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

Assurance

Liberty IAF,PCI,Privacy LegislationBest Practices

Requirements that an enterprise or group of enterprises should meet to obtain certification.

Governance

IGFXACMLAudit Standard?

Policy creation and update, policy enforcement, audit, decision explanation

Run-timeProtocols

SQL, SAML 2.0WS-*, LDAP

Run-time protocols and wire representations.

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

Run-Time InteractionsAdmin Deploy Time Interactions

StandardComponents

Legend

Authority1End-User(s)

Authority2ExternalPartners

Authority3HR Systems

Authority4Departmental Systems

Authority5EnterpriseDirectory

Identity Sources

Delivery/Gateway/Enforcement

Identity ServiceIdentity Policy

Engine

Existing or non-specifiedAdmin Deploy & Run-Time Interactions

LDAP, ODBC, SAML Query, SAML Assertions, …

AAPML :Attribute Use Policy

AAPML :Attribute Use Policy

AAPML :Attribute Use Policy

Admins reconcile sources and policies with client CARML requirements to create “views”

View A View B

Optional:LDAP, legacy protocolsWS-Trust STS

Query ProtocolSAML / ID-WSF /SPML

CARML :Attribute Requirements

CARML :Attribute Requirements

CARML :Attribute Requirements

CARML :Attribute Requirements

Applications APIApplications Applications API

Java .NET Perl

Existing ApplicationsClient Apps API

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

IGF Lifecycle

Agenda

Introduction Use Cases Standardization Path Q&A

Nov 2006: Oracle Announces IGF

1. Open-vendor initiative to address handling of identity related information within enterprise lead by Oracle

2. Released key draft specifications CARML and AAPML Sample CARML API Announced intention to submit to a standards org

3. 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

Q &A