FIDO and its place in the eID ecosystem

2015/01/29

FIDO-BYOAuthn-BYOId

FIDO stands for Fast Identity Online. FIDO is a new authentication specification that makes it easier to integrate with and re-use non-password authentication means: what-you-have and what-you-are. The specification was published in a v1.0 version last December by the FIDO Alliance, which unites an impressive list of large companies (e.g., Microsoft, Google, Samsung) and smaller authentication companies (e.g., Authasas, Yubico, Nok Nok Labs) to “define an open, scalable, interoperable set of mechanisms that supplant reliance on passwords to securely authenticate users of online services”.

Last Friday (23 January 2015) PIMN organized a seminar on FIDO,  which was fully booked with a waiting list even. In this blogpost I’ll summarize what I learned and what I presented on “FIDO and its place in the identity ecosystem”.

Read the rest of this entry »


Re-usable identities instead of different passwords everywhere

2014/10/14

wachtwoorden-postits

Below is a blog post in Dutch on re-usable identities instead of different passwords for all websites. The trigger for the blogpost is that Hold Security released the Dutch (or actually, .nl) part of the logindata/emailadresses that they discovered to be hacked. The NCSC (National Dutch Cyber Security Centre) IMHO focusses to much on educating users to prevent this, contrary to fnding/promoting solutions such as re-usable identities, including the Dutch eID Stelsel NL (similar to NSTIC in the US).

Read the rest of this entry »


PayPal and Dutch banks as identity provider

2014/04/10

loginwithpaypalbutton

Today I received an email from PayPal to inform me on updates they are making in their legal terms related to “Log in with PayPal”. That PayPal wants to be an identity provider is nothing new, but this update was a good reason to blog about opportunities for Dutch banks to introduce innovative services in the area of digital identity. See below the cross-post in Dutch from the InnoValor website on this subject.

PayPal en banken als inlogmethode

Paypal heeft vandaag aanpassingen aan de gebruikersovereenkomst bekend gemaakt. Opvallendste voor mij was de toevoeging van “PayPal als inlogmethode”, oftewel, PayPal als identity provider. PayPal is overigens al langere tijd zich aan het positioneren als identity provider. ”PayPal als inloginmethode” is erg vergelijkbaar met hoe Facebook Connect of andere social logins werken, je logt in bij een wesite van een derde partij door op een button te klikken die je browser redirect naar bijvoorbeeld Facebook waar je inlogt met de gebruikersnaam/wachtwoord die je gebruikt voor Facebook. Qua user experience en werking niet heel veel anders dan DigiD overigens. Geen nieuwe wachtwoorden voor elke site, minder gedoe met registreren etc. Voor de techies: PayPal gebruikt OpenID Connect hiervoor, DigiD gebruikt SAML.

Read the rest of this entry »


The challenges for a Dutch eID

2013/06/07

eid-stelsel-nl-bzk

My colleague Wolfgang Ebbers is a blogger for iBestuur. iBestuur is an independent platform for i-government (the i stands for information). In his latest blogpost he discusses a recent letter from the minister of Internal Affairs on the minister’s vision on digitale government 2017. Wolfgang zooms in on the role of an eID solution in this vision, and interviews me on what I consider are important challenges for the Dutch eID framework that the Dutch government is working on. I basically try to make five points.  I start with that (i) it is good that there is now an eID framework vision that is broadly supported by different parts of the Dutch government, and that it also extends to consumer-2-business. Then I make the point that the unclarity/uncertainty on how this vision will be implemented causes initiatives for eID solutions to wait. Then I discuss some major challenges:  (iii)  the business model (who is paying, private sector vs government vs consumer, market entry), (iv) the privacy aspects, including the trade-off between privacy, costs, security and convenience and (v) redundancy in the framework (e.g., authentication means) including that it is difficult to create the desired level-playing field between government and private sector.

The complete blogpost can be found here (in Dutch). For your convenience, I also copied the text below:

Read the rest of this entry »


Privacy and security in an eID solution?

