Widely Distributed Access Management Tom Barton University of Chicago.

12
Widely Distributed Access Management Tom Barton University of Chicago

Transcript of Widely Distributed Access Management Tom Barton University of Chicago.

Widely Distributed Access Management

Tom BartonUniversity of Chicago

An Everyday Problem

• People would like to use the collaboration tools available to them to collaborate with whom they choose– Can we do better than email

attachments?

Email as Collaboration Platform

• Pros– Connects arbitrary sets of collaborators– Shares any type of file (ok, some limits)– Self access management

• Cons– Insecure– Limited capabilities– Reduces productivity more than pot-

smoking

Campus Collaboration Scenario

• UC faculty/staff self-initialize collaboration space to work with others internal & external to UC on focused activities– Email list; protected file share; private wiki

or web space; specialized compute or data services

– Initiator-identified collaborators– Both campus and external participants

administer shared collaboration resources

Requirements for Campus Collaboration Scenario

• Authenticate campus and external participants

• Self-creation of collaboration group by authorized campus people

• Delegation of selective admin privileges to campus & non-campus people

• Integration of collaboration services with above (centrally operated & not)

Service Provider Scenario

• An organization provides collaboration services to a population of users– Think Internet2 and its working groups– Or a Science Gateway

• Additional requirement: An initial delegation step, since self-initialization may not be appropriate

Solution Elements

• Distributed access management tools (Grouper & Signet)

• A DB for housing identifiers, memberships & privileges for collaboration participants

• Single locus at which to configure federated SSO (support for internal + external authentication)

• Architecture that adds collaboration attributes (identifiers, memberships, privileges) to authentication context and passes along to collaboration services

Collaboration Connector

• An integration architecture with all solution elements

• Proxy IdP– “IdP” = “Identity Provider” ala SAML and

Shibboleth– Provides SSO and Attributes to integrated

services– “Proxy” because collaboration attributes

must be added to externally-sourced ones

1

2

3

4

6

5,7

Examples

• MyVocs + GridShib– My Virtual Organization Collaboration Service– Improvement of user registration, access

management, service registration needed

• Dorian + Grid Grouper– caBIG’s caGrid security infrastructure– Needs adaptation to be more generally

deployable

• Almost all needed elements exist to be integrated into a “Collaboration Connector in-a-box”

Is it Better Than Email? Pros

Email• Connects arbitrary

sets of collaborators• Shares any type of

file (ok, some limits)

• Self access management

Collaboration Connector

• Yes, with federated authentication

• Yes, whatever the collaboration services provide

• Yes

Is it Better Than Email? Cons

Email• Insecure• Limited capabilities• Reduces

productivity more than pot-smoking

Collaboration Connector

• Secure• Specialized

capabilities• We’ll have to do a

study!