EUROPEAN IDENTITY STRATEGY

1

NICOLE HARRIS

e-Infrastructure Summer Workshops, Federated Identity Technology

EU DIRECTIVES / REGULATIONS

2

HELPFUL DISTINCTION:

A Directive

shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods.

A Regulation

shall have general application. It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

DATA PROTECTION

3

Currently:

DIRECTIVE 95/46/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data

Moving to:

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation).

4

“People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly

and with more people….That social norm is just something that has evolved over time.”

Mark Zuckerberg, January 2011

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jan/11/facebook-privacy

5

http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/A%20New%20Privacy%20Paradox%20April%202014.pdf

6

“It is clear that the cord connecting technology and democracy has been severed. This is bad for democracy and bad for technology and it will not be easy to stitch the two back

together,”

Neelie Kroes, European Commission, March 2014.

http://thenextweb.com/eu/2014/03/10/need-stronger-data-safeguards-snowdens-wake-call-says-european-commissioner/

7

WHAT IS NEW IN DP REGULATION?

8

• A single set of rules on data protection, valid across the EU.

• Increased responsibility and accountability for those processing personal data.

• Consent has to be given explicitly, rather than assumed.

• Easier access to their own data and be able to transfer personal data from one service provider to another more easily (right to data portability).

• A ‘right to be forgotten’ will help people better manage data protection risks online: people will be able to delete their data if there are no legitimate grounds for retaining it.

• EU rules must apply if personal data is handled abroad by companies that are active in the EU market and offer their services to EU citizens.

IDENTITY

9

Currently:

DIRECTIVE 1999/93/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCILof 13 December 1999 on a Community framework for electronic signatures.

Moving to:

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal Market.

WHAT’S NEW?

10

REFEDS Goals

Forum for R&E Federations Operators and other parties:

To develop best practise to facilitate inter-federations; Following the model: do it once, use it multiple times.

Hopefully to offer a place for user-communities to put forward their requirements/complaints.

11

31 Production Federations17 Pilot FederationsLast update May 2014

12

REFEDS RESOURCES

13

• DISCOVERY GUIDE (SEE NEXT SLIDE)

• FEDERATION POLICY GUIDELINES WITH GEANT

• FEDERATION OPERATIONAL BEST PRACTICE

• ENTITY CATEGORIES TO SUPPORT DATA RELEASE

• STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS:• METADATA QUERY PROTOCOL• SAML ENTITY CATEGORIES

• SERVICES

DISCOVERY.REFEDS.ORG

14

HOW??

15

http://www.terena.org/publications/files/2012-AAA-Study-report-final.pdf

› GÉANT preparation is on-going:› Led heavily by NRENs› Open Calls and Enabling users help support

community use-cases

› Horizon 2020 call on AAI:› Consortium with both NRENs and e-Researchers › Good opportunity to work together as a team

› Some of the work will take place in REFEDS but funded

› Horizon 2020 call on AAI:› Consortium with both NRENs and e-Researchers › Good opportunity to work together as a team

› Some of the work will take place in REFEDS but funded

› Main topics: › LoA, Incident response, training and

outreach, attribute authorities

16

AARC CALL

Policy

Pilot Services

Operational Practises

Support for R&E communities

REFEDS

Best Practises

LoA

Training on policies

EINFRA Call

Outreach

Proof of Concepts

Supporting Tools

Guest IdPs

Federation Harmonisation

Services

eduGAIN

Moonshot

GÉANT

Enabling Users

Research Work

eduroam

Identity Harmonisation

17

Research use-cases, tools and services

18

NICOLE HARRIS

e-Infrastructure Summer Workshops, Federated Identity Technology

FIM4R: Federated Identity Management for Researchers

19

• Includes photon & neutron facilities, social science & humanities, high energy physics, climate science, life sciences and ESA

• Aim: define common vision, requirements and best practices

• Vision and requirements paper published:https://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1442597

“A common policy and trust framework for Identity Management based on existing structures and federations either presently in use by or available to the communities.

