Do I have an alter ego?

A few days ago I received an e-mail from Courion Corporation: “Register Today: Sept Webinars Now Posted”. … and reading the content, I jumped.


Yes, one of the webinar title was just like the name of this blog: “Roles in Action”.

Of course I will not claim ‘firstborn’ rights. Very often in marketing you can create a catchword using a simple buzzword generator. For example, within my company we recently named a webcast: “Role Management: unlock the complete value of Identity Management, take full control over Compliance”. Not very original, is it?

Anyway, I am looking forward to this webinar. I hope that Courion speaker, Chris Sullivan, will agree with my blog subtitle: “Roles can’t be built in a day”.

No man is prophet in his own country

An Italian crazy approach to Identity Management projects

Preliminary remarks

1. An Organization is launching an Identity Management Project where almost 80% of the foreseen IM processes require an authorization workflow.
2. The Organization has selected an IM technology platform
3. However, the requirements are so complex that it isn’t possible to meet them just with a customization of the web application of the vendor’s IM product
4. Furthermore it is the Organization itself that suggests custom developments for the web application.
5. … thus almost 80% of the IM project requires ex-novo software developments
6. What a crazy world!!

Actual Story
We just received an Identity Management (IM) RfP from a large Italian company.
It seems that they have already done an internal technical evaluation, as they are asking mainly a system integration effort based on Oracle Identity Manager product.

From the RfP, translated from Italian: “(the company) wants to equip itself with an Identity Management system for supporting: the digital identity management processes, the software applications and other platforms authorization processes. To this end (the company): has identified in the Oracle Identity Manager product the technology to be used for implementing the system, has carried out a feasibility analysis, and has defined constrains and requirements for the implementation”.

Thus, just a system integration effort. They have done a rigorous vendor selection, and verified the feasibility of the project using the selected product.

Ok, fine, … but uhmm… they also want to develop new custom clients for specific functionalities not available from Oracle Identity Manager Web Application.

As a matter of fact, they have expressly invited the bidder not to customize the web application interface of the Oracle Identity Manager Administrative and End-User Console, but to implement the web interfaces using a “custom client” approach, i.e. a SW development based on Oracle Identity Manager Software Developer Kit (API).

Again from the RfP:

• “From the (Company) requirements analysis, we want to draw bidder's attention to the following set of remarks pertaining to the requests management:
• Roles (User Manager, Authorization Steward, Operator) of all users involved in a request approval process, need to have different scopes (or views), based on resource object attributes that represent the requested resource. For instance the User Manager doesn’t need to access fields like account identifier; this field, on the contrary, must be set by the AM function that creates the account on the target system. The first access password should be set by AM, displayed for the end user, not available by any other, and so on…”
• A fill-in request process must be guided by specific wizards aimed at effectively supporting the end user. For instance a User Manager that wants to grant the access to an Application for one of his collaborator, must first of all select the user from a predefined list of all his collaborators. Then he must be able to select the application and related profile. The system must be able to guide him, by offering the standard profile (or in case, a list of standard profiles) associated both to the selected application and to the end user belonging Organization Unit.
• ……..........
• A user must be able to submit a request for modifying his assigned profile for application authorization, but the present release of Oracle Identity Manager doesn’t allow out-of-the-box to implement workflow for approval of modify requests of resources attributes already assigned to users.”

The questions is:

• Does exist a product out there able to manage, out-of-the-box the above listed features, or at least able to provide a rich, exhaustive support for these functionalities?

Disclaimer
Yes, Engiweb Security can help with most of the above described missing features. For instance, reading from Engiweb Security IDEAS brochure:
“Administrator scope dynamic association in workflow processes. It is often necessary that workflow figures (delegated or peripherals administrators) have a limited scope both for users (only certain OU users) and Applications (i.e. this administrator only approves profile requests that belong to a specific application).”
There is no reason for me not to talk about it! ...but in short: is there someone who is interested? (certainly nobody in Italy).

Postscript
As soon as I ended this post, I discovered that some bloggers are discussing on FACTs and FUDs here and here.
The above described example well fits into the discussion.
We are a vendor used to face behemoths like ORACLE and SUN. In this post the Oracle products were mentioned, but I can give examples on SUN too. As the saying goes “People who live in glass shouldn’t throw stones!”

