Archive
The Next Generation of Identity Management
The face of identity is changing. Historically, it was the duty of an identity management solution to manage and control an individual’s access to corporate resources. Such solutions worked well as long as the identity was safe behind the corporate firewall – and the resources were owned by the organization.
But in today’s world of social identities (BYOI), mobile devices (BYOD), dynamic alliances (federation), and everything from tractors to refrigerators being connected to the Internet (IoT), companies are finding that legacy identity management solutions are no longer able to keep up with the demand. Rather than working with thousands to hundreds of thousands of identities, today’s solutions are tasked with managing hundreds of thousands to millions of identities and include not only carbon-based life forms (people) but also those that are silicon-based (devices).
In order to meet this demand, today’s identity solutions must shift from the corporation-centric view of a user’s identity to one that is more user-centric. Corporations typically view the identity relationship as one between the user and the organization’s resources. This is essentially a one-to-many relationship and is relatively easy to manage using legacy identity management solutions.
What is becoming evident, however, is the growing need to manage many-to-many relationships as these same users actually have multiple identities (personas) that must be shared with others that, in turn, have multiple identities, themselves.
The corporation is no longer the authoritative source of a user’s identity, it has been diminished to the role of a persona as users begin to take control of their own identities in other aspects of their lives.
Identity : the state or fact of being the same one as described.
Persona : (in the psychology of C. G. Jung) the mask or façade presented to satisfy the demands of the situation or the environment.
In developing the next generation of identity management solutions, the focus needs to move away from the node (a reference to an entry in a directory server) and more towards the links (or relationships) between the nodes (a reference to social graphs).
In order to achieve this, today’s solutions must take a holistic view of the user’s identity and allow the user to aggregate, manage, and decide with whom to share their identity data.
Benefits to Corporations
While corporations may perceive this as a loss of control, in actuality it is the corporation that stands to benefit the most from a user-centric identity management solution. Large corporations spend hundreds of thousands of dollars each year in an attempt to manage a user’s identity only to find that much of what they have on file is incorrect. There are indeed many characteristics that must be managed by the organization, but many of a user’s attributes go well-beyond a corporation’s reach. In such cases, its ability to maintain accurate data within these attributes is relatively impossible without the user’s involvement.
Take for instance a user’s mobile telephone number; in the past, corporations issued, sponsored, and managed these devices. But today’s employees typically purchase their own mobile phones and change carriers (or even phone numbers) on a periodic basis. As such, corporate white pages are filled with inaccurate data; this trend will only increase as users continue to bring more and more of themselves into the workplace.
Legacy identity solutions attempt to address this issue by introducing “end-user self-service” – a series of Web pages that allow a user to maintain their corporate profile. Users are expected to update their profile whenever a change occurs. The problem with this approach is that users selectively update their profiles and in some cases purposely supply incorrect data (in order to avoid after hours calls). The other problem with this approach is that it still adheres to a corporate-centric/corporate-owned identity mindset. The truth is that users’ identities are not centralized, they are distributed across many different systems both in front of and behind the corporate firewall and while companies may “own” certain data, it is the information that the user brings from other sources that is elusive to the company.
Identity Relationship Management
A user has relationships that extend well beyond those maintained within a company and as such has core identity data strewn across hundreds, if not thousands of databases. The common component in all of these relationships is the user. It is the user who is in charge of that data and it is the user who elects to share their information within the context of those relationships. The company is just one of those relationships, but it is the one for which legacy identity management solutions have been written.
Note: Relationships are not new, but the number of relationships that a user has and types of relationships they have with other users and other things is rapidly growing.
Today’s identity management solutions must evolve to accept (or at a minimum acknowledge) multiple authoritative sources beyond their own. They must evolve to understand the vast number of relationships that a user has both with other users, but also with the things the user owns (or uses) and they must be able to provide (or deny) services based on those relationships and even the context of those relationships. These are lofty goals for today’s identity management solutions as they require vendors to think in a whole new way, implement a whole new set of controls, and come up with new and inventive interfaces to scale to the order of millions. To borrow a phrase from Ian Glazer, we need to kill our current identity management solutions in order to save them, but such an evolution is necessary for identity to stay relevant in today’s relationship-driven world.