This framework must provide researchers with unique electronic identities authenticated in multiple administrative domains and across national boundaries that can be used together with community defined attributes to authorize access to digital resources.”

What do Researchers Want?

20

• A log-in!

• Everyone of their researcher partners to have a log-in.

• Personally Identifiable Information (PII) to be released – where they need it.

• Attributes from multiple sources.

• To be able to have a higher level of trust (assurance).

• Non-web login.

• Great user interface.

• Unicorns.

Non-web-browser

Homeless users

Attribute release

Credential translation

User

friendliness

Attribute aggregatio

n

Levels of Assurance

Bridging Communiti

es

30+ Research Infrastructures in Europe

Countless more “long tail” users

Three Collaborative Pilots – User communities and GÉANT

“Umbrella is the Federated

Identity Solution of the Photon and Neutron Community,

enabling user initiated trans-facility access.”

“A connected network of

people, information, tools,

and methodologies for

investigating, exploring and

supporting work across the broad spectrum of the

digital humanities.”

“Basic life science information

constitutes a testament of human

and natural evolution and

advancement. As such, this wealth of knowledge should be freely available for all to access,

study and process” 22

Combination of eduGAIN and community specific• DARIAH homeless-IdP and attribute authority

DARIAH has been able to meet many requirements• Distributed user and privilege administration• Policies that allow for integration into DFN-

AAI and eduGAIN

DARIAH would like to see more entities available in eduGAIN and reasonable attributes available

eduGAIN is the best approach to pan European AAI for DARIAH but some time is needed to fulfil all needs

23

DARIAH EXPERIENCE

A pan-European approach to LoA would be appreciated/necessary in the future• Minimise ELIXIR-specific

customisation

Next phase of AAI in ELIXIR – blueprint for discussion• External IdPs via eduGAIN• ELIXIR specific services for

authorisation (REMS), non web, homeless users and community management

Federated identity cross sector collaboration:REMS to be used by FI-CLARIN & FI-CESSDA

24

ELIXIR EXPERIENCE

More opportunities for NREN/Research Infrastructure Collaboration

• Security analysis discussion at FIM4R

Piloting with a wider community has benefits

• JANET/Diamond Light in UK Moonshot Pilot

Confidentiality aspects critical for Umbrella - high competition, especially structural biology

• Authorisation is delegated to the systems participating in Umbrella

25

UMBRELLA Experience

Attributes - Release, consistency, community

specific and harmonisationLevels of

AssuranceA long term issue to be

broken down

Understanding security and

incident response

Progress can be slow initially

More experience, work faster

Many other research communities developing AAI requirements and work

Non web – Early pilot not

novice user but evolving

more

26

WORK TO DO

FIM4R /RDAT&I CommitteeIncreased EC/public awareness of securityFederations looking to do more• Support of GÉANT Code of

Conduct• Emerging ‘opt-out’ pilots for

eduGAIN• REFEDs Federation Operator

Best PracticeResearch communities services appearing in national federations and eduGAIN• Knowledge gained with these

pilots helps support other communities & plan service

27

Opportunities

FIM: THE BUSINESS CASE

28

NICOLE HARRIS

e-Infrastructure Summer Workshops, Federated Identity Technology

WHY?

29

Developing a business case forces a well-considered decision that assesses a range of

options.

Managing a business case throughout an undertaking supports successful implementation by keeping activities "on course" for the desired

outcome.

EXAMPLES – UK FEDERATION

30

• PILOT FEDERATION: 2003 – 2006.

• Development programmes with institutions including “early adopter” funding.

• FULL FEDERATION from 2006.

• 1997 Entites with the federation.

• 953 Identity Providers.

• 1047 Service Providers.

31

32

33

34

SECTIONS OF A BUSINESS CASE

35

STRATEGIC FIT OPTIONS APRAISAL

AFFORDABILITY ACHIEVABILITY

36

STRATEGIC FIT

STRATEGIC FIT – THE QUESTIONS

37

• Are access management requirements currently being met?

