A Survey of Risk: Federated ID Management in Cloud and Grid Computing Presentation by Andy Wood (P )

Introduction Cloud (and Grid) computing are the new platforms today. Working with business partners is more common place in todays connected world. Managing user accounts across disparate systems is becoming more difficult and costly.

Federated ID Management Federated ID Management (FIdM) allows for simplified user management across security domains. Based on a user authenticating to own DS and their ID used to authenticate to remote services through trust relationships. FIdM is based on not just technology. Many ways to implement – User centric – Business centric

Federated ID Management

Critical Review - Resources Keywords: – (FIdM or Federated) and Cloud and Risk. Resource Databases: – IEEE Xplore; ACM DL; SCOPUS; CiteSeerX and Google Scholar. Resources: – 673 initial resources. – Reduced to final 18. – 5 Further papers added

Critical Review - Criteria Criteria: – Primary / Secondary source – Difficulty to implement – Risk type: Security; Liability; Trust; Assurance or Interoperability – Scalability – Protocols – Citation

Critical Review - Findings Most papers describe similar technologies: – SAML being key protocol for ID transfer – XACML bring key protocol for access control Key risks: – Trust (with 3 rd party); – Interoperability; and – Message security. Scalability of solutions were good Difficulty varied and subjective Olden (2011) describes a typical enterprise benefit with example saving of $4.5m per year.

Critical Review – Risks Liability – Ensuring lines of responsibility Assurance – Processes and procedures being followed: staff vetting; joiners/movers/leavers etc. Trust – Fundamental, but difficult to implement Security – ID theft – Greater exposure than via separate authentication to systems – Message security through exchange of ID information Interoperability – Some standard based mechanisms such as SAML – Others describe extended or bespoke mechanisms – Potential for large federations to include multiple mechanisms Higher risk profile Higher cost for implementation and support

Conclusion Resources were harmonious in design and risk Immature area of technology – Still room for improvement FIdM is more than just technology Lack of described foundation prior to tech FIdM is a business enabler Balance of risk v business enablement Risk profile has to be aligned to each business