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
US Turning Up the Heat on North Korea's Cyber Threat Operations
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  9/16/2019
Preventing PTSD and Burnout for Cybersecurity Professionals
Craig Hinkley, CEO, WhiteHat Security,  9/16/2019
NetCAT Vulnerability Is Out of the Bag
Dark Reading Staff 9/12/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
7 Threats & Disruptive Forces Changing the Face of Cybersecurity
This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at the biggest emerging threats and disruptive forces that are changing the face of cybersecurity today.
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-2019-16413
PUBLISHED: 2019-09-19
An issue was discovered in the Linux kernel before 5.0.4. The 9p filesystem did not protect i_size_write() properly, which causes an i_size_read() infinite loop and denial of service on SMP systems.
CVE-2019-3738
PUBLISHED: 2019-09-18
RSA BSAFE Crypto-J versions prior to 6.2.5 are vulnerable to an Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature vulnerability. A malicious remote attacker could potentially exploit this vulnerability to coerce two parties into computing the same predictable shared key.
CVE-2019-3739
PUBLISHED: 2019-09-18
RSA BSAFE Crypto-J versions prior to 6.2.5 are vulnerable to Information Exposure Through Timing Discrepancy vulnerabilities during ECDSA key generation. A malicious remote attacker could potentially exploit those vulnerabilities to recover ECDSA keys.
CVE-2019-3740
PUBLISHED: 2019-09-18
RSA BSAFE Crypto-J versions prior to 6.2.5 are vulnerable to an Information Exposure Through Timing Discrepancy vulnerabilities during DSA key generation. A malicious remote attacker could potentially exploit those vulnerabilities to recover DSA keys.
CVE-2019-3756
PUBLISHED: 2019-09-18
RSA Archer, versions prior to 6.6 P3 (6.6.0.3), contain an information disclosure vulnerability. Information relating to the backend database gets disclosed to low-privileged RSA Archer users' UI under certain error conditions.