W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > March 2002

RE: D-AG006 Security

From: Krishna Sankar <ksankar@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 12:34:45 -0800
To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001901c1cd2a$046457d0$4d877ed8@amer.cisco.com>
Hi all,
 
    Eric has a good point. 
 
    Chris, can we explore the "divide-and-conquer" approach ? Let us
have four or five sub groups, each with a set of topics, to be debated,
detailed, described, defined, and possibly to be presented to the wg
during the f2f. A general guideline would be for the sub-groups to meet
3 or 4 times and resolve the issues.
 
cheers

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Eric Newcomer
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 9:18 AM
To: Anne Thomas Manes; Abbie Barbir; Allen Brown; David Orchard
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: D-AG006 Security


Actually the thought had occurred to me that perhaps the WS-Arch WG
might split into sub-teams to address specific topics such as this, at
least insofar as to report back to the overall WG on the subject of what
standards and proposals exist that might fit the requirements of the
architecture.
 
That does assume we have an architecture, though ;-).
 
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Anne Thomas Manes
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 7:49 AM
To: Abbie Barbir; Allen Brown; David Orchard
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: D-AG006 Security


I wonder if it will take another 9 months to get this working group
started.

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Abbie Barbir
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 9:29 AM
To: Allen Brown; David Orchard
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: D-AG006 Security



Allen, 

i do second your remark. 
The discussion on security clearly indicate that there is the need for
having a WG that sepcifically deals with the subject.

I think that the birth of the security group should come out as a result
of the WG work. 

abbie 


> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Allen Brown [mailto:allenbr@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 3:10 PM 
> To: David Orchard 
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org 
> Subject: RE: D-AG006 Security 
> 
> 
> Dave, 
> 
> Indeed, this is exactly the sort of thread I'd expect to evolve in 
> chartering, setting goals for, and setting requirements for a Web 
> Services Security WG. 
> 
> I'd add to your qualitative facets of security: supporting end-to-end 
> security for both seeking and providing Web Services. 
> 
> Allen 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: David Orchard [mailto:david.orchard@bea.com] 
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 1:52 PM 
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org 
> Subject: RE: D-AG006 Security 
> 
> 
> This discussion is getting into requirements, WSA process, artifacts, 
> etc. and not goals. 
> 
> Why not keep the security goals pretty simple, like listing 
> the typical 
> facets of authentication, authorization, etc?  And say that 
> the security 
> facets apply to web service message exchange, interface definition and

> discovery? 
> 
> Remember, goals not requirements. 
> 
> Cheers, 
> Dave 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message----- 
> > From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On 
> > Behalf Of Joseph Hui 
> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 11:04 AM 
> > To: Damodaran, Suresh; www-ws-arch@w3.org 
> > Subject: RE: D-AG006 Security 
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Suresh, 
> > 
> > So there's the apparent agreement that listing use cases 
> exhaustively 
> > is not the way to go, i.e. a few well thought-out examples will do. 
> > 
> > In my view the system boundaries may indeed vary between 
> applications. 
> 
> > In fact, in some cases, say XML-Encryption, the notion of system 
> > boundaries in the tradition sense is immaterial, and may 
> even get in 
> > the way.  Perhaps in WSsec the notion of "system 
> boundaries" should be 
> 
> > re-invented to be "security boundaries," which will enclose the 
> > security policies of the union of (the sets) of security policies 
> > of all WS endpoints involved in a transaction.  Note that 
> > in WSsec each WS endpoint can have its own security policy. 
> > 
> > I agree we should indeed try not to delve into too much detail, 
> > especially mechanisms -- none at all if possible at this 
> juncture.  So 
> 
> > we can stay focused on our more immediate objectives. 
> > 
> > For the long term, there's a set of steps I'm thinking of 
> > to approach this WSsec deal methodically: 
> >   1) develop a WS-Arch security policy -- the policy 
> >      of all policies (of all WS endpoints); 
> >   2) develop a model that captures the policy; 
> >   3) translate the model into WS architectural elements, 
> >      aka "modules" in WSAWA charter's nomenclature; and 
> >   4) implement the modules with mechanisms.  (Note that 
> >      a WS endpoint only needs to implement/deploy a subset 
> >      of the modules according to its own security policy.) (Steps 1 
> > through 3 are the WSAWG's gig.  Step 4 will be left to the 
> > implementers/vendors.) Does this sound reasonable to you?  
> And to the 
> > group? 
> > 
> > BTW, do you find the D-AG006 goal statement as-is 
> acceptable? (I do, 
> > BTW.)  Care to share any thoughts on it? 
> > 
> > Cheers, 
> > 
> > Joe 
> > ================= 
> > > -----Original Message----- 
> > > From: Damodaran, Suresh [mailto:Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com] 
> > > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 9:12 AM 
> > > To: Joseph Hui; www-ws-arch@w3.org 
> > > Subject: RE: D-AG006 Security 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Joseph, 
> > > 
> > > More comments below. 
> > > I have some additional thoughts that I will send separately, when 
> > > ready. This is a hard topic, and it is a challenge for us 
> to get the 
> 
> > > right "stuff" done for the WS-Sec 
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message----- 
> > > From: Joseph Hui [mailto:jhui@digisle.net] 
> > > Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 8:11 PM 
> > > To: Damodaran, Suresh; www-ws-arch@w3.org 
> > > Subject: RE: D-AG006 Security 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message----- 
> > > > From: Damodaran, Suresh [mailto:Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com] 
> > > [snip] 
> > > > 2. You have described the techniques one may use to secure 
> > > > *any* web service usage scenario. It would be useful to see 
> > > > whether there are categories of usage scenarios where some 
> > > > specific combination of techniques will make sense. For 
> example, 
> > > > should accessing a "weather info service," be secured using 
> > > > authorization, authentication? Should the 
> > > > weather info be ensured to be authentic and unaltered? 
> > > Whether should or should not depends on the weather info 
> > > WS provider and consumer.  It'll be their choice. 
> > > We should only concern ourselves with the "can" factor -- can our 
> > > WSsec ensure the weather info to be authentic and unaltered?  By 
> > > obligating ourselves to address authc, authz, and 
> integrity, we can 
> > > say: "yes, the WS-Arch can." Just to ensure potential 
> skeptics who 
> > > may think the "can" is easier said then done, I'm giving concrete 
> > > answers to your two questions, replacing "should" with "can". 
> > > For the first Q, the provider needs to keep an ACL, then the 
> > > two can either use Kerberos or SSL/TLS with client 
> > > authentication to take care of the Authz part.  For 
> > > the Auchc part, use HMAC. 
> > > For the second Q, HMAC will also do nicely. 
> > > 
> > > <sd> 
> > > I agree with "can" part. We might document this thought in the 
> > > proposal for clarification. Indeed, my suggestion for 
> categorization 
> > > was to lead to a "proof" that WSA cannot foresee all possible 
> > > scenarios, and would possibly have to limit to suggesting 
> > > "toolkit standards" (i.e., standards that are applicable 
> > > for generic techniques, say signing). Is this an agreeable 
> > > thought to all? One possible class of exceptions to this 
> > > rule is a set of combinations of techniques that are 
> > > widely useful in the applications that use WS-Arch. 
> > > E.g., Ensuring confidentiality and integrity of 
> > > a message send from point-to-point (i.e., when there is no 
> > > intermediary), 
> > > WSSec may suggest signing/encryption sequence with appropriate 
> > > security considerations. At this time, I am not even 
> > > sure we need to get to this level. Others might have some opinions

