed into InCommon http://www.incommonfederation.org
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 Teets (OCLC), David Yakimischak (JSTOR)
• Two Executive Committee working groups – Policy – Tracy Mitrano, Chair– Communications, Membership, Pricing and Packaging – Susan Perry, Chair
• Technical Advisory Group – Scott Cantor (OSU), Steven Carmody (Brown), Bob Morgan (Washington), Renee Shuey (PSU)
• Project manager – Renee Frost (Internet2)
Membership open to .edu and affiliated business partners Contractual and policy issues being defined now… Likely to take 501(c)3 status
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
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
Balancing the Work
InCommon CA• Identity proofing the enterprise• Issuing the enterprise signing keys (primary and spare)• Signing the metadata
InCommon Federation• Aggregating the metadata• Supporting campuses in posting their policies
InCommon Operations Docs
InCommon_Federation_Disaster_Recovery_Procedures_ver_0.1 • An outline of the procedures to be used if there is a disaster with the InCommon
Federation.
Internet2_InCommon_Federation_Infrastructure_Technical_Reference_ver_0.2
• Document describing the federation infrastructure.
Internet2_InCommon_secure_physical_storage_ver_0.2 • List of the physical objects and logs that will be securely stored.
Internet2_InCommon_Technical_Operations_steps_ver_0.35 • This document lists the steps taken from the point of submitting CSR, Metadata,
and CRL to issuing a signed cert, generation of signed metadata, and publishing the CRL.
Internet2_InCommon_Technical_Operation_Hours_ver_0.12 • Documentation of the proposed hours of operations.
InCommon CA Operations Docs
CA_Disaster_Recovery_Procedure_ver_0.14 • An outline of the procedures to be used if there is a disaster with the CA.
cspguide • Manual of the CA software planning to use.
InCommon_CA_Audit_Log_ver_0.31 • Proposed details for logging related to the CA.
Internet2_InCommon_CA_Disaster_Recovery_from_root_key_compromise_ver_0.2
• An outline of the procedures to be used if there is a root key compromise with the CA.
Internet2_InCommon_CA_PKI-Lite_CPS_ver_0.61 • Draft of the PKI-Lite CPS.
Internet2_InCommon_CA_PKI-Lite_CP_ver_0.21 • Draft of the PKI-Lite CP.
Internet2_InCommon_Certificate_Authority_for_the_InCommon_Federation_System_Technical_Reference_ver_0.41
• Document describing the CA.
InCommon Key Signing Process 2. Hardware descriptions
a. Hardware will be laptop and spare laptop with no network capabilities, thumb drive, CDRW drive, media for necessary software 3. Software descriptions a. OS, OpenSSL, CSP, Java tools for meta data 4. Log into computer 5. Generation of the CA Private Root key and self-signing 6. Generation of the Metadata signing key 7. Generate CSR for Internet2 origin 8. Signing of new metadata sites and trusts files 9. Backup copies of all private keys and other operational backup data are generated. 10. Verify CD's and MD5 checksum 11. Write down passphrase and put in envelopes and sign envelopes 12. Securely store CA hardware and contents of local safe in safe 13. Log that these actions occurred on the log in safe and then close and lock the safe 14. Put thumb drive into secure db and copy data onto secure db 15. Take private key password archive and other contents to Private Key Password safe deposit box and record in log that this was done. 16. Take operational data archive to Operation Data safe deposit box and record in log that this was done.
InCommon Operations Process Steps
InCommon Process Technical Reviewers• Scott Cantor, OSU• Jim Jokl, University of Virginia• RL Bob Morgan, University of Washington • Jeff Schiller, MIT
Key Signing Party • March 30, 2004 in Ann Arbor• Videotaped• Witnessed
Phase One participants vetting process and documentation
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…
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
Virtual Organizations (VOs)
Need a model to support a wide variety of use cases• Native VO infrastructure capabilities, differences in enterprise
readiness, etc.• Variations in collaboration modalities• Requirements of VOs for authorization, range of disciplines, etc
JISC in the UK has lead; solicitation (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.
Acknowledgements
Design Team: David Wasley (U of C); RL ‘Bob’ Morgan (U of Washington); Keith Hazelton (U of Wisconsin - Madison);Marlena Erdos
(IBM/Tivoli); Steven Carmody (Brown); Scott Cantor (Ohio State)
Important Contributions from: Ken Klingenstein (Internet2); Michael Gettes (Duke), Scott Fullerton (Madison)
Coding: Derek Atkins (MIT), Parviz Dousti (CMU), Scott Cantor (OSU), Walter Hoehn (Columbia/U of Memphis)
For More Information
NSF Middleware Initiative-sponsored workshop in June:
“CAMP Shibboleth”• Expect 120-150 attendees• First day features an Shib Install Fest….
http://middleware.internet2.edu http://shibboleth.internet2.edu http:/www.incommonfederation.org
Renee Woodten Frost [email protected]