I am not alone in recognizing the need for a change. Others have come to similar conclusions and this has given rise to the term, Identity Relationship Management (or IRM). The desire for change is so great in fact that Kantara has sponsored the Identity Relationship Management Working Group of which I am privileged to be a member. This has given rise to a LinkedIn Group on IRM, a Twitter feed (@irmwg), various conferences either focused on or discussing IRM, and multiple blogs of which this is only one.
LinkedIn IRM Working Group Description:
In today’s internet-connected world, employees, partners, and customers all need anytime access to secure data from millions of laptops, phones, tablets, cars, and any devices with internet connections.
Identity relationship management platforms are built for IoT, scale, and contextual intelligence. No matter the device, the volume, or the circumstance, an IRM platform will adapt to understand who you are and what you can access.
Call to Action
Do you share similar thoughts and/or concerns? Are you looking to help craft the future of identity management? If so, then consider being part of the IRM Working Group or simply joining the conversation on LinkedIn or Twitter.
Advice to CIOs for High Exposure Projects
I read an article in CIO Magazine about the plight of today’s CIOs when multi-million dollar multi-year projects go awry. The article entitled “The CIO Scapegoat” indicates that it is unfair to hold the IT department completely responsible when there are so many other business units that contribute to a project’s demise. In many cases, the CIO takes the fall for the failure and, as a direct result, they are either demoted, moved into a different organization or let go altogether.
The article goes on to provide advice to CIOs who are beginning such undertakings. First and foremost, large, complex projects should be broken up into “bite-sized” chunks and proper expectations of what will be delivered in each “mini-project” should be set – and agreed upon – with the various stakeholders.
I could not agree more with this statement and find it most concerning that this is not more of a common practice within the IT industry. In our World of rapid prototyping (turned production) and just-in-time development, to think that you could perform a multi-year project without implementing several checkpoints along the way is simply insane. This may be one of the reasons why the average life-span of a CIO is only two years within the same company.
CIOs who agree to perform projects under such conditions really need to read my previous blog entitled “Lessons Learned from Enterprise Identity Management Projects“. While it was written mainly for enterprise identity projects it has direct applicability to any enterprise project. In that article I directly address specific points about expectation setting and bite-sized chunks (did CIO Magazine read my blog on this?) and by taking my advice to heart, the average CIO might be able to extend their stay.
Opinions About the Federal Government’s Identity Initiative
Interesting read. This is essentially a WebSSO initiative with authentication based on CAC type ID cards or OpenID.
The CAC type of implementation (ID Cards) are not practical as they require everyone to have a card reader on their PC in order to do business with the government. I don’t see this happening anytime too soon.
I understand that there are several holes in the OpenID initiative. I wonder if they have been fixed (I wonder if it matters).
Either way, Sun’s openSSO initiative is well positioned as it allows OpenID as a form of authentication. The fact that the government is looking at open source for this (OpenID) bodes well for openSSO.
Link to article on PCmag.com:
http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/2009/09/federal_government_starts_iden.php.
Text version of the article:
Federal Government Starts Identity Initiative
As part of a general effort of the Obama administration to make government more accessible through the web, the Federal government, through the GSA (Government Services Administration), is working to standardize identity systems to hundreds of government web sites. The two technologies being considered are OpenID and Information Cards (InfoCards). The first government site to implement this plan will be the NIH (National Institutes of Health).
OpenID is a standard for “single sign-on”. You may have noticed an option on many web sites, typically blogs, to log on with an OpenID. This ID would be a URI such as john_smith.pip.verisignlabs.com, which would be John Smith’s identifier on VeriSign’s Personal Identity Portal. Many ISPs and other services, such as AOL and Yahoo!, provide OpenIDs for their users. When you log on with your OpenID the session redirects to the OpenID server, such as pip.verisignlabs.com. This server, called an identity provider, is where you are authenticated, potentially with stricter measures than just a password. VeriSign is planning to add 2-factor authentication for example. Once authenticated or not, the result is sent back to the service to which you were trying to log in, also known as a relying party.
