[Pgi-wg] Sec: Agreement on SOAP and authentication

Fri Mar 20 08:09:02 CDT 2009

Authorization *policy *is out of scope for this conversation.  How a callee
decides to perform allow/deny checks is irrelevent in a push-style model.

I strongly suggest that we take a "zero-or-more" approach to both:

   - Proxy chain depth
   - Attribute certificates

You are suggesting a "one-or-more" approach, which is a Bad Idea because it
increases complexity while reducing the number of supportable use-cases.
There is nothing good about a one-or-more mandate for either.

-Duane

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 1:40 PM, <m.riedel at fz-juelich.de> wrote:

> Duane,
>  in addition I forgot to mention that we already agreed in PGI that we only
> do attribute-based authorization for those that would like to be
> PGI-compliant while still supporting identity-based authZ of course.
>
> It's not related here for AuthN - but helps to understand my circumvention
> of the complicated 'additional' scope. It makes sense - but allows too much
> flexibility I think that break possibly interop again.
>
> You may want to support still purely identity-based authZ in the
> non-PGI-compliant part. At least that is my suggestion. Otherwise we end up
> of standardizing each functionality purely out of our systems.
>
> Sorry for not mention that again,
>
> Morris
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Morris Riedel
> SW - Engineer
> Distributed Systems and Grid Computing Division
> Central Institute of Applied Mathematics
> Research Centre Juelich
> Wilhelm-Johnen-Str. 1
> D - 52425 Juelich
> Germany
>
> Email:  m.riedel at fz-juelich.de
> Info: http://www.fz-juelich.de/zam/ZAMPeople/riedel
>
> Phone: +49 2461 61 - 3651
> Fax: +49 2461 61 - 6656
>
> Skype: MorrisRiedel
>
> 'We work to improve ourselves and the rest of mankind.'
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Duane Merrill <dgm4d at virginia.edu>
> Date: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:40 pm Subject: Re: [Pgi-wg] Sec:
> Agreement on SOAP and authentication
>
>
>  > I don't understand the strict "either-or" wording below with > regards
> to PCs
> > versus PKCs in a *proxy-plus-embedded-AC* conformance target.  You
> > make it
> > sound like their use would be unilaterally mutually exclusive.
> > Both types
> > of certificates can embed attribute certificates, and there is an
> > "is-a"/polymorphic relationship here: a PKC is a PC of delegation
> > depth zero
> > (and therefore does not have the extension OID set).
> >
> > A *proxy-plus-embedded-AC* conformance target should describe
> > implementations that allow both.  In the strawman document, the
> > goal of
> > layering the *pgi-tls-proxy* conformance target on top of the
> > *pgi-https*target was to add functionality (not take it away):
> > *pgi-tls-proxy* describes SOAP implementations that perform mutual
> > SSL/TLSauthentication with certificates, and these certificates
> > MAY have proxy
> > extensions (making them PCs) and MAY have AC extensions (embedding
> > attributecertificates).
> >
> > Perhaps I am just misinterpreting your language.
> >
> > -Duane
> >
>
>  > 2009/3/19 Morris Riedel <m.riedel at fz-juelich.de> >
> > > Hi security folks,
> > >
> > >
> > >  reading certain elements of the IIRM, strawman, and following
> > discussions> on the list - I see there is still no common
> > agreement on SOAP / HTTP(S) in
> > > some areas.
> > >
> > > ### Goal:
> > >
> > > (a)
> > > We are discussing if SOAP / HTTPS can be used in PGI to contact a
> > > functional
> > > interface (like BES)...
> > >
> > > (b)
> > > ...because we want to find out if there is any important service
> > in the PGI
> > > context that is not capable of using SOAP (over SSL layer)...
> > >
> > >
> > > (c)
> > > ... in order to find out if we can agree on SOAP/HTTPS or to
> > understand> requirements from other non WS-based interfaces in PGI.
> > >
> > >
> > > Therefore the aim of this thread is to get to an agreement in
