1. 24 Jun 2004 Shibboleth: Building Tools for Inter-institutional Resource Sharing Renee Woodten Frost Internet2 Middleware and Security

2. 24 Jun 2004 Topics  Middleware Background  What is Shibboleth?  What is its Current Status?  Why Shibboleth?  Who is Using Shibboleth?  Federations InQueue InCommon  For more information

3. 24 Jun 2004 What is Middleware?  Specialized networked services that are shared by applications and users  A set of core software components that permit scaling of applications and networks  Tools that take the complexity out of application integration  A second layer of the IT infrastructure, sitting above the network  A land where technology meets policy  The intersection of what networks designers and applications developers each do not want to do

4. 24 Jun 2004 Core Middleware Scope  Identity and Identifiers – namespaces, identifier crosswalks, real world levels of assurance, etc.  Authentication – campus technologies and policies, interrealm interoperability via PKI, Kerberos, etc.  Directories – enterprise directory services architectures and tools, standard objectclasses, interrealm and registry services  Authorization – permissions and access controls, delegation, privacy management, etc.  Integration Activities – open management tools, use of virtual, federated and hierarchical organizations, enabling common applications with core middleware

5. 24 Jun 2004 A Map of Campus Middleware Land

6. 24 Jun 2004 MACE (Middleware Architecture Committee for Education)  Purpose - to provide advice, create experiments, foster standards, etc. on key technical issues for core middleware within higher education  Membership - Bob Morgan (UW) Chair, Tom Barton (Chicago), Scott Cantor (Ohio State), Steven Carmody (Brown), Michael Gettes (Duke), Keith Hazelton (Wisconsin), Paul Hill (MIT), Jim Jokl (Virginia), Mark Poepping (CMU), Bruce Vincent (Stanford), David Wasley (California), Von Welch (Grid)  European members - Brian Gilmore (Edinburgh), Ton Verschuren (Netherlands), Diego Lopez (Spain)  Creates working groups in major areas, including directories, interrealm access control, PKI, video, P2P, etc.  Works via conference calls, emails, occasional serendipitous in-person meetings...

7. 24 Jun 2004 Internet2 Middleware and the NSF Middleware Initiative (NMI)  Internet2 Middleware a major theme for the last five years, drawing support from 206 university members, 75+ corporate members, and government grants and interactions  Internet2 has an integrator role within NMI, the key NSF Program to develop and deploy common middleware infrastructures  NMI has two major themes Scientific computing and data environments (ala Grids) Common campus and inter-institutional middleware infrastructure (ala Internet2/EDUCAUSE/SURA work)  Issues periodic NMI releases of software, services, architectures, objectclasses and best practices – R5 most current release

8. 24 Jun 2004 The Model: Enterprises and Federation Given the strong collaborations within the academic community, there is an urgent need to create inter-realm tools, so  Build consistent campus and enterprise middleware infrastructure deployments, with outward facing objectclasses, service points, etc. and then  Federate those enterprise deployments, using the outward facing campus infrastructure, 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, and then, going forward  Create tools and templates that support the management and collaboration of virtual organizations by building on the federated campus infrastructures.

9. 24 Jun 2004 Middleware Axioms  Work the core areas  Focus on support for collaboration  Use federated administration as the lever; have the enterprise broker most services (authentication, authorization, resource discovery, etc.) in inter-realm interactions  Develop a consistent directory infrastructure within R&E  Provide security while not degrading privacy.  Foster inter-realm trust fabrics: federations and virtual organizations  Leverage campus expertise and build rough consensus  Support for heterogeneity and open standards  Influence the marketplace; develop where necessary

10. 24 Jun 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)

11. 24 Jun 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 (credential providers = campuses) Software for Targets (service providers) Operational Federations (scalable trust)

12. 24 Jun 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

13. 24 Jun 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.

14. 24 Jun 2004 Typical Attributes in the Higher Ed Community Affiliation“active member of community”member@washington.edu EPPN (eduPersonPrincipalName) Identitygettes@duke.edu EntitlementAn agreed upon opaque URIurn:mace:vendor:contract1234 OrgUnitDepartmentEconomics Department EnrolledCourseOpaque course identifierurn:mace:osu.edu:Physics201

15. 24 Jun 2004 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 situation can be solved in a variety of straightforward ways.  Taken together, they present the challenge of meeting users’ reasonable expectations for protection of personal privacy.

