- From: Joseph Hui <jhui@digisle.net>
- Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:38:59 -0800
- To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Goal Statement: D-AG0006 addresses the security of web services across distributed domains and platforms. There has been no new discussion on the goal statement since the last D-AG0006 status update in [1]. It's noteworthy that after some discussion, Privacy has been set up as a distinctive goal, separate from Security. Efforts have been made during Privacy discussions to obviate the distinction between Privacy and Security, e.g. the protection of data privacy falls into the Confidentiality aspect of Security. [Note from Joe to Editors: In security literatures, "security facets" is more widely used than "security aspects" is, especially when writing about problems for which there are known and proven solutions. The "facet" term may also help some readers to imagine securing something in a geodesic dome (with multiple facets). However, I often find "aspect" more handy, because it allows me more freedom to write about issues that are not yet well understood, or are reasonably well understood but lacking in remedies. For instance, I can comfortably call authc, authz, confidentiality, (data) integrity either facets or aspects. But I feel awkward to call "non-repudiation" and "accessibility" security facets because: 1) non-rep needs more than security primitives (i.e. Digital Signature) to work in complicated situations, e.g. the signer repudiates his own signature; and 2) there's no security primitive to defend against DOS/DDOS attacks, so the "accessibility facet" is actually a chink in the armor than a piece of armor. Calling them security aspects, OTOH, allows one to write extensively about them without setting the readers up for disappointment. It's just my personal preference (for "aspect"). Some WG members may prefer "facet" instead. If the WG's rough consensus is to go with "facet," then I'll go along and switch accordingly for the sake of uniformity in our nomenclatures. Thx!] Critical Success Factors: The CSFs are expressed in terms of executables to accentuate the imperative need for a well disciplined approach in the design for Web Services security framework.) 1) The construction of a Web Services Threat Model based on thorough analysis of existing and foreseeable threats to Web Service endpoints and their communication. 2) The establishment of a set of Web Services Security Policies to counter and mitigate the security hazards identified in the thread model. 3) The construction of a Web Services Security Model that captures the security policies (to be executed by security mechanisms). 4) The realization of the security model in the form of a Web Services Security Framework that is an integral part of the Web Services Architecture (which is the ultimate deliverable of this working group). Requirements (compiled so far) The requirements compiled so far is neither complete nor final. The list only contains items that have been reasonably solidified. It is expected to grow, as there are proposals still in the state of being solidified, and new proposals may still float in. [*** Dear all, *** consider this a serious call for WSSec requirements! ***] General (in the General category, but needed by Security) WSAGenReq011 The architecture MUST provide an interface for web services to directly communicate with their underlying infrastructure. The interface is for negotiating services that an infrastructure may provide to, or perform on behalf of, a requesting web services. Such value-added services may include: security, content delivery, QoS, etc. For instance, a web service may instruct (via the interface) the security agents of its infrastructure to defend against DOS/DDOS attacks on its behalf. See also WSASecReq001. Security There are six aspects in the security framework for web services architecture: Accessibility, Authentication, Authorization, Confidentiality, Integrity, and Non-repudiation. Together they form the foundation for secure web services. WSASecReq001 Accessibility to a web service can be impaired by DOS/DDOS attacks. It is understood that there's little a web service residing well above the transport layer of a network stack can effectively detect such transgression, let alone deploy countermeasures. Therefore, the security framework MUST provide recourse for web services to mitigate the hazard. See also WSAGenReq00x. WSASecReq002.1 The security framework MUST include Authentication for the identities of communicating parties. WSASecReq002.2 The security framework MUST include Authentication for data (sent and received by communicating parties). WSASecReq003 The security framework MUST include Authorization, with allowance for the coexistence of dissimilar authorization models. WSASecReq004 The security framework MUST include Confidentiality. WSASecReq005 The security framework MUST include (data) Integrity. WSASecReq006 The security framework MUST include Non-repudiation between transacting parties. Note that there is a close relationship among WSASecReq002.1, WSASecReq002.2, WSASecReq005, and WSASecReq006, a la digital signature. WSASecReq007 The security framework MUST include Key Management, pertaining to Public Key Encryption (PKE) and Key Distribution Center (KDC). WSASecReq008 The security framework document SHOULD provide some guidelines for securing private keys, though the methods for securing private keys is outside the scope of the architecture. WSASecReq009 The security framework document SHOULD recommend a baseline for trust models. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Mar/0233.html Cheers, Joe Hui Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
Received on Friday, 29 March 2002 21:39:10 UTC