Information Cards work differently. The user presents a digital identity to a relying party. This can be in a number of forms, from a username/password to an X.509 certificate. IDs can also be managed by service providers who can also customize their authentication rules.
The OpenID Foundation and Information Card Foundation have a white paper which describes the initiative. Users will be able to use a single identity to access a wide variety of government resources, but in a way which preserves their privacy. For instance, there will be provision for the identity providers to supply each government site with a different virtual identity managed by the identity provider, so that the user’s movements on different government sites cannot be correlated.
Part of the early idea of OpenID was that anyone could make an identity provider and that everyone will trust everyone else’s identity provider, but this was never going to work on a large scale. For the government there will be a white list of some sort that will consist of certified identity providers who meet certain standards for identity management, including privacy protection.
Identity Management Lessons from Sarah Palin
By now, many of you have already heard about the hacking of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s Yahoo e-mail account earlier this week (on or about Tuesday 9/16/2008). If not, here is a brief synopsys of the story.
Sarah Palin’s personal Yahoo e-mail account was compromised and the contents of her account (including her address book, inbox and several family photos) were posted to the Internet.
Someone with the e-mail address of rubico10@yahoo.com posted a message on the Web site 4chan about how he used Yahoo! Mail’s password-recovery tool to change the Alaska governor’s password and gain full access to her e-mail account.
“i am the lurker who did it, and i would like to tell the story,” rubico10@yahoo.com wrote.
(I have included the full text at the bottom of the post for those interested. Be forewarned that some of the language is NOT family friendly.)
The rubico10@yahoo.com e-mail account has been linked to 20-year old David Kernell; son of democratic Tennessee State Representative, Mike Kernell, and a student at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville. While David has not been included in any official investigation as of yet, his father, has confirmed that the person being the subject of the many blog posts and news articles around the Internet is indeed his son.
So how did the alleged hacker do it?
First of all, he had to identify Sarah Palin’s email address to be gov.palin@yahoo.com. A recent article in The Washington Post indicated that Sarah Palin was using a personal e-mail address of gov.sarah@yahoo.com to conduct government business. But that was not the e-mail account that got hacked. So how do you get from gov.sarah@yahoo.com to gov.palin@yahoo.com?
Allahpundit posted an article on hotair.com that presents some interesting ideas about how the hacker might have arrived at the gov.palin@yahoo.com account, but for the time being — and void of any conspiracy theories — let’s just assume he figured it out.
Now that he had the e-mail address, how was he able to gain access to the account?
The hacker claims to have used Yahoo! Mail”s password-recovery tool to reset the password. To do this, you simply go to Yahoo! Mail and click on the Forget your ID or password link.
This takes you to a page where you enter your Yahoo! ID. In the case of Sarah Palin’s account, this would be “gov.palin”.
To reset your password with Yahoo! Mail, you can either have it sent to your secondary email address or you can indicate that you no longer have access to this account.
(As a side note, I do not particularly like the fact that Yahoo! shows even a portion of my secondary email account in the email address HINT. But that is another story. )
Selecting the “I can’t access my alternate email address” radio button allows you to answer questions to challenge questions as follows:
These are generic authentication questions, but in the case of Sarah Palin, the hacker had to answer one additional question that had to do with where she met her husband. The hacker guessed that Alaska’s governor had met her husband in high school, and knew the Republican vice presidential candidate’s date of birth and home Zip code, the Associated Press reported. Using those details, the hacker was able to successfully access Palin’s email account where he was able to assign a new password of “popcorn”.
The rest is simply news.
So what does the hacking of Sarah Palin’s email account tell us about security and Identity Management in general?
One of the big benefits of an Identity Management solution is that it provides end-users with a way to update their own data and reset their own passwords. This is a HUGE cost reduction for companies as it reduces the number of calls to the Help Desk. But just like everything else, there has to be a careful balance between security and convenience.
