Requirements for Message Access Control
draft-freeman-plasma-requirements-08
Network Working Group T. Freeman
Internet-Draft Microsoft Corp.
Intended status: Informational J. Schaad
Expires: April 24, 2014 Soaring Hawk Consulting
P. Patterson
Carillon Information Security Inc
October 21, 2013
Requirements for Message Access Control
draft-freeman-plasma-requirements-08
Abstract
There are many situations where organizations want to protect
information with robust access control, either for implementation of
intellectual property right protections, enforcement of contractual
confidentiality agreements or because of legal regulations. The
Enhanced Security Services (ESS) for S/MIME defines an access control
mechanism for email which is enforced by the recipient's client after
decryption of the message. The ESS mechanism therefore is dependent
on the correct access policy configuration of every recipient's
client. This mechanism also provides full access to the data to all
recipients prior to the access control check, which is considered to
be inadequate for robust access control due to the difficulty in
demonstrating policy compliance.
This document lays out the deficiencies of the current ESS security
label, and presents requirements for a new model for providing access
control to messages where the access check is performed prior to
message content decryption. This new model also does not require
policy configuration on the client thereby simplifying deployment and
compliance verification.
The proposed model additionally provides a method where non-X.509
certificate credentials can be used for encryption/decryption of
S/MIME messages.
The name Plasma was assigned to this effort as part of the IETF
process. It is derived from PoLicy enhAnced Secure eMAil.
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
Freeman, et al. Expires April 24, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Requirements for Message Access Control October 21, 2013
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 January 20, 2012. 99
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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.
Freeman, et al. Expires April 24, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Requirements for Message Access Control October 21, 2013
Table of Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1 Data Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2 Encrypted E-Mail Using Web-based Credentials . . . . . . . 5
1.3 Vocabulary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4 Keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1. ESS Security Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2. Access Control and the Web . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3. Information Asset Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.4. Authentication Assurance Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.5 Electronic Signatures: Authentication vs. Authorization . . 18
3. Use Case Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.1 Consumer to Consumer Secure Email . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.2. Business to Consumer Secure Email . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Show full document text