Access management for repositories: challenges and approaches for MAMS James Dalziel Professor of Learning Technology and Director, Macquarie E-Learning Centre Of Excellence (MELCOE) james@melcoe.mq.edu.au www.melcoe.mq.edu.au Overview • • • • • • COLIS and access management COLIS and DRM Access management challenges MAMS Shibboleth and MAMS Repository federation – search and access COLIS and access management • Demonstrator project based on open standards – IMS CP, IMS DRI, IMS LRM, ODRL • Five universities and five vendors – Many different conceptions of the problem – Language difficulties • The COLIS Demonstrator is not “the solution” – Work in progress to help uncover practical issues – Functioning Demonstrator for discussion Systems Chunks in COLIS Learning Space Application Integration Content Management Learning Content Management Learning Management Integration Library E-Services E-Reserve E-Journals Directory Services Services Digital Rights Management COLIS and access management • Access management requirements – No modification to target systems – SSO “Deep linking” – Support multiple windows • Different approaches to solving access management – Large scale “corporate” solution – Small scale pragmatic approach, legacy systems COLIS SSO Model User hasn’t logged in User Browser Login Form LDAP Authentication Authentication Challenge Authentication Token User hasn’t logged in Application Web Server Web Page 1 SSO Proxy + Scripting Application URL Authorisation DBase User has logged in Access management challenges • Need for practical, incremental solutions • Recognition of university systems environment – Legacy systems • No single solution will be sufficient – Need more than one way of accessing targets – “Multi-modal Single Sign On” • Intra-institutional and inter-institutional needs • Role of identity management – Directories MAMS • MAMS - “Meta Access Management System” • An umbrella system with numerous modules for access to different systems as required • Inter-institutional communication between MAMS Current University Access Management Challenge Access System (eg, Portal) One type of SSO mechanism (eg, Kerberos) x Application A (requires scripting) x Application B (requires reverse proxy) ? Directories x Application C (requires IP address restriction) Application D (requires Kerberos) Meta Access Management System (MAMS) Architecture Access System (eg, Portal) Other Institution MAMS Application A (requires scripting) Local MAMS Scripting module Reverse proxy modules Application B (requires reverse proxy) Directories IP address Kerberos restriction module module Application C (requires IP address restriction) Application D (requires Kerberos) Example MAMS Implementation (Type 4) Access System Access System X.500 University B MAMS Learning Management System (scripting enabled) Learning Object Management System (reverse proxy enabled) Library Premium Databases (IP restrictions enabled) University A MAMS Library Premium Databases (Kerberos enabled) LDAP Kerberos Certificate system Digital Rights Management System (Kerberos enabled) Shibboleth and MAMS • Shibboleth as best practice for cross-institutional connections • Standards basis to Shibboleth, eg SAML • Common elements – MAMS umbrella and Shibboleth – Shibboleth “resource handlers” and MAMS modules – Shibboleth inter-institutional federation • Links to other Internet2 projects, eg eduPerson Example MAMS Implementation (Type 4) + Recent Projects overlay WALAP Access System WALAP Access System X.500 University A MAMS University B MAMS Shibboleth MAMS (Resource Handlers) Learning Management System (scripting enabled) Learning Object Management System (reverse proxy enabled) Library Premium Databases (IP restrictions enabled) LDAP Kerberos Certificate system PKI or other Digital Certificates Library Premium Databases (Kerberos enabled) Digital Rights Management System (Kerberos enabled) MAMS Project Components (1) Iterative demonstrations to help drive the gathering of user requirements (2) Development of common services prototypes – Intra-institutional multi-modal SSO – Inter-institutional access management • Attribute exchange (Shibboleth) • Automation of policy – Federated and extensible identity – Other common services: DRM, search, metadata (3) Implementation advice and programs Repository Federation - Search • The problem of “portal envy” • Search as an “anonymous” service, rather than building “one portal to rule them all” – No one may know of the existence of your repository until they access a specific item from someone’s search gateway (based on harvesting/federation of your MD) • The importance of Federated Search Gateways – COLIS experiences Repository Federation - Search - COLIS LOM Metadata CP OAI Server Z39.50 OAI Harvest SRW Server LOM Metadata OAI Server SRU OAI Harvest Z39.50 Library Catalogues E-Reserve DC+ext Metadata XML Z39.50 Web Content Search Intermediary LOM Metadata XML InfoSeefer Repository Federation - Access • If content is free to the world (including no restrictions on potential commercial use), then access restrictions are not normally a concern Otherwise…. • Traditional access restrictions across repositories – Endless names and password, management nightmare • Or…federated access using attribute exchange – The next generation - but requires important changes to how repositories handle access issues – Non trivial technical challenges to repository architecture Conclusion • Access management is a key element of research (and other) common services infrastructure • Need for Demonstrator, incremental development, recognition of current university realities • No single SSO method will be sufficient • Importance of open standards • Common ground between – MAMS and Shibboleth – MAMS and repository projects – MAMS and vendors