Internet DRAFT - draft-scurtescu-secevent-risc-use-cases
draft-scurtescu-secevent-risc-use-cases
secevent M. Scurtescu
Internet-Draft Google
Intended status: Informational June 29, 2017
Expires: December 31, 2017
Security Events RISC Use Cases
draft-scurtescu-secevent-risc-use-cases-00
Abstract
This document describes the RISC use cases for security events and
helps with defining the requirements for token format and event
distribution.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 31, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Scurtescu Expires December 31, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Security Events RISC Use Cases June 2017
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3.1. Explicit IdP to RP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3.2. Explicit RP to IdP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.3. Implicit IdP to RP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.4. Implicit RP to IdP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.5. Pseudo-implicit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.6. Identity as a Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.7. Security as a Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.8. On-Premise RP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
2. Definitions
o Transmitter - the entity that sends security events
o Receiver - the entity that receives security events
o IdP - Identity Provider, in most cases but not always this is the
transmitter
o RP - Relying Party, in most cases but not always this is the
receiver
o RISC - Risk and Incident Sharing and Coordination, see
http://openid.net/wg/risc/
o SCIM - System for Cross-domain Identity Management, see
http://www.simplecloud.info/
3. Use Cases
3.1. Explicit IdP to RP
o Transmitter: IdP
o Receiver: RP
Simplest use case, IdPs send security events to relevant RPs.
RP can make control plane calls to the IdP and can authenticate with
access tokens issued by IdP.
Scurtescu Expires December 31, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Security Events RISC Use Cases June 2017
3.2. Explicit RP to IdP
o Transmitter: RP
o Receiver: IdP
The RP can also send RISC events back to IdP. We want to make it
very easy for the RP to do that, no complicated registration steps
and crypto of possible.
IdP can document well-known endpoint for data plane (where it
receives events). RP can use access token when sending events on
data plane and maybe does not need to sign SETs.
If RP is sophisticated and is exposing its own control plane then
during RP stream registration with IdP (either manual or
programmatic) it can advertise its own issuer and that issuer through
.well-known can specify full transmitter functionality of RP.
3.3. Implicit IdP to RP
o Transmitter: implicit IdP
o Receiver: implicit RP
Example: Google and Amazon, Amazon account can be backed by gmail
address. Amazon acts as implicit RP to Google in this case.
Google and Amazon need legal agreement, When Amazon account is
created or updated with gmail address Amazon makes REST call to
Google to enroll this new email address for RISC events. If
enrollment succeeds then RISC events will flow bidirectionally (see
next section, for simplicity only unidirectional is considered in
this section).
Assumption: Amazon/RP is registered with Google/IdP as an OAuth 2
client and can use access tokens for control plane.
Open question: what are the implications of unverified email
addresses?
Open question: discovery of hosted domains, how does Google know that
example.com is managed by Oracle and that subject enrollment should
be sent to them?
Scurtescu Expires December 31, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Security Events RISC Use Cases June 2017
3.4. Implicit RP to IdP
o Transmitter: implicit RP
o Receiver: implicit IdP
No enrollent call is strictly necessary. The RP can start sending
events to IdP as new identifiers show up.
3.5. Pseudo-implicit
Common email address or phone number used by two different RPs.
Example: Amazon and PayPal, both Amazon and PayPal each have an
account with the same gmail address.
Mutual discovery by exchanging email address hashes.
Open question: legal and privacy implications
3.6. Identity as a Service
Example: Google Firebear, IdaaS manages large number of RPs and
implements RP functionality on their behalf.
IdaaS should be able to manage SET distribution configuration for its
RPs with a given IdP using the credentials already established
between the RP and the IdP. Control plane operation to create/update
stream allows that.
Assumption: IdaaS can impersonate RP at IdP (can obtain access token
on behalf of RP)
3.7. Security as a Service
Similar to IdaaS described in previous estion, but the service
provider has its own set of credentials different from the
credentials and RP is using. The SP cannot impersonate the RP at
IdP. The IdP must define delegation rules and allow the SP to make
requests on behalf of the RP.
3.8. On-Premise RP
The RP (receiver) is behind a firewall and cannot be reached through
HTTP. The only way to deliver events is if the RP periodically polls
an endpoint provided by the transmitter.
Scurtescu Expires December 31, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Security Events RISC Use Cases June 2017
Author's Address
Marius Scurtescu
Google
Email: mscurtescu@google.com
Scurtescu Expires December 31, 2017 [Page 5]
