...
Subject: | RE: [Assurance] comments on draft MFA Interop WG documents |
---|---|
Date: | Wed, 4 May 2016 13:48:10 +0000 |
From: | Cantor, Scott <cantor.2@osu.edu> |
Reply-To: | assurance@incommon.org |
To: | assurance@incommon.org <assurance@incommon.org> |
>
I
hope
we
don't
need
to
require
an
addendum
for
MFA...
>
>
I
think
the
intent
was
for
self-assertion.
I
won't
speak
for
the
WG,
but
while
working
on
the
material,
I
had
been
operating
under
the
assumption
this
was
not
an
assurance
category
at
all
but
a
self-asserted
AuthnContextClassRef
(in
SAML
terms),
just
like
many
others
defined
in
SAML
already.
Thus
the
idea
of
a
self-asserted
category
to
go
with
a
self-asserted
AuthnContext
seemed
redundant
(but
that
may
prove
not
to
be
the
case
for
other
reasons).
I
didn't
actually
notice
the
naming
convention
in
the
URI
included
the
word
assurance,
and
tend
to
think
that
may
be
confusing
as
a
result
and
worth
reconsidering
before
this
finalizes.
Sometimes
the
obvious
doesn't
hit
you
when
you're
staring
at
it
closely.
--
Scott
Subject: | RE: [Assurance] comments on draft MFA Interop WG documents |
---|---|
Date: | Wed, 4 May 2016 14:00:43 +0000 |
From: | Jokl, James A. (Jim) (jaj) <jaj@virginia.edu> |
Reply-To: | assurance@incommon.org |
To: | assurance@incommon.org <assurance@incommon.org> |
+1
I
made
it
to
many
of
the
calls
and
always
had
the
self-asserted
picture
in
my
mind
as
the
basic
perspective
--
that
this
was
about
passwords
no
longer
being
adequate
and
what
is
the
new
baseline
authentication.
I
still
think
of
this
stuff
as
"Standard
Assurance"
-
good
for
whatever
applications
you
used
to
just
use
and
ID/Password
for
-
but
I
get
Scott's
point
too
about
the
name.
Note
that
this
work
took
a
nice
low
bar
on
the
technical
side
-
almost
anything
that
you
can
call
a
second
factor
is
acceptable
--
and
there
is
no
discussion
about
identity
proofing.
All
good
for
self-asserted,
perhaps
less
so
if
people
were
thinking
differently.
Jim
Subject: | RE: [Assurance] comments on draft MFA Interop WG documents |
---|---|
Date: | Wed, 4 May 2016 14:38:18 +0000 |
From: | Paul Caskey <pcaskey@internet2.edu> |
Reply-To: | assurance@incommon.org |
To: | assurance@incommon.org <assurance@incommon.org> |
+1
to
all
of
that
and
yes,
IMHO,
we
should
not
use
the
word
'assurance'
to
refer
to
this
context.
Subject: | Re: [Assurance] comments on draft MFA Interop WG documents |
---|---|
Date: | Wed, 4 May 2016 09:24:57 -0700 |
From: | David Walker <dwalker@internet2.edu> |
Reply-To: | assurance@incommon.org |
To: | assurance@incommon.org |
I'll take responsibility for putting the work "assurance" in the URI. I did it without much thought, and it certainly can be changed. In fact, the plan is to replace it with a URI in the REFEDS name space, anyway. I agree with everyone that the MFA authentication context should be self-asserted. I think the real question is whether IdPs that support the MFA profile should also be given a (presumably self asserted) entity category in metadata. The current draft does not recommend an entity category, as the group didn't see use cases where it would help. We have since, however, heard of SPs that would like to tailor their discovery interfaces to exclude non-MFA-supporting IdPs, and there are situations where an entity category can save an SP from issuing a second authentication request when it prefers MFA, but will accept anything else. Do others have use cases for an IdP entity category that it supports the MFA profile? It's certainly not too late to define one. David
Subject: | RE: [Assurance] comments on draft MFA Interop WG documents |
---|---|
Date: | Wed, 4 May 2016 16:35:02 +0000 |
From: | Paul Caskey <pcaskey@internet2.edu> |
Reply-To: | assurance@incommon.org |
To: | assurance@incommon.org <assurance@incommon.org> |
It was the discovery use case I had in mind...
Subject: | Re: [Assurance] comments on draft MFA Interop WG documents |
---|---|
Date: | Tue, 10 May 2016 04:00:01 +0000 |
From: | Herrington, Karen <kmherrin@vt.edu> |
Reply-To: | assurance@incommon.org |
To: | assurance@incommon.org <assurance@incommon.org> |
The MFA Interoperability Profile Working Group discussed this issue in its call last week, and we'd like some more input from all of you. Here’s a summary of that discussion, followed by some questions for you.
Summary of Last Week’s Discussion
There is a cost to creating entity categories. While it is relatively easy to define them (what the group has to do), there is also a cost to InCommon to modify its documentation and Federation Manager software. Further, assuming this becomes an international profile, all federations will bear that cost. Finally, this startup cost may be dwarfed by the ongoing effort on the part of IdP and SP operators, who must understand an increasing number of entity categories and react as appropriate.
So, we need to ensure that new entity categories bring value. These use cases have been identified for the use of an MFA entity category for IdPs:
- Enable an SP to filter its discovery interface based on whether an IdP supports MFA.
- Reduce the number of authentication requests an SP must issue to an IdP for certain types of error handling when MFA is desired, but other forms of authentication are acceptable.