16. 24 Jun 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?

17. 24 Jun 2004 Shibboleth Architecture (still photo, no moving parts)

18. 24 Jun 2004 Development Milestones  Project formation - Feb 2000 Stone Soup; process began late summer 2000 with bi-weekly calls to develop scenarios, requirements and architecture.  Linkages to SAML established Dec 2000  Architecture and protocol completion - Aug 2001  Design - Oct 2001  Coding began - Nov 2001  Alpha-1 release – April 24, 2002  OpenSAML release – July 15, 2002  v1.0 April 2003; v1.1 July 2003; v1.2 May 2004, v1.3 summer  v2.0 likely end of the major evolution

19. 24 Jun 2004 Shibboleth Status  Campus Adoption accelerating and working with increasing number of information/service providers - over 50 universities using it for access to OCLC, JSTOR, Elsevier, WebAssign, Napster, etc.  Common status is “moving into production”  The hard part is not installing Shibboleth but running “plumbing” to it: directories, attributes, authentication  Work underway on some of the essential management tools such as attribute release managers, target resource management, etc.  Needs federations to scale; being adopted by, or catalyzing, national R&E federations in several countries

20. 24 Jun 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 – 8 of 15 involve Shib  Used by several federations today – NSDL, InQueue, SWITCH and several more soon (UK, Australia, Finland, etc.)

21. 24 Jun 2004 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  Integration with Grids, Virtual Organizations  Integration with Saml V2.0, Liberty Alliance, WS-Fed  NSF grant to Shibboleth-enable open source collaboration tools  LionShare - Federated P2P

22. 24 Jun 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

23. 24 Jun 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

24. 24 Jun 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”

25. 24 Jun 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

26. 24 Jun 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 Shibboleth integration work completed on vendor’s systems 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

27. 24 Jun 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

28. 24 Jun 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 & 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

29. 24 Jun 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.

30. 24 Jun 2004 Federated Administration OTOT OTOT TT Apps CM CM Apps VO T Campus 1 Campus 2 Federation Other feds

31. 24 Jun 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

32. 24 Jun 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

33. 24 Jun 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

34. 24 Jun 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

35. 24 Jun 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.

36. 24 Jun 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

37. 24 Jun 2004 InCommon Management  Operational services by Internet2 Member services Backroom (Certificate Authority, 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)  Initially an LLC and likely to take 501(c)3 status

38. 24 Jun 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

39. 24 Jun 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

40. 24 Jun 2004 Balancing the Operator’s Trust Load  InCommon Certificate Authority (CA) Identity proofing the enterprise Issuing the enterprise signing keys (primary and spare) Signing the metadata Could be outsourced  InCommon Federation Aggregating the metadata Supporting campuses in posting their policies Less easy to outsource

41. 24 Jun 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.

42. 24 Jun 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.

43. 24 Jun 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.

44. 24 Jun 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

45. 24 Jun 2004 InCommon Startup  Membership: open to.edu-qualified sites and business partners  Policy, Practices, Pricing, Packaging to be developed by Exec Comm working groups and phase one participants  Privacy requirements to be developed: May be = destroy received attributes immediately upon use  Security requirements to be developed: May be = enterprises post local I/A and basic business rules for assignment of eduPersonAffiliation values Likely to progress towards standardized levels of authentication Logout issues

46. 24 Jun 2004 Phase One Rollout  11 organizations  Requests to add more – 4 institutions, 2 service providers  Feedback on process and documents  Federation Operating Rules drafted  Participant Agreement drafted/under review  Participant Operational Practice Statement developed/being vetted by phase one participants  Pricing and Packaging model drafted/proposals being discussed/vetted

47. 24 Jun 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…

48. 24 Jun 2004 Acknowledgements  Design Team: David Wasley (U of C); RL ‘Bob’ Morgan (Washington); Keith Hazelton (Wisconsin - Madison); Marlena Erdos (IBM/Tivoli); Steven Carmody (Brown); Scott Cantor (Ohio State)  Important Contributions from: Ken Klingenstein (Internet2); Michael Gettes (Duke), Scott Fullerton (Wisconsin - Madison)  Coding: Derek Atkins (MIT), Parviz Dousti (CMU), Scott Cantor (OSU), Walter Hoehn (Columbia/U of Memphis)

49. 24 Jun 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