How to add "intelligence" to IAM

One of my colleagues just finished up a White Paper that is worth reading: “Let the Good Times Roll: Role Management for Enterprises Is Possible“.
The paper tries to explain how to add “intelligence” to a “classic” IAM solution. It also collects some concepts and examples I have already touched on in this blog.

Here is an excerpt addressing on the concept of Application.

In a large Organization environment there are many "Applications” managing both authentication and authorisation using (for instance) Active Directory groups.
In this context, with a single technological target (AD) connected to the IAM, there are multiple, associated “Applications”. On that level, into IAM environment, “target system” is a technology concept, whereas "Application” is a IAM business concept.

Note that in this context "Application" can be seen as a resources container (in this case AD groups).
Even AD groups set, used for users “Infrastructural” access, could be seen as an "Application". Following this point of view, we can group the “Infrastructural Resources” groups set (Internet, Mail OWA, VPN, FTP etc..) in a container (Application) and give it a name. (e.g. Infrastructure Resources).

This “Application” concept is very important in an IAM environment. Through “Applications” many administrative processes can be easily managed. Especially so are such processes where the “Target” concept does not fit because it is not expressive enough, and the “Resource” concept does not fit because it has too little granularity.
Some examples are:

• Application is a Business language while “Target” or “Resource” are technical languages.
• Dynamic management of IAM administrators “scope” on specific applications (an administrator can only approve requests referring to specific “Applications”).
• Policy writing is much more expressive and simple if referring to Applications instead of always identifying a set of resources.
• Event grouping under an Application is extremely expressive both from operational and auditing aspects.

Most IAM tools refer to technological concepts such as Targets or simple Resources thus resulting in a very low expressivity and administrative complications.
If you want to introduce the Application concept where it is not “out-of-the-box”, you must analyze the impact, define data model and implement all business intelligence associated with the concept.
Instead, with a tool natively supporting this data model, processes implementation related to this concept are direct and prompt.
Referring to the above Active Directory example: with IDEAS by Engiweb Security, once the Active Directory technological connector is created, the creation of an "Application”, its relative “Resources” association and connection to the reference “Target”, is really simple.

Only a few parameters need to be defined, such as:

• Target.
• Synchronisation Options (Automatic, Manual NoSync). It is interesting to note that native Applications management, based on “Sync. Options”, make the synchronisation chain work in a different way. In fact, in the case of Automatic Sync, if a user is assigned an Entitlement or a Role which includes a resource from this application (e.g. an AD group), the system generates an outbound event towards the connector which automatically associates the group with the user. On the contrary, Manual Sync generates an event which is retrieved from a file to run a Batch Synchronisation (everything out-of-box).
• Resources connected.

A new webcast on Role Management

If you are interested in Role Management and in particular in Engiweb Security’s approach to this business issue, you can tune in to a new webcast featuring Roberta Witty - Gartner Research VP, Richard Parisi - Engiweb Security International Customer Support and Alberto Ocello - Engiweb Security General Manager.

For registration to this webcast, click here.

An Italian clichè

A friend of mine sent me an e-mail with a ppt file attachment. It was in Italian, but the translation in English was easy. It was a joke on an Italian cliché, but it was a great illustration of a common Identity management nightmare: role explosion!

Yes, at least in Italy, most customers we work with are very clever at imagining every level of nuance when “theoretically” defining roles in their organization.

But fortunately, we are used to facing their anarchy and we know how to prevent the awkward problem of “role explosion”.
As the picture says, to survive we have been forced to take adequate countermeasures. For example the waitress can simplify the orders by requiring the customers to add their own sugar, milk, liquor, etc. Therefore, by restricting the number of kinds of coffee, requests are delivered in a timely manner while maintaining flexibility.

So, business managers, don’t be afraid: just select the right tools and adopt the appropriate methodology!

New Technical Paper on Role Mining

A new Technical Paper, “Leveraging Lattices to Improve Role Mining”, has been recently accepted and will be presented at the coming SEC 2008 23rd International Information Security Conference, co-located with IFIP World Computer Congress 2008, Milan, Italy, September 8-10, 2008.
Topics of interest of this conference include, but are not limited to:

• Access control
• Security and Content Policies
• Role Mining
• Security Compliance
• Identity and Trust Management

The paper highlights some crucial aspects on which Engiweb Security “IDEAS Role Constructor” module is based.

