Perimeter
8/28/2012
11:01 AM
Gunnar Peterson
Gunnar Peterson
Commentary
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

ID Don't Mean A Thing Unless It's Got That Integration Thing

Architecture astronauts talk identity strategy, but pros talk identity integration logistics

When embarking on identity and access management (IAM) architecture and development efforts, the initial phases often churn through finding the "right" standard or protocol to use. Should the project use OpenID or SAML or IWA or something else altogether? While its important to sort through the tradeoffs and design considerations (after all the Cloud Security Alliance alone mentions 27 different identity standards!), selecting Identity protocols and standards is the beginning not the end.

The critical next steps include a plan for integrating the selected identity protocol and standards into the overall application. This step causes way more stumbling than it should. By now, we should know that there are no silver bullets in infosec. But even today, enterprises write RFIs and RFPs that hone in on support for a specific standard and yet gloss over the importance of integration.

Identity has made tremendous progress over the past decade, in my view progress on standards like SAML and XACML has been the "quiet revolution" in delivering more efficacy to real world security. But the standards and products that support them are not enough by themselves if they cannot integrate to your application then we are left with yet another silo or worse yet --- shelfware.

How should IAM architects avoid integration traps? The first step is identifying the integration targets. Every protocol and standard is different but at a minimum there are likely to be two integration points -- First Mile integration and Last Mile integration.

The First Mile is responsible to find and package the claims about the user subject. First Mile integration generally means being able to communicate with data stores and processes such as user activity, logins, user authentication, user stores, directories, attribute stores, and account information. In SAML, this often occurs via the Identity provider communication with user directory such as Active Directory.

The Last Mile is responsible to make and enforce access control decisions based on the claims its sent via the identity provider. This process can be summed up as"you assert, we decide." The Last Mile must be integrated with the application, service provider, Web service interface, mobile service or Web app. The extent of this integration is pretty variable. Most of the time it's a fairly coarse-grained authorization check, but there's been movement towards finer-grained access control through attribute based access control and standards like XACML that enable deeper integration and more policy-based authorization.

In both the First Mile and Last Mile integration points, the IAM Architect's job is to define the breadth and depth of integration. The architecture must factor in the communication protocols, data formats, token types, and other hooks to applications and data stores required to get the job done.

There's an old military saying that amateurs discuss tactics, armchair generals discuss strategy, but professionals discuss logistics. There's plenty of tactics and strategy necessary to light up a new identity protocol in your company, but successful IAM pros must plan for integration logistics, too.

Gunnar Peterson is a Managing Principal at Arctec Group Gunnar Peterson (@oneraindrop) works on AppSec - Cloud, Mobile and Identity. He maintains a blog at http://1raindrop.typepad.com. View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading Must Reads - September 25, 2014
Dark Reading's new Must Reads is a compendium of our best recent coverage of identity and access management. Learn about access control in the age of HTML5, how to improve authentication, why Active Directory is dead, and more.
Flash Poll
Title Partner’s Role in Perimeter Security
Title Partner’s Role in Perimeter Security
Considering how prevalent third-party attacks are, we need to ask hard questions about how partners and suppliers are safeguarding systems and data.
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2012-5619
Published: 2014-09-29
The Sleuth Kit (TSK) 4.0.1 does not properly handle "." (dotfile) file system entries in FAT file systems and other file systems for which . is not a reserved name, which allows local users to hide activities it more difficult to conduct forensics activities, as demonstrated by Flame.

CVE-2012-5621
Published: 2014-09-29
lib/engine/components/opal/opal-call.cpp in ekiga before 4.0.0 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) via an OPAL connection with a party name that contains invalid UTF-8 strings.

CVE-2012-6107
Published: 2014-09-29
Apache Axis2/C does not verify that the server hostname matches a domain name in the subject's Common Name (CN) or subjectAltName field of the X.509 certificate, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to spoof SSL servers via an arbitrary valid certificate.

CVE-2012-6110
Published: 2014-09-29
bcron-exec in bcron before 0.10 does not close file descriptors associated with temporary files when running a cron job, which allows local users to modify job files and send spam messages by accessing an open file descriptor.

CVE-2013-1874
Published: 2014-09-29
Untrusted search path vulnerability in csi in Chicken before 4.8.2 allows local users to execute arbitrary code via a Trojan horse .csirc in the current working directory.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
In our next Dark Reading Radio broadcast, we’ll take a close look at some of the latest research and practices in application security.