Authentication questions provide a means for users to gain access to their accounts when they have forgotten their passwords. This is the mechanism that Yahoo! Mail uses and has been adopted by many Identity Management solutions. Authentication questions are extremely convenient for companies that have password policies that are so stringent that their users cannot remember their passwords. They also come in handy after three-day holiday weekends as the day that employees return to work typically generates numerous calls to the Help Desk for password reset.
While authentication questions are convenient and produce a cost savings, a company does, however, need to take care when providing this solution. Who decides what the questions are and what happens if the end-user does not have an answer for a particular question? These are some of the issues that need to be considered. I have seen questions all over the board. Below are some of the ones that I find particularly insecure since many of them can be answered by Google searches or social engineering. In some cases, the questions cannot be answered with one answer and some cannot be answered at all.
Questions that can be answered by social engineering or search:
· What is your mother’s maiden name?
· In what city where you born?
· In what year where you born?
· What was your first school?
· What was your first phone number?
Questions that might not be answered at all:
· Who is your favorite superhero?
· What is your pet’s name?
· What is your library card number?
· What was your first teacher’s name?
· What is the air speed velocity of a coconut-laden swallow?
If you force a user to provide answers that are easily obtainable, then your risk is drastically increased (just ask Sarah Palin). If you force users to answer questions that are difficult (or impossible) to answer, then then your risk is also increased as the user may just provide a common answer to all questions (i.e. “blue”). So either way you go, it can be a difficult decision to make.
I have found that one of the best mechanisms is a an approach that allows the end user to define their own set of authentication questions while the company provides a sample set of common (yet hopefully secure) questions as well. This allows the company to have certain control, but also allows the user the ability to provide questions and answers using information that only they know. Now, I know that some may argue that users typically pick the path of least resistance and that many of them will pick easy questions (and therefore have easy answers) but by combining a set of the company-specific questions in addition to those supplied by the user the company can bridge the gap between security and convenience.
By the way, if you use an application that allows you to provide your own authentication questions, then I STRONGLY suggest that you go and provide your own security question(s) to one(s) that have meaning and applicability to you.
Here is the synopsis of what rubico said at 4chan:
|
rubico 09/17/08(Wed)12:57:22 No.85782652
Hello, /b/ as many of you might already know, last night sarah palin’s yahoo was “hacked” and caps were posted on /b/, i am the lurker who did it, and i would like to tell the story. In the past couple days news had come to light about palin using a yahoo mail account, it was in news stories and such, a thread was started full of newfags trying to do something that would not get this off the ground, for the next 2 hours the acct was locked from password recovery presumably from all this bulls**t spamming. after the password recovery was reenabled, it took seriously 45 mins on wikipedia and google to find the info, Birthday? 15 seconds on wikipedia, zip code? well she had always been from wasilla, and it only has 2 zip codes (thanks online postal service!) the second was somewhat harder, the question was “where did you meet your spouse?” did some research, and apparently she had eloped with mister palin after college, if youll look on some of the screensh**s that I took and other fellow anon have so graciously put on photobucket you will see the google search for “palin eloped” or some such in one of the tabs. I found out later though more research that they met at high school, so I did variations of that, high, high school, eventually hit on “Wasilla high” I promptly changed the password to popcorn and took a cold shower… >> rubico 09/17/08(Wed)12:58:04 No.85782727 this is all verifiable if some anal /b/tard wants to think Im a troll, and there isn’t any hard proof to the contrary, but anyone who had followed the thread from the beginning to the 404 will know I probably am not, the picture I posted this topic with is the same one as the original thread. I read though the emails… ALL OF THEM… before I posted, and what I concluded was anticlimactic, there was nothing there, nothing incriminating, nothing that would derail her campaign as I had hoped, all I saw was personal stuff, some clerical stuff from when she was governor…. And pictures of her family I then started a topic on /b/, peeps asked for pics or gtfo and I obliged, then it started to get big Earlier it was just some prank to me, I really wanted to get something incriminating which I was sure there would be, just like all of you anon out there that you think there was some missed opportunity of glory, well there WAS NOTHING, I read everything, every little blackberry confirmation… all the pictures, and there was nothing, and it finally set in, THIS internet was serious business, yes I was behind a proxy, only one, if this s**t ever got to the FBI I was f****d, I panicked, i still wanted the stuff out there but I didn’t know how to rapids**t all that stuff, so I posted the pass on /b/, and then promptly deleted everything, and unplugged my internet and just sat there in a comatose state Then the white knight f****r came along, and did it in for everyone, I trusted /b/ with that email password, I had gotten done what I could do well, then passed the torch , all to be let down by the douchebaggery, good job /b/, this is why we cant have nice things |
Lessons Learned from Enterprise Identity Management Projects
I have been implementing and/or managing identity-related projects for over 10 years now and I can say, from experience, that the biggest problem with any Identity Management project can be summed up in one word: EXPECTATIONS.
