Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

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
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
RDP Bug Takes New Approach to Host Compromise
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  7/18/2019
The Problem with Proprietary Testing: NSS Labs vs. CrowdStrike
Brian Monkman, Executive Director at NetSecOPEN,  7/19/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Building and Managing an IT Security Operations Program
As cyber threats grow, many organizations are building security operations centers (SOCs) to improve their defenses. In this Tech Digest you will learn tips on how to get the most out of a SOC in your organization - and what to do if you can't afford to build one.
Flash Poll
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
Your enterprise's cyber risk may depend upon the relationship between the IT team and the security team. Heres some insight on what's working and what isn't in the data center.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-10101
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-23
ServiceStack ServiceStack Framework 4.5.14 is affected by: Cross Site Scripting (XSS). The impact is: JavaScrpit is reflected in the server response, hence executed by the browser. The component is: the query used in the GET request is prone. The attack vector is: Since there is no server-side valid...
CVE-2019-10102
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-23
Voice Builder Prior to commit c145d4604df67e6fc625992412eef0bf9a85e26b and f6660e6d8f0d1d931359d591dbdec580fef36d36 is affected by: CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection'). The impact is: Remote code execution with the same privileges as the...
CVE-2019-10102
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-23
Jeesite 1.2.7 is affected by: SQL Injection. The impact is: sensitive information disclosure. The component is: updateProcInsIdByBusinessId() function in src/main/java/com.thinkgem.jeesite/modules/act/ActDao.java has SQL Injection vulnerability. The attack vector is: network connectivity,authenticat...
CVE-2018-18670
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-23
GNUBOARD5 5.3.1.9 has XSS that allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the "Extra Contents" parameter, aka the adm/config_form_update.php cf_1~10 parameter.
CVE-2018-18672
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-23
GNUBOARD5 5.3.1.9 has XSS that allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the "board head contents" parameter, aka the adm/board_form_update.php bo_content_head parameter.