Changes between Version 2 and Version 3 of FeddAuthorizationArchitecture


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Oct 16, 2009 6:23:06 PM (15 years ago)
Author:
faber
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • FeddAuthorizationArchitecture

    v2 v3  
    11= Architecture =
    22
    3 Our model of authorization in the DFA is that principals are granted the right to perform operations on other principals bases on attributes of the principals.  Possession of a given attribute by the requesting principal allows the requested operation to proceeed.  The attribute required is set by the principal being operated on.  The notions of principals, attributes and negotiation comes from the [http://www.isso.sparta.com/research_projects/security_infrastructure/abac_overview.html ABAC system], which we use as an implemenation.
     3Our model of authorization in the DETER Federation Architecture (DFA) is that principals are granted the right to perform operations on other principals bases on attributes of the principals.  Possession of a given attribute by the requesting principal allows the requested operation to proceeed.  The attribute required is set by the principal being operated on.  The notions of principals, attributes and negotiation comes from the [http://www.isso.sparta.com/research_projects/security_infrastructure/abac_overview.html ABAC system], which we use as an implemenation.
    44
    5 We reveiew the basic ABAC notions and operations and then discuss how that architecture is connected to the DFA.
     5ABAC provides us with flexible delegation, provable access decisions on which the participants agree, and scalability.  The provable decisions can be logged for auditing and correct operations while the scalability properties are key to large deployment.
    66
    7 == Principals ==
     7We review the basic ABAC notions and operations, as well as the DFA operations, and then discuss how that architecture is connected to the DFA.
     8
     9== ABAC Fundamentals ==
     10
     11ABAC allows us to prove principals have attributes that have been attested to by other principals.  We lay out the basic functions here.
     12
     13=== Principals ===
    814
    915Principals are the players in the authorization system.  They have a unqiue identity in the system (though a single real world entity may act as several principals in the system), can prove that identity and can make assertions about attributes.  Principals in the DFA are identified by their [FeddAbout#GlobalIdentifiers:Fedids fedid].  Within the authorization framework, fedids can be used to sign create credentials as well.
     
    1319Authentication is a binding of a request to a requesting principal about which the object principal can then reason.  Many forms of authentication are possible here, and we intend to support as many as possible.  The goal of authentication is to bind the request to a principal (i.e., their [FeddAbout#GlobalIdentifiers:Fedids fedid]).
    1420
    15 == Attributes and Credentials ==
     21=== Attributes and Credentials ===
    1622
    1723Attributes are asserted about a principal by a principal.  Each principal defines its own namespace of attributes, though for principals to agree on how to reason using them they must agree on the semantics of the relevant subset of each others attributes.  We generally use a dotted notation of the form `Principal.attribute` to represent an attribute.  Attributes are free-form strings (without dots) that are chosen to have some meaning.  The principal is the [FeddAbout#GlobalIdentifiers:Fedids fedid] of the principal in question, though in these examples we will replace it with a string representing the principal's role in the discussion.  One could imagine a principal representing the DETER testbed defining an attribute `user` that means that any principal about which that is asserted is a user of the testbed.  Such an attribute would be referred to as `DETER.user` where `DETER` is a shorthand for the testbed's fedid.
     
