Perimeter
8/10/2012
02:59 PM
Gunnar Peterson
Gunnar Peterson
Commentary
50%
50%

Scaling The Twin Peaks Of Identity And Access Management

Scaling identity's twin peaks -- IAM -- is not easy, but it is possible. This post looks at the pitfalls and keys to success

Identity and access management (IAM) systems present three gnarly challenges to the enterprise.

First, access management is concerned with authentication, authorization, access control, and attribution. These are effectively online services that take center stage while the system is being used by the user or service.

Second, identity management services like provisioning are concerned with preparing the system for use. These services focus on the life cycle management process, like account registration, propagation, and deprovisioning.

These two disparate concerns -- online access management and offline identity management -- are often lumped together in an information security team, yet their staffing models, processes technologies, and overall project risk have little in common. Identity management systems like provisioning have a heavy set of audit and compliance requirements, and they must map business rules, often from HR, and policies to long-running workflows. Access management systems, in general, are more technical in that they require deep integration into application runtime, working within the SDLC to wire up access management to work with app server containers and code.

Neither of these, working with HR and business process or with developers in the SDLC, is home territory for many information security teams. Of course, identity management and access management services must work together -- the identity management system must feed the access management system with the freshest, most consistent, and specific information to get the job done -- and this presents us with the third grand challenge: interoperability.

Anyone who has hiked in the mountains knows the concept of a "false peak." At the bottom of the trail you fixate on a mountain top, you eventually sweat your way up there, ten only to discover that it is not the top -- it just looked that way at the bottom. Merely getting an identity management system and an access management system up and running is not good enough. Running these two systems in isolation won't amount to a hill of beans unless they work together; specifically, the identity management processes must feed and manage the accounts that the access management system uses to make its decisions. This sounds simpler than it is.

Interoperability challenges come in several forms. At the most basic level there is connectivity and communications. Distributed application smay use Active Directory, LDAP databases, mainframes, Unix servers, and a whole host of other technologies. Can your provisioning system talk to each one?

Identity data must be synchronized or replicated, and this is where naming, data representation, and account and attribute ownership issues arise. The IDM must navigate a variegated naming and data landscape. For naming and data issues, either all systems must follow the same standard (highly unlikely), or in-depth mapping, transformation and cleanup processes must be worked into the provisioning systems to ensure consistency.

For account and attributes that are used across systems, the ownership is Balkanized. Organizational ownership battles occur over who is allowed to update, create, and delete accounts and attributes. The identity management team is in the center of the ring for these challenges and must build toward something that can both satisfy cross-organization stakeholders and scale in the real world.

Finally, the identity management team must clearly understand how the application is using the accounts and identity attributes. Which attributes are used for authorization inside the application? Is it a group, a role, or something more granular? The offline provisioning processes must provide the online authentication and authorization systems with data at the right level of specificity to enable the access management systems' policies to be workable and meet their goals.

Scaling identity's twin peaks is not easy, but it is possible. Keys to success include:

1. No Silver Bullets: Do not assume that there is a magic product or suite that can solve all of your IAM challenges. In fact, assume there is not one.

2. Think Top-Down: It's important to have a top-down view, an architectural view of IAM, and how the pieces relate

3. Execute Bottom-Up: But top-down is not enough (see No. 1). The top-down view must be carved out into projects that can work bottom-up to deliver the top down vision

4. Avoid The False Peak: Focus on interoperability, with identity and access management services working together.

With these four points in mind, the enterprise can avoid false peaks and be prepared to make progress on the IAM trail.

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-2013-6501
Published: 2015-03-30
The default soap.wsdl_cache_dir setting in (1) php.ini-production and (2) php.ini-development in PHP through 5.6.7 specifies the /tmp directory, which makes it easier for local users to conduct WSDL injection attacks by creating a file under /tmp with a predictable filename that is used by the get_s...

CVE-2014-9652
Published: 2015-03-30
The mconvert function in softmagic.c in file before 5.21, as used in the Fileinfo component in PHP before 5.4.37, 5.5.x before 5.5.21, and 5.6.x before 5.6.5, does not properly handle a certain string-length field during a copy of a truncated version of a Pascal string, which might allow remote atta...

CVE-2014-9653
Published: 2015-03-30
readelf.c in file before 5.22, as used in the Fileinfo component in PHP before 5.4.37, 5.5.x before 5.5.21, and 5.6.x before 5.6.5, does not consider that pread calls sometimes read only a subset of the available data, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (uninitialized memory ...

CVE-2014-9705
Published: 2015-03-30
Heap-based buffer overflow in the enchant_broker_request_dict function in ext/enchant/enchant.c in PHP before 5.4.38, 5.5.x before 5.5.22, and 5.6.x before 5.6.6 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via vectors that trigger creation of multiple dictionaries.

CVE-2014-9709
Published: 2015-03-30
The GetCode_ function in gd_gif_in.c in GD 2.1.1 and earlier, as used in PHP before 5.5.21 and 5.6.x before 5.6.5, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (buffer over-read and application crash) via a crafted GIF image that is improperly handled by the gdImageCreateFromGif function.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Good hackers--aka security researchers--are worried about the possible legal and professional ramifications of President Obama's new proposed crackdown on cyber criminals.