Trust Federation Constellations

Trust Federation Constellations

Abstract

This document is a product of the FI Work Group, but strongly related to the IAWG as well. It defines the constellations and use cases of Identity Federations to have a good understanding of the system under discussion when refining the scope.

Status and open issues

This document is currently under active development. Its latest version can always be found here. See the GI:Change History at the end of this document for its revision number.

  1. Incomplete constellations: C21, C22, C30, C70, C90, C100

  2. Discussion, if abuse-cases (C99) add value in this context, or should be moved elsewhere.

  3. Align UMA Scenarios and Use Cases

Editors

Rainer Hörbe

Intellectual Property Notice

The FI Work Group operates under Creative Commons Share-Alike Attribution IPR Option and the publication of this document is governed by the policies outlined in this option.


Table of Contents


Introduction

This documents describes a set of identity management constellations to define the scope for the Federation Interoperability and IAF. Each constellation is a collection of business level use cases. Starting with a well-known baseline constellation of 3 actors (Subject, Identity Provider and Relying Party), derived constellations shall reflect variants of actors and their trust relationships by adding following aspects:

  1. Completeness of trust model: Trust establishment, subject life cycle management

  2. Actor centricity: Depending on the background, users, service providers or network operators might shape the constellation.

  3. Jurisdictional structure:

    • Intra-organizational (single policy authority, centralized enforcement)

    • Cross-organizational (single policy authority, negotiated between autonomous actors)

    • Federation (shared or external policy authority)

    • Cross-border (across multiple national legislations)

    • Grid/cloud: is it a different structure?

  4. AA (Attribute Authority) different from IdP

  5. Organizational context: Enterprise user vs. consumer/natural person

  6. Subject class: human user vs. device/service

  7. Trust type: peer to peer, hierarchy/trust anchor, reputation based.

  8. Type of communication payload: document-centric vs. session-centric (or both in case of messaging)

  9. Restriction to electronic communication vs. physical access

  10. Off-line mapping of EAA policies vs. automated policy negotiation in real-time

  11. Relation of verifier to other actors


Trust Relationships in Federated Identity Management (Pending)

A common interpretation of trust in an identity federation is that a RP trusts the IdP to provide entity authentication at an expected assurance level. However, this view is provider-centric and incomplete, as there are several trust relationships involved:

Asserting Actor

Trusting Actor

Kind of trust

Asserting Actor

Trusting Actor

Kind of trust

TR-1-EntityAuthN

IdP

RP

entity authentication (including identity proofing in this context)

TR-2-IdPAvailibility

IdP

RP

short-term and long-term availability of the service

TR-3-3rdPartyDP

User

RP

data protection of content that is owned by the RP or 3rd parties and that this content is only transmitted to the authenticated user

TR-4-UserSec

User

IdP

the user's obligations to secure the authentication process (e.g. not give away credentials)

TR-5-PII@IdP-Prot

IdP

User

proper handling of PII given away in the registration process and collected at authentication time, including not abusing assertions to impersonate the user

TR-6-IDM-PII@RP

RP

User

proper handling of PII that was released with the identity assertion (might be indirectly via the IdP)

TR-7-Service-DP@RP

RP

User

data protection of content that owned by the user

TR-8-RP-Maleware

RP

User

client protection from malware in a used service

TR-9-RP2FO

FO

RP

providing the trust anchor, federation meta data and supervising the IdP

TR-10-IdP2FO

FO

IdP

providing the trust anchor and federation meta data

TR-11-RP2Ver

Ver

RP

execute authentication protocol

TR-12-IdP2RP2

RP

IdP

pay for identity service per usage

UMA

 

 

UMA-specific TR are being worked on; Terms are still different (user/subject, Host/RP)

The second and third column show how unidirectional trust relationships are defined in between actors. Not all of these trust relationships are usually associated with the term Identity Management, but are required to fulfill the complete set of security and privacy requirements by all actors.


Constellations

Constellation C01: Delegated Authentication (Pending)

This view primarily shows the separation of identity services from the RP’s service.

Prerequisite
  • Subject is subscribed to IdP service

  • RP delegated subject authentication (including registration) to IdP