> > > on this, especially since different application 
> > > domains/products may choose 
> > > to do these differently. 
> > > </sd> 
> > > 
> > > > Same questions for sending in a bill payment to a bank from a 
> > > > customer. If there are many categories, then we may see how to 
> > > > satisfy all of them in a generic way. Alternately, we 
> may suggest 
> > > > techniques that may be generically adopted. 
> > > 
> > > The use case list doesn't have to be exhaustive. 
> > > We only need exemplary cases to show the need for addressing the 
> > > security concerns being brought forward. Hopefully 
> someone on this 
> > > mailing list would pitch in some as we progress.  Regardless, I 
> > > believe limited empirical input will not stop us from 
> coming up with 
> > > a well designd WSsec. 
> > > 
> > > <sd> 
> > > As you would agree, given the combinations possible, keeping an 
> > > exhaustive use case list will be pretty hard, if not 
> theoretically 
> > > impossible. The hard part is in showing that the use 
> cases we have 
> > > are sufficient. </sd> 
> > > 
> > > > 3. It would be good to define the "end points" of whatever 
> > > > scenarios we are securing. What are the boundaries of 
> whatever we 
> > > > are securing? 
> > > 
> > > Indeed.  I believe there are well established definitions in 
> > > existence.  We just have to scrounge for them going forward. The 
> > > endpoint has to be understood to be the WS provider and 
> consumer.  
> > > (There can be intermediaries, of course, which complicate 
> to great 
> > > extent the end-to-end argument that most security models 
> assume.)  
> > > Boundary, or the sense of it that calls out for Accessibility and 
> > > Authorization, is relatively less significant in WSsec than in 
> > > system security. Nonetheless, it'd be good if one can be 
> vigorously 
> > > defined for WS. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > Is it from a s/w client to the web service? 
> > > 
> > > It's the WS implementer's choice, e.g. client sends plaintext 
> > > request and gets encrypted response in return. The WSsec doesn't 
> > > care.  It doesn't have to, as long as its security semantics are 
> > > complete, thus its repertoire of security primitives -- symmetric 
> > > key encryption for bulk data, asymmetric key encryption for 
> > > symmetric key exchange and for digital signature, message digest, 
> > > just to name a few -- can be sufficient to deal with just about 
> > > the most challenging WS use case anyone may come up with. 
> > > 
> > > <sd> 
> > > Are you saying that the implementer of the web service 
> decides the 
> > > boundary? I am a bit intrigued by the term "security 
> semantics are 
> > > complete" (This idea does sound promising) What does it 
> mean to you? 
> > > Can we define security semantics to any scenarios, or even 
> > > abstract security semantics? 
> > > 
> > > Friendly ASIDE: 
> > >   As for the repertoire of security primitives being sufficient to

