Re: Multiple campus SSO security requirements

[David Walker <DHWalker () UCDAVIS EDU>]

Ian,

You're right that UCTrust is a SAML-based federation, but the document
defining its requirements says very little about technology and much
more about identity management practice, so you may want to look it
over:


        http://www.ucop.edu/irc/itlc/uctrust/policy/trustpolicy032707.pdf


Our approach for dealing with the trust issue was to create minimum
standards that everyone has to meet, using the eAuthentication Level 2
as our model.  (Of course, we still had to do a lot of vetting of our
requirements with controllers, vice chancellors, CIOs, legal counsel,
etc., etc.)

David Walker
Campus IT Architect
Information and Educational Technology, Office of the Vice Provost
University of California, Davis
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616
(530) 752-9390
DHWalker () ucdavis edu

On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 06:36 -0800, Stewart, Ian wrote:
> In our case we are using a virtual directory for authentication and
> authorization rather than doing SAML federation, but the trust issues
> are the same and will set us up nicely for federating in the future.
> The reasons for virtualization rather than a shib approach has to do
> with the difficulty of federating PeopleSoft more than anything.
> Thanks for the ideas so far. A University trust is what we need, with
> varying levels of trust for different apps.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv
> [mailto:SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU] On Behalf Of Steven Carmody
> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 8:15 AM
> To: SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU
> Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Multiple campus SSO security requirements
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 1:15 PM -0500 11/3/08, Stewart, Ian wrote:
>
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > We are considering multi-campus web-SSO system that allows an
> > end-user to authenticate using their home campus LDAP account or
> > another campus LDAP account they may hold   Has anyone implemented
> > such a system and how have you dealt with the trust issues between
> > campuses that this creates? For example, each campus may have their
> > upfront ID-issuing or vetting process reviewed by all the other
> > campuses and an agreement signed before they are allowed to
> > participate, as in a federation.  Any thoughts on this issue would
> > be welcome.
>
>
>
> It sounds like you want to create a system wide federation. Several
> public state higher ed systems have already done this (eg see UCTRUST,
> the Texas system, the NC system, etc). Sometimes the statewide
> federation also includes state and local government; sometimes the
> plans also include bringing in K12 at some point.
>
>
>
>
>
> You'd want your federation to set "common policy" for the members.
> This might be a higher bar than is currently set by InCommon. It might
> be useful, tho, to look at the recently promulgated InCommon "Silver"
> standards, which match the federal e-authn Level 2 (and will grant
> access to applications such as NIH grants mgmt, and (eventually) Dept
> of Education FERPA).
>
>
>
>
>
> As a starting point, each campus would likely have some people at
> "bronze" level, and a smaller set at Silver (people who need to access
> applications in ways that engender a higher level of risk).