1. 17 May 2004 Shibboleth: Federated Identity Management Renee Woodten Frost, Internet2 Middleware and Security

2. 17 May 2004  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.

3. 17 May 2004 A Word from the Sponsors: Internet2 and NSF  Internet2 HE consortium partnering with government and industry Advanced Network Technologies  NSF Middleware Initiative (NMI) Analogous to building the NSFnet Scientists and engineers can transparently use and share distributed resources, such as computers, data, and instruments Research and education communities can effectively collaborate using advanced communications tools Internet users around the world can benefit.

4. 17 May 2004 Agenda  What is Shibboleth?  What is its Current Status?  Why Shibboleth?  Who is Using Shibboleth?  Federations InQueue InCommon  For more information

5. 17 May 2004 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)

6. 17 May 2004 What is Shibboleth?  An initiative to develop an architecture and policy framework supporting the sharing – between domains -- of secured web resources and services  A framework 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)

7. 17 May 2004 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 Using 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 heterogeneity and open standards

8. 17 May 2004 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.

9. 17 May 2004 Typical Attributes in the Higher Ed Community Affiliation“active member of community”member@washington.edu EPPNIdentitygettes@duke.edu EntitlementAn agreed upon opaque URIurn:mace:vendor:contract1234 OrgUnitDepartmentEconomics Department EnrolledCourseOpaque course identifierurn:mace:osu.edu:Physics201

10. 17 May 2004 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.

11. 17 May 2004 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?

12. 17 May 2004 Shibboleth Architecture (still photo, no moving parts)

13. 17 May 2004 Shibboleth Status  Software Availability Version 1.1 available August, 2003 Version 1.2 available May, 2004 Version 1.3 available Summer, 2004  Campus Adoption accelerating…  Working with increasing number of information/service providers  Java target implementation underway  Work underway on some of the essential management tools such as attribute release managers, target resource management, etc.

14. 17 May 2004 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.  UK’s JISC awards just announced for Core Middleware: Technology Development Programme  Used by several federations today – NSDL, InQueue, SWITCH and several more soon (UK, Australia, Finland, etc.)

15. 17 May 2004 Shibboleth -- Next Steps  Full implementation of Trust Fabric Supporting Multi-federation origins and target  Support for Dynamic Content (Library-style Implementation in addition to web server plugins)  Sysadmin GUIs for managing origin and target policy  Grids, Virtual Organizations  ?Saml V2.0, Liberty Alliance, WS-Fed  NSF grant to Shibboleth-enable open source collaboration tools  LionShare - Federated P2P

16. 17 May 2004 Why Shibboleth? Improved Access Control  Use of attributes allows fine-grained access control Med School Faculty get access to additional resources Specific group of students have access to restricted 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

17. 17 May 2004 Why Shibboleth? Federated Administration  Flexibly partitions responsibility, policy, technology, and trust  Leverages existing middleware infrastructure at origin - authentication, 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

18. 17 May 2004 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 HIPAA requires privacy in medical records handling  General interest and concern for privacy is growing  Shibboleth has active (vs. passive) privacy provisions “built in”

19. 17 May 2004 Benefits to Campuses  Much easier Inter-Domain Integration With other campuses With off-campus service provider systems  Integration with other campus systems, intra-domain Learning Management Systems 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

20. 17 May 2004 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 universities have Shibboleth implemented already, easy implementation for them

21. 17 May 2004 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

22. 17 May 2004 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

23. 17 May 2004 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 inter- realm 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.

24. 17 May 2004 Federated Administration OTOT OTOT TT Apps CM CM Apps VO T Campus 1 Campus 2 Federation Other feds

25. 17 May 2004 Shibboleth-based Federations  InQueue  InCommon  Club Shib  Swiss Education and Research Network (SWITCH)  National Science Digital Library (NSDL) ------------------------------------  State networks  Medical networks  Financial aid networks  Life-long learning communities

26. 17 May 2004 The Research and Education Federation Space REF Cluster InQueue (a starting point) InCommon SWITCH The Shib Researc h Club Other national nets Other clusters Other potential US R+E feds State of Penn Fin Aid Assoc NSD L Slippery slope - Med Centers, etc Indiana

27. 17 May 2004 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 http://shibboleth.internet2.edu/  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

28. 17 May 2004 InQueue Origins 2.12.04  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 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

29. 17 May 2004 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.

30. 17 May 2004 InCommon Federation  A permanent federation for the R&E US sector  Federation operations – Internet2  Federating software – Shibboleth 1.1 and above  Federation data schema - eduPerson200210 or later and eduOrg200210 or later  Became 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 http://www.incommonfederation.org

31. 17 May 2004 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

32. 17 May 2004 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

33. 17 May 2004 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

34. 17 May 2004 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

35. 17 May 2004 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_Referen ce_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.

36. 17 May 2004 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_compro mise_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_Federa tion_System_Technical_Reference_ver_0.41 Document describing the CA.

37. 17 May 2004 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.

38. 17 May 2004 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

39. 17 May 2004 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…

40. 17 May 2004 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

41. 17 May 2004 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 NMIhttp://www.jisc.ac.uk/c01_04.html  Tool set likely to include seamless listproc, web sharing, shared calendaring, real-time video, privilege management system, etc.

42. 17 May 2004 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)

43. 17 May 2004 For More Information  NSF Middleware Initiative-sponsored workshop: “CAMP Shibboleth” June 28-30 in Broomfield, Colorado Features a Shib Install Fest  Websites http://middleware.internet2.edu http://shibboleth.internet2.edu http:/www.incommonfederation.org Renee Woodten Frostrwfrost@internet2.edu