• Why do we have to change and does it have to be done now?

• What internal and external strategic drivers are there for change?

• Does the change fit with institutional strategy?

• What is our approach to open-source and community-supported technology?

• To what extent should identity information be controlled within the institution?

• How many services should be brought together under a single access management infrastructure?

(NOT) THE KILLER APP

38

STRATEGIC DRIVERS - EXAMPLES

39

STRATEGIC DRIVERS – INFLUENCES (1)

40

INTERNAL DRIVERS EXTERNAL DRIVERS

STRATEGIC DRIVERS – INFLUENCES (2)

41

INTERNAL DRIVERS EXTERNAL DRIVERS

STRATEGIC DRIVERS – INFLUENCES (3)

42

INTERNAL DRIVERS EXTERNAL DRIVERS

43

OPTIONS APPRAISAL

OPTIONS APPRAISAL – THE QUESTIONS

44

• What options are there?

• Is the range of options under consideration sufficiently broad?

• Have innovative options and/or collaboration with others been considered?

• What are the option criteria? • Are all benefits, costs, risks and timescales covered? • Are all business needs, requirements and characteristics covered? • Would other stakeholders agree with the option criteria? • Are criteria weightings necessary?

• What benefits, costs, risks and timescales are associated with each option?

• What option has the optimum balance of cost, benefit and risk? • What trade-offs need to be made? (eg foregoing some of the

benefits to keep costs within budget)

STRATEGIC CHOICES

45

DO NOTHING

DEPLOY A LIMITED SOLUTION

DEPLOY A SINGLE SSO SOLUTION

DEPLOYMENT CHOICES

46

OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE IN-HOUSE

OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE IN-HOUSE

COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE / MANAGED SERVICE

DO IT YOURSELF NOT RECOMMENDED!

COMMUNITY SUPPORT

PAID-FOR SUPPORT

COMMERICAL / MANAGED SERVICE SUPPORT

47

Edugate JAGGER

Hub and Spoke?

Mesh Federation?

COST / BENEFITS ANALYSIS: BENEFITS

48

COST / BENEFITS ANALYSIS: COST

49

• UPFRONT PROJECT COSTS: pre-requisites, development effort, direct costs (hardware etc.), training, legal advice.

• ONGOING SERVICE COSTS: membership fees?, support costs, administrative costs, hardware replacement, audit and compliance.

• OPPORTUNITY COSTS: what other projects or initiatives could be undertaken if the budget or staff allocated required for the option could be freed up?

WE CANNOT TELL YOU HOW MUCH THIS IS GOING TO COST TO DEPLOY, SORRY

50

AFFORDABILITY

Affordability

51

• Is the required budget available to deliver the whole project?

− What budget(s) will be used? − Is this capital or operating expenditure, or both? − It the funding available and secure? − Is there any contingency?

• If not, can the budget be obtained?

− Can the scope be reduced or delivered over a longer period? − Could funding be sought from other sources?

• What is the cost of not pursuing the preferred cost of action?

• What other plans and activities are dependent on it?

52

Cost of an IdP

53

ACHIEVABILITY

ACHIEVABILITY QUESTIONS (1)

54

• Is the organisation ready for the change? − Are the pre-requisites in place and dependencies being managed? − If not, what needs to be done?

• Can the change be achieved with current capability and capacity? − Are the necessary skills and experience available to assign to the project? − Is the organisation able to manage and achieve a technology-enabled change project?

− Is there a successful track record of such projects? − Is there an appetite and organisation culture for the required change? − Is there senior management leadership and commitment for the change? − Is the project sponsor fully committed and are the stakeholders “on board”? − Is there an understanding of and agreement on what will constitute success?

ACHIEVABILITY QUESTIONS (2)

55

If no:

• How can the required capability and capacity be acquired?

• Can the risks be managed?

− Are stakeholders content with the residual risk? − Can another option be implemented if the preferred option fails?

• Does the scope or timescale need to be changed?

56

TITLE

57

TITLE

58

TITLE

59