    2834
    2935It is worth noting that some credentials embody information about a principal or the policies of a principal that are not generally known, nor are they intended to be.  The ABAC authorization model has provisions for controlling how principals release credentials to others, including securely establishing preconditions on that release.  This fact constrains both the number of parties to a negotiation and the system used to find credentials.
     36
     37=== Negotiation ===
     38
     39Negotiating access is the cooperative process of proving to the principal being operated on that the requesting principal has the proper attribute or attributes.  The negotation can be characterized as creating a directed graph from requesting principal to principal being operated on where each link is a valid credential.  It is a cooperative process because either principal can contribute to the creation of the graph.
     40
     41While the overall goal is to create the path from required attribute to requesting principal, the negotaition may include proving intermediate attributes in order to release information that one party or the other considers sensitive.  For example, a requesting principal may only reveal information about its US governemnt clearances to a principal that can prove it represents the a part of the government with the rights to see the clearance government.  This models the sort of behavior where a citizen may not show identification except to a law enforcement official.
     42
     43Once the negotiation has completed, both parties share the complete reasoning path used to grant access and know the same things about one another.  If subordinate negotiations have occurred, that information can be cached and used for later interactions as well.  For example, once a principal has been shown to represent a relevant US government body, later interactions can dispense with the data exchange necessary to release such information.
     44
     45Because such proofs are constructed of valid credentials, they inherently contain validity times.  These can be used to determine when or if proofs must be renegotiated or and when derived attributes are no longer valid.
     46
     47The ABAC negotiation takes place between two parties, but the credentials used to build the proof may come from other principals.  Such a third party credential may be issued by an identity validating service, such as a US state granting a driver's license.  There are two ways such credentials can enter the negotiation: one party may hold the credential generated by a third party or a thrid party may hold the credential.  When one of the negotiating parties enters an thrid party credential into the exchange, it does so subject to the same kinds of controls as any of its credentials, i.e., the party may require an intermediate proof that the other negotiator is qualified to see the credential.  Credentials held by third parties (as opposed to credentials issued by third parties) may also be brought into the discussion, but only if those credentials are available without controls.  That is to say, negotiators may collect published credentials as part of the negotiation.
     48
     49This may initially appear to be an odd restriction, but it is tied to the fact that all parties to the negotiation agree on the final proof.  In order to acquire information from the third party, one of the negotiators may need to reveal information to th ethird party that it is unwilling to reveal to the other negotiator.  The third party and the two negotiators would have different views of the overall state that led to the authorization and would be unable to log the complete justification for the access denial or acquisition.  US consumers find themselves in this situation when they attempt to make purchases that require a credit report; the seller is often authorized to see the credit report that the buyer does not have a copy of.  Such a case is frustrating in real life, but violates the property that negotiators agree on state in ABAC.
     50
     51== The DFA ==
     52
     53The DFA builds experiments for researchers from resources acquired from various testbeds (also called federants).  Conceptually, this is accomplished by presenting the federator (called {{{fedd}}}) with an experiment description which the federator breaks into sub-experiments that it creates on federants and connects to make the unified federated experiment.  The federator negotiates local access with individual testbeds and uses their local configuration language to create and connect the sub-experiments.
     54
     55=== Federator Decomposition ===
     56
     57It is helpful both conceptually and practically, to think of {{{fedd}} as having two parts, the ''experiment controller'' and the ''access controllers''.  The experiment controller interacts with researchers to create, configure, and manipulate the federated experiment as a whole.  It is concerned with acquiring access from federants, decomposing experiment descriptions and manipulations of the global experiment allocation state (deallocating, reallocating, restarting, etc).  The access controller is the interface to local resources.  It negotiates access to the underlying local resources, maps permissions in the global attribute space into local configurations and credentials, and manages local resources.
     58
     59Federants will use one of our existing plug-in access controllers or create their own in order to join the federation.  The access controller can be physically implemented near the testbed it manages or can be colocated with the experiment controller.  To a great extent this decision depends on the level of control that a federant's administrator wants over the access policies and the level to which the testbed resources can be configured remotely.  We have demonstrated access controllers that are loosely and tightly bound to their testbeds.
     60
     61=== Creating an Experiment (pre-ABAC) ===
     62
     63In the pre-ABAC design, allocation decisions on federants were made based on a simple [http://fedd.isi.deterlab.net/trac/wiki/FeddAbout#GlobalIdentifiers:Three-levelNames three-attribute system] where all attributes were attested by a testbed associated with the experiment controller.  This was a generalization of the Emulab project/user model extended to include testbeds as a third attribute.
     64
     65Building a federated experiment consists of gathering access to federants, and allocating resources to the experiment, and initializing the shared environment.  Once the resources are allocated and initialized, it is identified by a fedid, which is communicated to the researcher.
     66
     67A researcher initiates the process by asking a {{{fedd}}} - specifically its experiment controller - to create the experiment.  The {{{fedd}}} and researcher mutually authenticate using their fedids.  At this point the experiment controller determines from the fedid if the user is permitted to create experiments.  This is a simple identity-based decision.
     68
     69Based on the researcher's authenticated identity, the controller knows which three-level names are valid for this user and will present them to the various testbeds to request access (from their access controllers).  These three-level names are all based on a local configuration, and this testbed cannot assert three-level names from another testbed, because testbeds are identified by their fedid.
     70
     71As each access controller gets the request, accompanied by a three-level name, it determines how that name maps to its local access control and tells the requesting experiment controller what access is granted.  This process binds the three-level name to the local access control; Emulabs map to a user/project pair, DRAGON maps to an X.509 certificate.
     72
     73After the access is negotiated, allocation of the local experiment proceeds based on the local credentials at each federant.
     74
     75== ABAC and the DFA ==
     76
     77In mapping ABAC onto the DFA, three key issues arise:
     78
     79 * Mapping principals into system actors
     80 * Mapping local access control requirements into ABAC attributes
     81 * Authenticating principals during operations
     82
     83We consider each of these in turn.
     84
     85=== Principals in the DFA ===
     86
     87Principals in the DFA possess a [FeddAbout#GlobalIdentifiers:Fedids fedid], which is the basis for their assignment of attributes, though we may bind a specific request to a principal using other means than the fedid.  In particular, the following entities are principals in the DFA:
     88
     89 Researchers::
     90   A catch-all category for human beings requesting federated services.
     91 Experiment controller::
     92   The {{{fedd}}} component that assembles federated experiments
     93 Access controllers::
     94   The {{{fedd}}} components responsibile for controlling access to testbeds and creating local sub-experiments
     95 Federated Experiments::
     96   The experiment itself
     97 Sub-experiments::
     98   The local allocations of resources by different testbeds
     99 Testbeds/Federants::
     100   The administrators and operators that grant privileges to researchers
     101 Other third parties::
     102   Federants are a particular case of these.  Any agency or individual whose vioce is represented in access control decisions is a principal.
     103
     104Researchers and the controllers are obvious cases of entities that need to be principals.  In the simplest understanding of operating on experiments, those are the entities that talk to one another.
     105
     106Making the experiment itself a principal creates an important point of delegation.