Abstract:
“In this paper we provide a new formal framework applicable to Role Mining algorithms.
This framework is based on a rigorous analysis of identifiable patterns in access permission data. In particular, it is possible to derive a lattice of candidate roles from the permission powerset.
We formally prove some interesting properties about such lattices. These properties, a contribution on their own, can be applied practically to optimize role mining algorithms. Data redundancies associated with co-occurrences of permissions among users can be easily identified and eliminated, allowing for increased output quality and reduced processing time.
To prove the effectiveness of our proposal, we have applied our results to two existing role mining algorithms: Apriori and RBAM. Application of these modified algorithms to a realistic data set consistently reduced running time and, in some cases, also greatly improved output quality; all of which confirmed our analytical findings.”
Authors: Alessandro Colantonio, Roberto Di Pietro, Alberto Ocello

Nice, Friends!, But, pardon me if I find much more pleasant another kind of Lattice: A nice piece of the Rhubarb-Strawberry Lattice Tart really hits the spot!

BTW if you are interested in receiving the full text, please send me an e-mail: my surname at eng dot it.

Inconsistency: the revenge

Before going on to introduce the second inconsistency case study, I just want to stress again that we are not speaking of a sort of “event manager” that monitors the activities performed directly on targets and blocks any possible operation. Here we are introducing a solution (part of a Governance and Compliance framework) that intelligently tries to understand if this operation could be accepted, taking into account presently enforced security policies. As a matter of fact, the realistic situation we are facing is the typical end-user’s requirement for additional access to another application (target). The official way (e.g. following a workflow) is not fast, so he calls his friend that works in the IT administration and bypasses the official procedure, quickly achieving access to his coveted application.

Previous episode: IAM System - Targets inconsistency policies: remove
There is not way to prevent someone (a naive “authorized” administrator ) from removing Profile1 from user John on target1.
Meanwhile, the IAM system must assure a single centralized record of reference, even if the IAM administrator is gambling poolside at Vegas with his new intelligent mobile phone…
To be more clear, take a look at the following diagram:


This Latest Episode: IAM System - Targets inconsistency policies: add!
As already anticipated, if the Administrator, again directly on a target, adds a profile to John, this would be even more difficult to manage as there could be a huge impact on Separation of Duty verification.

Actually managing the already described “remove” scenario, means assuring Security Policies, even if the operation ability of the “involved” user could be somehow diminished, but when the unaware user (John) gets a new profile with a direct action on the target, no preventive compliance control is performed and the real danger could be: Security breaches, failed audits, non-compliance, all the way up to fraud.

One again a sound IAM solution should effectively manage the risks associated with such a scenario, with the objective of assuring compliance with the least operational impact.

The following diagram explains how the Engiweb Security solution (the IDEAS suite) deals with this inconsistency (the offset between the IDEAS core repository and a generic target system) and how the Inconsistency Role Engine goes to work to repair the offset.

In this case, an authorized administrator accesses target1 and adds Profile1 to user John.

If the policies are set to try and accept the profile addition if possible, the first check is performed using a Segregation mechanism on the base OU. A profile is available for assignment to a user belonging to a certain OU only if “visible on that OU”. In this situation, particular profiles having some criticality can be “hidden” to OU’s that do not have the so-called “need to know”.

A second mechanism, used in the next checks, performs profile and role incompatibility management. This mechanism is supported by a powerful incompatibility SoD engine able to make run-time checks on a pre-assigned conflict matrix and contextual information. The system also contains a Role_Policy_Definition module which, starting from high-level incompatible activities, helps the administrator define a matrix of conflicting profiles.

Illegal roles and incompatible role-pair lists are also used by the IDEAS Profile Provisioning for other run-time SoD checks during user provisioning compatibility control. The SoD engine is queried for each new role assignment request. If assigning the role makes the user illegal, different authorization workflow steps can be executed.

Yes, in this case our IAM administrator can spend some more time poolside at Vegas undaunted by any notifications he may receive on his new intelligent mobile phone regarding of what’s happening at work!