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

Fri Mar 20 09:08:23 CDT 2009

Hi,

>- Proxy certs require *additional* path validation. 

Exactly, that's where it is all about - I think we still misunderstand each other.

In using your e-mail I try:

Before I send someone an attach - I would like to know if the person has an email system with or w/o attachments ;-)

That's my point - but let's discuss in the telcon about it. We are not talking about the same things.

Take care,
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: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Pgi-wg] Sec: Agreement on SOAP and authentication

> I strongly disagree.
> 
> Proxy certs require *additional* path validation.  You *still* 
> have to do
> the same PKC path validation on the EEC that the proxies chain to. 
> This
> work has to be done regardless of whether there are proxy 
> certificates in
> the chain.  This is a clear "is-a" relationship, a superset of 
> functionalitywith PCs.
> 
> Let me illustrate with an analogy:  You are tasked to provide 
> requirementsfor an email system.  What you are suggesting is 
> analagous to a requirement
> that
> 
> "The email system must EITHER support email-without-attachments OR
> email-with-attachments."
> 
> My point is that if you build an email system to support
> email-with-attachments you have implicitly already built a system 
> to support
> email-without-attachments.
> 
> If you make it a requirement to reject PKCs explicitly, you are 
> creatingunnecessary additional complexity in both your services 
> (by explicitly
> rejecting certs that do not have the proxy extension) and in your 
> clients(by mandating that callers with statically-assigned 
> credentials create a
> proxy to delegate to themselves just so they can use your service).
> 
> -Duane
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 1:20 PM, <m.riedel at fz-juelich.de> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Duane,
> >
> >  have you read the slides about the IIRM and the plumbings 
> concept was
> > basically refers to that concept of "either-or".
> >
> > Although both are X.509 certificates - It's a fundamental 
> difference if you
> > have full X.509 end-entity certificates only signes by a CA you 
> trust or
> > X.509 certificates signed by users with a chain.
> >
> > Implementations have to now the difference in order to 'climb 
> the whole
> > chain' while doing authentication - that was breaking 
> interoperability in
> > the past between numerous implementatio.
> >
> > In short: my suggestion is to remove too much flexibility by 
> just using
> > "either or" for these models that are quite established. 
> Furthermore, I
> > would like to decouple the attrauthZ from TLS.
> >
> > I hope it gets a bit clearer now - but I feel the need for a 
> picture, I
> > start to develop a small supportive figure here.
> >
> > Take care,
> > 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
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> >
> >
> >
> 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------