The Need for Trusted Credentials

Information Assurance in Cyberspace

Mary MitchellDeputy Associate Administrator

Office of Electronic Government & Technologywww.cio.gov/eauthentication

www.cio.gov/fpkisc

A Few Assertions

The Internet is perceived as being inherently anonymous

In order to conduct trusted transactions, we need to know with whom we are dealing

Transactions must be within reasonable risk limits

Trusted electronic credentials provide the means to link an asserted identity in the electronic world to physical entities

Facets of Building Trust

Facet DescriptionIdentification Who are you?

Authentication How do I know you are who you claim to be?

Authorization Are you allowed to perform this transaction?

Integrity Is the data you sent the same as what I received?

Confidentiality Are we sure no one else read the data you sent?

Auditing Record of transactions to assist in looking for security problems?

Non-repudiation Can you prove the sender sent it, and the receiver received the identical transaction?

Thanks to Karl Best, Director of Technical Operations, OASIS

The Challenge of Trust Online

Unrealistic expectations• Immediacy but with safety, personal autonomy and control• Personalization without surveillance• Security and privacy without inconvenience, loss of immediacy

Privacy Concerns are Real• Issuing credentials raises privacy concerns, strong identity

proofing increases these concerns• Reasonable use extended beyond initial use over time• Basic conflict with convenience– the key to security is less data

and more control

Preconditions for Credential ‘Trustworthiness’

Unique to the person using it

Under the sole control of the person using it

Capable of verification

Credential Pedigree

– Institutional Standing of the Provider

– Governance

– Establishment of Identity

– Credential Control

Challenges of Identity Management

• Most identity management systems were built one application at a time– No scalable, holistic means of managing identity, credentials,

policy across boundaries– Fragmented identity infrastructure, inconsistent policy

frameworks, process discontinuities– Potential security loopholes, expensive to manage

• Few Agency enterprise approaches exist• Infrastructure requirements extend reach and range:

– Increase scalability, lower costs– Balance of centralized and distributed management– Infrastructure must be more general-purpose and re-usable

E-Authentication

In Addition to Policy, Three Focus Areas:

Agency Application Risk Analysis Modified proven process for E-Authentication Needs (eRA) Focused on Identity Assurance at the Transaction Level

Authentication Gateway Provide validation services for multiple forms of ID credentials Prototype gateway used to technical understanding of products Agency business processes to broker identity assurance model Establish common interfaces for doing electronic transactions

• Establish Process to Evaluate Electronic Credential Providers

Determining Authentication Needs

• Standardize process to assess the security risk• Three primary risks:

– Improper disclosure– Program fraud– Image/reputation of Agency

• Determine transaction risk – Recommend “appropriate” authentication for a given

transaction– Examine transaction flow and vulnerabilities– Estimate cost and identify alternatives

Conducting eRA

– An interdisciplinary team -- comprised of:• business or mission-related staff• information technology staff

– eRA self-directed tool available to • guide team through process• produce consistent risk report with reduced effort

– Provides basis for selecting Assurance Level

Basis: SEI

eAuthenticationGateway

Academia

Health Care

State or FederalGovernmentIdentity

VerificationRequired

Identity

Verification

Not Required

Future of the Gateway

Federal AgencyRelying Parties

CredentialProviders

CitizenBusinessAgent

DirectAccess

CapabilityPreserved

CredentialValidationProcess

The GATEWAY Concept

ECP 1

ECP 2

ECP 3

DCP 2

DCP 1

TechnologyMapping

Ap1

Ap2

Ap3

Ap4

Ap5

GATEWAY Agency ApplicationsCredentialProviders

0 None

1Medium

2Substantial

3Strong

FED

BRIDGE

Federal Authentication Infrastructures

• Existing Infrastructures for trusted transactions– E-Authentication Gateway provides a mechanism to

evaluate ANY type of electronic Credential – Federal Bridge links together Public Key Infrastructure

(PKI) based Trust domains– ACES provides an outsourced common infrastructure

and PKI credentials for Trust domain with the public– NFC provides a managed infrastructure and PKI

credentials for Trust domain for Agency operations – Common Access Card provides for common, secure

platform for maintaining credentials• Each has benefits for overall trust relationship

The Problem with PKI

Concerns about complexity and cost

Suitable when strong authentication needed

Multiple Public Key Infrastructures operated by Agencies

Operational PKIs have incorporated differing– Technical Solutions– Policy Decisions

Federal Government also needs a mechanism for reliance on internal and external Trust Domains.

Interoperability is the CHALLENGE!– Both Policy and Technical Interoperability

• Acts as a trust “anchor”

• Enables digital credentials issued by one agency to be used /trusted at other agencies that have been cross-certified.

Benefits of the Federal Bridge:• Use of certificate policies and standards-based technologies and

processes provides flexiblity

• Allows all organizations to make one security agreement with the Bridge CA, rather requiring multiple security agreements

• Allows trust interoperability between organizations and minimizes impact on the organization’s infrastructures and end-user applications

Federal Bridge Certification AuthorityEnables certification between organizations so

agencies “trust” each others public key credentials. The Federal Bridge:

Federal Bridge Certification Authority

Certificate Policy

Certificate Repository

CertificationAuthority

Certificate Holder

Relying Party

(Agency)

Certificate Policy

Certificate Repository

CertificationAuthority

Cross

Certificate

Certificate Policy

7

CertificationAuthority

Relying Party

(Agency)

Certificate Holder

Certificate Repository

Path Construction:

• Kathy Pink

• Pink FBCA

• FBCA Green

• Green Mike

S/MIME EMAIL

Kathy Mike

Thank YouFor your Time & Attention