Perimeter
8/28/2012
11:01 AM
Gunnar Peterson
Gunnar Peterson
Commentary
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
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-2014-9710
Published: 2015-05-27
The Btrfs implementation in the Linux kernel before 3.19 does not ensure that the visible xattr state is consistent with a requested replacement, which allows local users to bypass intended ACL settings and gain privileges via standard filesystem operations (1) during an xattr-replacement time windo...

CVE-2014-9715
Published: 2015-05-27
include/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_extend.h in the netfilter subsystem in the Linux kernel before 3.14.5 uses an insufficiently large data type for certain extension data, which allows local users to cause a denial of service (NULL pointer dereference and OOPS) via outbound network traffic that trig...

CVE-2015-2666
Published: 2015-05-27
Stack-based buffer overflow in the get_matching_model_microcode function in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel_early.c in the Linux kernel before 4.0 allows context-dependent attackers to gain privileges by constructing a crafted microcode header and leveraging root privileges for write access to t...

CVE-2015-2830
Published: 2015-05-27
arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S in the Linux kernel before 3.19.2 does not prevent the TS_COMPAT flag from reaching a user-mode task, which might allow local users to bypass the seccomp or audit protection mechanism via a crafted application that uses the (1) fork or (2) close system call, as demonstrate...

CVE-2015-2922
Published: 2015-05-27
The ndisc_router_discovery function in net/ipv6/ndisc.c in the Neighbor Discovery (ND) protocol implementation in the IPv6 stack in the Linux kernel before 3.19.6 allows remote attackers to reconfigure a hop-limit setting via a small hop_limit value in a Router Advertisement (RA) message.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
After a serious cybersecurity incident, everyone will be looking to you for answers -- but you’ll never have complete information and you’ll never have enough time. So in those heated moments, when a business is on the brink of collapse, how will you and the rest of the board room executives respond?