> 
> > > deal 
> > >   with WS- use cases, I would say, in theory yes, but in practice,

> > >   to achieve "interoperable security" the parties involved have to

> > >   go through a "hell of a journey" to make it work. WS-Sec may 
> > >   safely stay away from that hell by only prescribing primitives. 
> > > </sd> 
> > > 
> > > > Or, is it from the human client to the web service provider? 
> > > 
> > > The human factor should be kept to a minimum, say confining human 
> > > involvement in WS endpoints to no more than private key 
> > > storage/retrieval, e.g. a system administrator may be 
> needed to type 
> 
> > > in a password to retrieve and decrypt an encrypted private key 
> > > needed for public key ciphers during a WS server start-up. 
> > > 
> > > <sd> 
> > > 
> > > If the boundary is defined by the implementer, may be it doesn't 
> > > matter, because, the implementer would have defined the roles of 
> > > humans and their actions within the scenario. Otherwise, it would 
> > > make sense to define the role of humans and security 
> > > implications in WSSec. 
> > > </sd> 
> > > 
> > > Cheers, 
> > > -Suresh 
> > > 
> > > Cheers, 
> > > 
> > > Joe Hui 
> > > Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service 
> > > ============================================== 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Cheers, 
> > > > -Suresh 
> > > > 
> > > > -----Original Message----- 
> > > > From: Joseph Hui [mailto:jhui@digisle.net] 
> > > > Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 7:40 PM 
> > > > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org 
> > > > Subject: D-AG006 Security 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hi all, 
> > > > 
> > > > As the volunteered "champion" (during today's telecon) for 
> > > one of the 
> > > > WSAWG goals, "AG006 -- addresses the security of web 
> > services across 
> > > > distributed domains and platforms," I wish to solicit 
> > your interest 
> > > > in starting and sustaining a "spirited" discussion on 
> web services 
> 
> > > > security.  The primary objective (of the discussion) is 
> to confirm 
> 
> > > > the stated goal by *rough* consensus, and refine it 
> (the goal, not 
> 
> > > > the consensus ;-) if necessary.  The secondary objective is to 
> > > > harvest the upshot of the discussion and turn it into 
> something we 
> 
> > > > can use in near term for identifying "Critical Success 
> Factors" -- 
> 
> > > > whatever that may mean to you -- and requirements. 
> Hopefully, by 
> > > > being mindful of the objectives, we can keep this thread 
> > > > reasonably focused.  However, please don't let the objectives 
> > > > adversely constrain your will to express.  You're welcome to 
> > > > disregard the objectives and throw in whatever you see 
> fit in the 
> > > > spirit of doing good for web services security. 
> > > > 
> > > > To get the ball rolling, let me start with the goal 
> > > statement itself: 
> > > > 
> > > >    AG006 -- addresses the security of web services across 
> > > >             distributed domains and platforms. 
> > > > 
> > > > Q to all: Is the goal set to your satisfaction? 
> > > >           Too broad, too narrow, too ...? 
> > > > 
> > > > Answers/comments? 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > To flesh out AG006 a bit more in terms of its 
> implications, we can 
> 
> > > > give it another whack at what addressing the web 
> services security 
> 
> > > > (WSsec) should entail in the architecture 
> > > > WS-Arch) to be designed.  Based on some previous discussions 
> > > > fragmented across several threads in www-ws-arch@w3.org, an 
> > > > assertion can be made that attaining goal AG006 entails 
> addressing 
> 
> > > > six security aspects in computing: 
> > > >    1) Accessibility; 
> > > >    2) Authentication (of ID and data/messages); 
> > > >    3) Authorization; 
> > > >    4) Confidentiality; 
> > > >    5) (data) Integrity; and 
> > > >    6) Non-repudiation. 
> > > > 
> > > > Comments? 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Closely related to security is (the issue of) "trust." 
> > > > We shall have a security framework alright. The question is: 
> > > > should we include trust modeling as a part of the framework's 
> > > > design, (e.g.. what trust model(s) to recommend or adopt for web

> > > > services,) thus trust is a part of AG006; or should we 
> > deem "trust" 
> > > > outside the scope of AG006, thus we may need a separate goal? 
> > > > 
> > > > Answers/comments? 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Also, there was the mention of "privacy" in the charter, right 
> > > > next to security.  Privacy can mean different things in 
> different 
> > > > contexts, ranging from preventing one's home address 
> disclosed to 
> > > > a web merchant from being sold to junkmailers to 
> keeping one's ID 
> > > > anonymous in transactions. I wasn't at the WS workshop 
> last April, 
> 
> > > > so have no clue what that was about.  Can someone shed 
> some light 
> > > > on what the "privacy" is supposed to mean in our 
> WS-Arch context, 
> > > > so we can determine whether it will be appropriate to 
> lump it into 
> > > > AG006, or set a separate goal for it, or whatever? 
> > > > 
> > > > Answers/comments? 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Please chime in. 
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks, 
> > > > 
> > > > Joe Hui 
> > > > Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
Received on Saturday, 16 March 2002 16:01:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:24:56 GMT