Phil Hunt and Prateek Mishra

 Introduction
 Use Cases
 Standardization Path
 Q&A

 Standards development organization focused around enterprise use-cases
 enable a networked world based on open standards
 Range of activitiies around assurance, federation, privacy
 Standards developed include ID-FF (precursor to
SAML 2.0), ID-WSF, Identity Assurance frameworks
 http://www.projectliberty.org

 Names, home addresses, phone numbers, social security number, rank, email address,…
 Essential to enterprises and web sites providing services to customers
 Business applications cannot function without identity information
 Multiple sources of data (attribute authorities)
 Enterprise View: HR, CRM, Partners, IT
Directory, Departmental Systems, …
 Internet View: Portals, users, banks, employers, governments, retail, identity processors
(background and credit checks)

 Increasing legal and regulatory focus
 Privacy concerns: HIPAA, SB 1386, theft
 Compliance: SOX, GLB, EU legislation
 Industry vertical regulations: credit bureaus, credit-card processors (PCI standard)
 With each new heist or problem, new regulation or best practice model
 There are going to be more issues in the future
 How can the enterprise reduce risk associated with storing and using identity data?
 Lock it all up!
 With each new regulation conduct forensic scanning and analysis of systems
 Invest in an architecture that supports a governance model for identity

• Open architecture that addresses governance of identity related information within the enterprise
• Standards development ongoing at the Liberty
Alliance
• Open source implementation being created at http://www.openliberty.org
• Addresses gap between high-level assurance and regulatory requirements and lower-level protocols and architecture
• Privacy aware architecture that can express many different constraints and requirements
• Overlays on existing infrastructure at enterprises

Assurance
Liberty IAF,
PCI,
Privacy Legislation
Best Practices
Requirements that an enterprise or group of enterprises should meet to obtain certification.
impacts
Governance
IGF
XACML
Audit Standard?
Policy creation and update, policy enforcement, audit, decision explanation impacts
Run-time
Protocols
SQL, SAML 2.0
WS-*, LDAP
Run-time protocols and wire representations.

 How to reduce the risk associated with creation, maintenance and use of identity data?
 Who has access to my social security number or account number, and, under what conditions?
 Declarative statements (aka policies) published by consumers (applications, services) and sources of identity data (attribute authorities)
 Enterprises can audit and implement governance against these policies

 Users
 Capture what agreements the user accepted
 Reflect consent and purpose of data use
 But IGF does not directly address interactions with users
 Application developers are not identity experts
 How can they express application identity requirements?
 Tools and frameworks for developers are a key focus for IGF
 Identity Administrators
 Identity-related data is distributed & web based
 User consent must be supported and enforced
 Enable owners of identity data to express use constraints

 Introduction
 Components and Use Cases
 Standardization Path
 Q&A

 CARML – Defines application identity requirements
 what identity information an application needs and how the application will use it.
 AAPML – Defines identity use policies (XACML)
 Constraints on user and application access to personal data
 obligations and conditions under which data is to be released
 Attribute Service – Links applications to identity data
 Developer APIs/Tools – Developers can express identity requirements at a business level at development time
 Key to IGF adoption/use

 CARML (“kaar-mull”): Client Attribute Requirements
Markup Language
 Declarative model for identity interactions by applications
 List of required/optional attributes and types, other properties
 Includes some support for update of identity data
 Developers focus on app business requirements for identity-related data
 Developers and deployers express privacy rules followed by application
 Will the data be stored by the app? For how long?
 What purpose is it being used for?

 Application developer lists their identity requirements in CARML file
 Last four digits of user social security number
 User home address
 Office location in which user is employed
 None of this data is stored or forwarded to other applications
 Application is delivered to customers
 WidgetFactory, Inc. uses AD for employment level and office location, Oracle database for social security numbers
 AcmeCo uses MySQL database for office location, employment level, proprietary application for social security number.
 Administrators review CARML file and connect to appropriate back-end resources
 Ensure that enterprise privacy constraints are met by applications

 Attribute Authorities
 AAPML (“aap-mull”): Attribute Authority Policy Markup
Language
 Describes constraints on use of attribute data
 Declarative policy model for authorities that provide attributes
 Contextual rule support – who is asking for the data? On whose behalf? For what purpose?
 User-consent support
 Direct enforcement policy
 Obligations & declarations
 Proposed as XACML Profile


