« February »
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
2829     
       
About
Categories
Syndication
Locations of visitors to this page

Powered by blojsom

Radovan Semančík's Weblog

Wednesday, 17 February 2016
« LDAPcon 2015 Is Over | Main | Smart Match »

Identity Management (IDM) systems usually provide quite a broad mix of features. But there is one thing that no other system can do: management of access rights. No other system comes even close, even if they often pretend to do so. Access rights, privileges, role assignments, authorities, authorizations ... whatever these things are called they need to be managed. They need to be assigned to the right people in the right systems at the right time. And that is no easy task.

The naïve solution would be to adopt a precise model such as Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) and automatically assign the roles based on deterministic rules (policies). That looks great on paper and auditors love it. But it almost never works in practice. The problem is that nobody can really define the rules that cover every single privilege in every single system for every single user and every single situation. Even if someone spends the tremendous effort to define such rules it will not take long until the rules get outdated. It usually takes the first re-organization to almost completely ruin all the effort.

Therefore the IDM systems implement a less formal but much more practical process. The users request the access rights that they think they need to do their work. Someone else reviews the request and approves or rejects it. These approvers are usually managers, security officers, owners of the requested role, owners of the affected system or any combination of these. This method admits that some decisions can only be done by the people because they are difficult to automate. This process may seem not entirely ideal from security and compliance point of view. But the choice is fully-automated formal but infeasible model or a semi-formal partially-automated process that is perfectly feasible. This choice is not that difficult, is it? In fact the approval process is very successful in practice and if implemented properly it yields surprisingly good results.

Of course, there is a catch.

The request-approval-provision process works very well. In fact it works a bit too well. Users get request and get privileges easily in a matter of hours or even minutes. There is an easy way to add privileges and no practical way to remove them. It ends up pretty much as expected: privileges accumulate. A lot.

Clearly, there also needs to be a process to remove privileges. But the same approach will not work here. If the user does not have a privilege that he needs he is motivated to request it. But if someone has a privilege that he no longer needs - what is the motivation to drop it? Obviously someone else needs to do it. That's where the access certification campaigns come in.

Access certification campaign is usually executed at regular intervals. The IDM system determines list of reviewers and a list of privileges that need to re-certified. The reviewers are usually managers or system owners. They are selected in a similar way as approvers in the role request-and-approval process are selected. The privileges are distributed to reviewers. Each reviewer has to decide whether the privilege is still required for the specific user to do his work. This is done in a fashion that allows to make a lot of decisions very efficiently. Like this: Access certification in midPoint If a privilege is not re-certified in this way then it is automatically removed when the campaign ends. This is the way how to keep privilege accumulation under control.

The certification campaigns are usually implemented in specialized systems that belong to the Governance, Risk Management and Compliance (GRC) category. It is still not entirely common for an IDM system to implement this feature. And this feature is especially rare in the open source IDM systems. In fact there is only one open source system that implements it out-of-the-box: Evolveum midPoint.

Access certification is a part of midPoint since version 3.2. In that version the feature was available as a technology preview. Usability is a critical part of the process. Therefore we have first implemented it as a preview to gather user feedback and incorporate that in the final implementation. Two versions later and the feature is implemented in its entirety. The implementation is now finished and it is already merged into the midPoint master branch. It will be released in midPoint version 3.4 that is due in a couple of months. This is the final step that makes midPoint the only open source IDM system capable of handling complete identity lifecycle management out-of-the-box.

(Reposted from Evolveum blog)

Technorati Tags:

Posted by rsemancik at 1:42 PM in Identity

Add your comment:
(not displayed)
Generate another code
SCode

Please enter the code as seen in the image above to post your comment.
 
 
Your comments will be submitted for approval by blog owner to avoid comment spam. It will not appear immediately. Also please be sure to fill out all mandatory fields (marked by asterisk). This ... ehm ... imperfect software does not have any error indication for missing input fields.
 
 

 

[Trackback URL for this entry]