[Search] [pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00                                                            
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]