> > this context,
> > > while considering Attribute authorities like VOMS as a
> > supportive service
> > > and not an functional interface (also separate thread).
> > >
> > > ### Contacting functional implementations with SOAP
> > >
> > > If we consider the case that we communicate with an functional
> > interface> like OGSA-BES - we agree on SOAP.
> > >
> > > ### TLS/SSL Layer:
> > >
> > > # <strawman>
> > > Foundational: Conveying identity for authentication.
> > > SOAP over HTTPS (PGI_HTTPS).  SOAP-over-HTTP communication using
> > a SSL/TLS
> > > transport protocol in which endpoints are mutually authenticated
> > by X.509
> > > end-entity public key certificates (PKCs).
> > > # </strawman>
> > >
> > >
> > > # <simple plumbings: authentication>
> > > We use authentication either based on identities inside X.509
> > end-entity
> > > public key certificates or X.509 proxies (including
> > restrictions, encoding
> > > handled separately in another thread).
> > >
> > > This refers of using either one or the other of these
> > certificate types on
> > > the SSL/TLS level.
> > >
> > > For simplification of the profile - there should be no direct
> > dependencies> with attribute-transport used for authorization.
> > > # </plumbings>
> > >
> > >
> > > ### Possible scenarios:
> > >
> > > # A. TLS with end-entity certificate, SOAP in message -> authN
> > check with
> > > CA
> > >
> > > # B. TLS with (restricted) proxy certificates, SOAP in message -
> > > authN
> > > check with proxy signer chain
> > >
> > > ### Possible Conclusion:
> > >
> > > # We use SOAP inside a message to contact functional interfaces.
> > >
> > > # We use either full X.509 end-entity certificates OR X.509
> > proxies (with
> > > restrictions)
> > >
> > > ### Open Questions:
> > >
> > >
> > > Q: There are WS interfaces for functional specifications that
> > matter to PGI
> > > (BES, WS-DAIS and SRM) - so in the context of PGI - can we agree
> > on SOAP
> > > based on HTTPS as mentioned above?
> > >
> > > Q: If not - are there any important functional interfaces
> > (except support
> > > interfaces from AAs like classic VOMS) that do not support SOAP
> > in the PGI
> > > ecosystem?
> > >
> > >
> > > Please feel free to comment but let the question of
> > attributes+restrictions> outside -  I propose to deal with it in
> > separate threads because of their
> > > complexity.
> > >
> > >
> > > Take care,
> > > Morris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Morris Riedel
> > > SW - Engineer
> > > Distributed Systems and Grid Computing Division
> > > Jülich Supercomputing Centre (JSC)
> > > Forschungszentrum Juelich
> > > Wilhelm-Johnen-Str. 1
> > > D - 52425 Juelich
> > > Germany
> > >
> > > Email: m.riedel at fz-juelich.de
> > > Info: http://www.fz-juelich.de/jsc/JSCPeople/riedel
> > > Phone: +49 2461 61 - 3651
> > > Fax: +49 2461 61 - 6656
> > >
> > > Skype: MorrisRiedel
> > >
> > > "We work to better ourselves, and the rest of humanity"
> > >
> > > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Jülich
> > > Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Düren Nr. HR B 3498
> > > Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: MinDirig'in Bärbel Brumme-Bothe
> > > Vorstand: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender),
> > > Dr. Ulrich Krafft (stellv. Vorsitzender)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Pgi-wg mailing list
> > > Pgi-wg at ogf.org
> > > http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH
> 52425 Jülich
>
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Jülich
> Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Düren Nr. HR B 3498
> Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir'in Bärbel Brumme-Bothe
> Geschäftsführung: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender),
> Dr. Ulrich Krafft (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr. Harald Bolt,
> Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/pgi-wg/attachments/20090320/d086d446/attachment.html 