Users can update only their own contact information and personal data
 List of attributes: telephone number, contact information, mailing address, emergency information
 Authorized Subjects: Application “SelfService”, authenticated user
 Target Records: must match the authenticated user context.
 Auth Requirements: Proof of application authentication required
 Rights: Read + Write
 Consent: Not required

Marketing applications can access certain user attributes provided explicit userconsent is available
 List of attributes: name, address, e-mail
 Authorized Subjects: Any authenticated user with attribute
“employee”, Any application in marketing
 Auth Requirements: None
 Target Records: any
 Rights: Read
 Consent: consent record based on agreement of Dec 10, 2006 must be available

 Identity Service:
 Many possible realizations or implementations
 Could be client integrated, middleware server, or sourceserver integrated based service
 Read/Write attributes from many different sources using various protocols

Client Apps
Java
Applications
.NET
Perl
API Applications API Applications API Existing Applications
CARML :
Attribute
Requirements
Requirements
Requirements
Requirements
View A
Query Protocol
SAML / ID-WSF /SPML
View B
Optional:
LDAP, legacy protocols
WS-Trust STS
Delivery/Gateway/
Enforcement
AAPML :
Attribute Use
Policy
Policy
Identity Policy
Engine
Identity Service
LDAP, ODBC, SAML Query, SAML Assertions, …
Admins reconcile sources and policies with client CARML requirements to create “views”
Identity Sources Authority1
End-User(s)
Authority2
External
Partners
Authority3
HR
Systems
Authority4
Departmental
Systems
Authority5
Enterprise
Directory
Legend
Run-Time Interactions
Admin Deploy Time Interactions
Admin Deploy & Run-Time Interactions
Standard
Components
Existing or non-specified

Multi-protocol (LDAP, SQL, SAML, ID-WSF, ..)
Focus on producers and consumers of identity data

Many distributed authorities, each capable of expressing constraints on use of identity data

Applications publish requirements for identity data

IGF Part 4: App Developer and Enterprise Administrators
 Application Developer
 Identity needs of business applications expressed at a high-level
 Application developers lack identity middleware expertise
 Declarative model is preferred
 Ability to express identity requirements at a businesslevel without regard to sources
 Enterprise Administrators
 Support for deployment-time binding to specific identity architectures which vary over time and between enterprises
 Declarative approach simplifies compliance and configuration

 Introduction
 Use Cases
 Standardization Path
 Q&A

1.
Open-vendor initiative to address handling of identity related information within enterprise lead by Oracle
2.
Released key draft specifications
 CARML and AAPML
 Sample CARML API
 Announced intention to submit to a standards org
3.
Key vendors supported initiative
 CA, Layer 7, HP, Novell, Ping Identity, Securent, Sun
Microsystems

 Start of broader review on gathering expanded use-cases and market requirements
 Oracle makes IGF “straw-man” specifications available royalty-free
 Participation from:
 Computer Associates, France Telecom/Orange, Fugen, HP, Intel,
NEC, New Zealand, NTT, Oracle
 IGF Market Requirements Document Released July 2007
 Use-cases, Scenarios, End-to-End Examples
 www.projectliberty.org/index.php/liberty/strategic_initiativ es/identity_governance

 Two parts -
 Development of open source components at www.openliberty.org
 Anticipate release of some components in 1H08
 Technical work – specifications and profiles – to continue at Liberty Alliance and complete in 2H-2008
 Follows successful completion and publication of IGF Market
Requirements Document within Liberty Alliance
 Anticipate release of some working drafts in 1H08
 Supported by HP, CA, NEC, NTT, Novell, SUN and other partners

 Hosted at www.openLiberty.com
 Based upon Apache 2.0 license
 Create software libraries aimed at developers
 Aligned with open source ecosystem (Higgins, Bandit)
 Re-use existing components wherever possible
 In parallel with creation of Liberty final specification drafts
 Draft of CARML-compliant Attribute Services API available today

 Identity Governance Framework
 Open initiative for identity governance across enterprise systems
 Key draft specifications provide initial policy components
 CARML, AAPML
 Intent to ratify as full standards at an existing standards body
 Under Liberty Alliance Leadership
 Broad input and support in an open standards process
 Legal community review
 IP clearances - open standards for everyone to use

 www.projectliberty.org/index.php/liberty/strategic_initiatives/identity_governance
 IGF Overview Whitepaper
 FAQ
 Use Cases (MRD)
 Links to Oracle draft specifications:
CARML, AAPML, Client API
 Inquiries to
 Mail: phil.hunt@oracle.com & prateek.mishra@oracle.com
 Blog: blogs.oracle.com/identityprivacy