2013/05/27

irma4

In the Netherlands we have a digitale identity solution, called DigiD, for citizins that want to use e-government services. It is used quite a lot (compared to e.g. Belgium or Germany), but not very secure (only SMS as second factor, and verification via a well-known address contrary to e.g. face-2-face). The Dutch government is now working on a more secure eID solution, as part of an bigger identity trust framework that is called “eID stelsel” (roughly translates to eID scheme or eID framework). In the below blog post (in Dutch …) we discuss this, and zoom in on the IRMA research project in which we participate. IRMA smartcard aims to be both secure and privacy friendly (attributes, double blind certificates etc).

Een betrouwbaardere en privacyvriendelijkere DigiD

In een kamerbrief over de toekomstbestendigheid van Nederlandse identiteits-infrastructuur, schrijft minister Plasterk dat DigiD, in de huidige vorm, op korte termijn niet meer voldoende beveiliging biedt voor nieuwe gevoelige e-overheids diensten. Voor deze diensten is een veiligere eID oplossing nodig. Te denken valt dan, bijvoorbeeld, aan toekomstige diensten als toegang van patiënten tot hun elektronische patientendossier.

Read the rest of this entry »


Guide to classifying e-services to Levels of Assurance: a good first step

2012/02/09

A Dutch government body responsible for establishing open standards for elektronic exchange (Forum Standaardisatie) published a guide for government service providers to help them classify e-services to Levels of Assurance. They use the EU STORK Quality Authentication Assurance levels for this, which classify authentication solutions in four levels. Since Novay was responsible for defining these levels in the EU STORK project, and we’ve helped several clients in applying STORK levels, we read this guide with great interest. In the below text we discuss the Levels of Assurance concept, and give our opinion on the guide.

Read the rest of this entry »


Looking back at 2011: what was new, and what could have been (IDentity.Next newsletter)

2011/12/21

I wrote an article for the IDentity.Next newsletter that came out today (21 December 2011). It is here, and for convenience, also copied below.

Looking back at 2011: what was new, and what could have been

18-12-2011

With 2011 almost over, the question IDentity.News had for me was to look back to 2011 what were new developments in the area of digital identity. Since I’m in the business of innovation, looking forward is more in my DNA than looking back. And so a little out of my comfort zone, below three major new developments of 2011, and, also, three developments that did not happen in 2011.

1. Trust frameworks– in the US (e.g. NSTIC, OIX), in NL (e.g. eHerkenning) and elsewhere trust frameworks as a way to ensure a fair and trusted ecosystem to provide identity-related services are catching on. Experience with large scale deployment is still limited though. I guess we just have to do and learn. And the alternative for trust frameworks (i.e. government issued identities) also stays popular (e.g., the new German ID card, the Dutch DigiD/eNIK).

2. Cloud and identity-as-a-service– it seems impossible for a self-respecting event in the area of identity not to spend significant time on the combination of cloud and identity. And something similar seems to apply to identity experts J. There is also progress here; especially commercial offerings of identity-as-a-service have been progressing. On making the cloud identity-enabled, things have developed slower than I would have expected a year ago. Although I guess everyone (?) agrees that companies want to have centralized authentication, authorization and provisioning (efficiency, control etc), adoption of standards is still too limited, which is at least part of the reason this is going slow.

3. DigiNotar (and other security fiasco’s in the identity area) – while a disaster for DigiNotar and potentially a huge disaster for an unknown number of Iranians, there is actually a bright side. It resulted in more attention at ‘higher levels in organizations’ for information security and identity. And I’m sure many security consultants had sufficient work in second half of 2011. The downside of this attention is that I rather have digital identity associated with ‘enabling online services’ than with security risks.

There are also three developments that did not happen, but could have. I stay close to home for these.

What first comes to mind is that there is still no clarity on introduction of a Dutch electronic identity card (eNIK), although the responsible Minister of Internal Affairs promised parliament a proposal before the end of the year (still two weeks to go!).