- Provide a formal mechanism for an institution to declare its compliance with the MFA profile (or perhaps a future stronger MFA profile).
- Provide a workaround for SPs to avoid IdPs that do not behave as expected within the SAML spec. For example, they respond incorrectly to requests for specific authentication contexts (or they do not respond at all), or they crash.
The group had not previously discussed the discovery issue, but recognizes its importance; it’s likely the most significant reason for defining an entity category. The group had earlier decided that the potential additional authentication requests didn’t warrant an entity category, and that formal declaration of compliance was not necessary. The fourth issue of IdP behavior is broader than just the profiles defined by this group, and so out of scope, but it was recognized that definition of an MFA entity category would address that issue in this narrow instance.
Questions for You
- If we define an MFA entity category, what should its criteria be? The group discussed the following:
- What does it mean for an IdP to “support MFA?” Is it the ability to issue assertions in compliance with the MFA profile for at least one member of its community? Something else?
- Should the ability to issue assertions in compliance with the Base Level profile also be included so that SPs that prefer MFA but will accept anything else can do that with a single authentication request? This would imply that the ability to assert Base Level be required of all members of the IdP’s community.
- Would a formal institutional declaration of compliance with the MFA profile cause you to trust its MFA assertions more? Could that declaration be as simple as a box in the Federation Manager that would be checked by the site administrator, or should further documentation be required?
Thanks for your input,
Karen Herrington
Chair, MFA Interoperability Profile Working Group
Subject: | Re: [Assurance] comments on draft MFA Interop WG documents |
---|---|
Date: | Tue, 10 May 2016 13:41:50 +0000 |
From: | Basney, Jim <jbasney@illinois.edu> |
Reply-To: | assurance@incommon.org |
To: | InCommon Assurance <assurance@incommon.org> |
Hi, >What does it mean for an IdP to "support MFA?" Is it the ability to issue >assertions in compliance with the MFA profile for at least one member of >its community? Yes. In XSEDE we would conclude that researchers on that campus can use MFA for federated authentication to XSEDE resources, so XSEDE doesn't need to issue separate MFA tokens to those researchers. For more info on campus researchers using XSEDE, see: https://www.xsede.org/campus-champions >Should the ability to issue assertions in compliance with the Base Level >profile also be included so that SPs that prefer MFA but will accept >anything else can do that with a single authentication request? This >would imply that the ability to assert Base Level be required of all >members of the IdP's community. Yes. I thought the InCommon Assurance program already defined a base LOA to replace the POP. Any news on that? >Would a formal institutional declaration of compliance with the MFA >profile cause you to trust its MFA assertions more? Yes. >Could that declaration be as simple as a box in the Federation Manager >that would be checked by the site administrator Yes. Sincerely, Jim Basney XSEDE's InCommon Site Administrator >
Subject: | RE: [Assurance] comments on draft MFA Interop WG documents |
---|---|
Date: | Tue, 10 May 2016 14:46:02 +0000 |
From: | Cantor, Scott <cantor.2@osu.edu> |
Reply-To: | assurance@incommon.org |
To: | assurance@incommon.org <assurance@incommon.org> |
> >Would a formal institutional declaration of compliance with the MFA
> >profile cause you to trust its MFA assertions more?
>
> Yes.
Can I ask why? What's the difference between self-asserting a category and self-asserting the same data in an assertion?
-- Scott
Subject: | Re: [Assurance] comments on draft MFA Interop WG documents |
---|---|
Date: | Tue, 10 May 2016 16:12:28 +0000 |
From: | Basney, Jim <jbasney@illinois.edu> |
Reply-To: | assurance@incommon.org |
To: | InCommon Assurance <assurance@incommon.org> |
>>>Would a formal institutional declaration of compliance with the MFA
>>>profile cause you to trust its MFA assertions more?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>Can I ask why? What's the difference between self-asserting a category
>and self-asserting the same data in an assertion?
I think my answer is the same for Base Level, MFA, Silver, or Bronze. Our
trust fabric is based on contractual agreements between InCommon LLC and
its participants, and that trust is operationalized via the federation
metadata. Knowing that an institutional representative made a declaration
to InCommon (either via an Assurance Addendum or via a checkbox on the
Federation Manager), subject to the Participation Agreement, gives me
greater trust in the organization's compliance with an InCommon standard
than I get from IdP-SP bidirectional communication alone.
-Jim
Subject: | RE: [Assurance] comments on draft MFA Interop WG documents |
---|---|
Date: | Tue, 10 May 2016 16:17:00 +0000 |
From: | Cantor, Scott <cantor.2@osu.edu> |
Reply-To: | assurance@incommon.org |
To: | assurance@incommon.org <assurance@incommon.org> |
> >Can I ask why? What's the difference between self-asserting a category > >and self-asserting the same data in an assertion? > > I think my answer is the same for Base Level, MFA, Silver, or Bronze. Our > trust fabric is based on contractual agreements between InCommon LLC and > its participants, and that trust is operationalized via the federation > metadata. Knowing that an institutional representative made a declaration > to InCommon (either via an Assurance Addendum or via a checkbox on the > Federation Manager), subject to the Participation Agreement, gives me > greater trust in the organization's compliance with an InCommon standard > than I get from IdP-SP bidirectional communication alone. For the record, my counter-argument is that the the IdP is generally under the
control of the same individual who would have to check that box, and who already
vouched for the key with which the assertion is signed, and so it creates an
extra step for that person. Multiplied across the federation, I think that's a real cost. -- Scott