It does not matter whether you are tackling an identity project for compliance, security or cost-reduction reasons. You need to have proper expectations of what can be realistically accomplished within a reasonable timeframe and those expectations need to be shared among all team members and stakeholders.
Projects that fail to achieve a customer’s expectations do so because those expectations were either not validated or were not shared between all parties involved. When expectations are set (typically in a statement of work), communicated (periodic reports), and then reset if necessary (change orders), then the customer is much happier with the project results.
Here are a few lessons I have learned over the years. While they have general applicability to major projects, in general, they are especially true of identity-related projects.
1) Projects MUST be implemented in bite-sized chunks.
Identity projects are enterprise-wide projects; you should create an project roadmap that consists of multiple “mini” projects that can demonstrate an immediate ROI. The joke is, “How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.” To achieve success with identity projects, you should implement them one bite at a time and have demonstrable/measurable success after each bite.
2) The devil is in the data.
Using development/test data that is not representative of production data will kill you in the end and cause undue rework when going into production. Use data that is as close to production as possible.
3) Start with an analysis phase BEFORE scoping the entire project.
I HIGHLY recommend that the first project you undertake is an analysis. That will define the scope for which you can then get a better idea of how to divvy up the project into multiple bite-size chunks and then determine how much — and how long — each chunk will take. This allows you to effectively budget both time and money for the project(s).
Note: If a vendor gives you a price for an identity implementation without this, then run the other way. They are trying to simply get their foot in the door without first understanding your environment. If they say that the analysis phase is part of the project pricing, then get ready for an extensive barrage of change orders to the project.
4) Get everyone involved.
Keep in mind that these are enterprise-wide projects that affect multiple business units within your company. The project team should contain representatives from each organization that is being “touched” by the solution. This includes HR, IT, Help Desk, Training and above all, upper-level management (C-level).
(The following items apply if you are using external resources for project implementation.)
5) Find someone who has “been there and done that”.
Ask for references and follow up on them. More and more companies say that they can implement identity-related projects just because they have taken the latest course from the vendor. This is not enough. If training alone could give you the skills to implement the product, then you would have done the project yourself. You need to find someone who knows where the pitfalls are before you hit them.
6) Let the experts lead.
Don’t try to manage an Identity Management project unless you have done so before – and more than once. I have been involved with customers who have great project managers that have no experience with identity projects, yet they want to take ownership of the project and manage the resources. This is a recipe for disaster. Let the people who have done the implementation lead the project and allow your project manager to gain the knowledge for future phases.
7) Help build the car, don’t just take the keys.
Training takes place before, after and during the project. Don’t expect to simply take “the keys” from the vendor once the project has been completed. You need to have resources actively involved throughout the project in order to take ownership. Otherwise you not be able to support the product — or make changes to it — without assistance from the vendor. Ensure that you have your own team members actively engaged in the project – side by side with the external team. To do this, you have to ensure that they are not distracted by other work-related tasks.
 |  |  |  |  |
Easy Identity 