What also did not happen in the Netherlands is the Dutch national electronic health record, instead the Dutch senate seems to prefer faxes, or maybe smoke signals. Not that the proposed law they stopped did not have its flaws from a privacy and authorization perspective. But the proposal could have been improved upon, and current practise is much worse in my opinion. Hopefully the Dutch national health record will continue in another form, there are signs it might.

The third development that did not happen is a breakthrough in a re-usable consumer identity solution on Dutch national or, even better, European or worldwide scale: we still have the same long list of username/passwords for every website that offers personalization.

Maarten Wegdam (principal consultant Novay – IDentity.Next member panel)


Digital identity in the Netherlands: DigiD for consumer-2-business?

2011/10/05

On Tuesday 4 October we organised a Novay networking event called Tuesday Update, with digital identities as the subject. The main subject of discussion was the need for re-usable identities, and especially who should be the identity provider: government or private parties. This is a hot subject in the Netherlands, also because of the recent security incidents (DigiNotar). Hein Aanstoot, director at SIVI, argued very well that the insurance sector increasingly needs a consumer-2-business identity solution, and would they be allowed to use the national citizin-2-government solution DigiD then this would help insurance companies a lot. This is however not allowed in the Netherlands, and Kees Keuzenkamp from the ministry of Internal Affairs explained the policy developments in this area (NL and EU), including the planned Dutch eID smartcard (called eNIK, elektronische Nederlandse Identiteits Kaart). Bottom-line (in my wording) is that the decision on eNIK will be taken end of this year (after which it goes to parlement) and that it is very unlikely that DigiD/eNIK can be used as a generic consumer-2-business identity solution. Hein Aanstoot also gave some insight into a new initiative with several large insurance companies to create a breakthrough in a re-usable identity for the insurance sector, I think it is good for these insurance companies that they do not make themselves (too) dependent on the government or others (banks). I also presented, and gave my perspectives on consumer-2-business identities, why this is so difficult (privacy, trust etc), the outcomes of our cidSafe project, my views on DigiD (and eHerkenning) and what the role of government should be (especially: solve it or be very clear you’re not going to do so). I also presented three innovations we are working on that we believe will increasingly become important: user control over their data, mobile-centric identity and context-enhanced authentication/authorization. My presentation is on slideshare (dutch!).

 


Government eID versus identity trust frameworks, at EIC

2011/05/13

I spent most of this week in Munich, at Kuppinger Cole’s European Identity Conference. This had again a full program with presentations and panels on digital identity, GRC and, of course, cloud. Some personal high-lights were presentations and panels on:

  • externalization of authorization (XACML 3.0 won an identity award)
  • privacy (including personal clouds/datastores, Qiy won an identity award)
  • consumer identity/trust frameworks/OpenID (including an interesting presentation by Andrew Nash from Paypal). 
  • and mostly the off-sessions discussions with leading people in the digital identity area

I also had a presentation myself on consumer identity, and participated in panel. I presented my ideas on government issued consumer/citizin identities versus doing this through the market via an identity trust framework.


Internet identity solutions: 3, 3.5 or 4 parties?

2010/07/19

When scaling an internet identity solutions (or identity federation or trust frameworks) to many relying parties and identity providers, one is bound to run into scalability issues. I’m not referring to the amount of users, or logins/transactions, but to the relationships that need to be formed between the identity providers and the relying parties. To make things complex, there are technical issues related to this, and organizational issues. I simplify this here to four issues: the technical issues have to do with finding the necessary meta-information (URLs etc), and with protocol translations (not relevant for all scenario’s). The organizational issues have to do with trust (who is part of the federation/trust framework etc) and business aspects. The business aspect is related to business model: in lot’s of business models someone, typically the relying party, is paying another, typically the identity provider. For example, imagine a trust framework in which 100s of relying parties would use 10s of identity providers, and needing a contract between them. This quickly becomes a combinational explosion that does not scale without some form of automation or intermediate party.

Different internet identity solutions address, or do not address, these issues in different ways. In this blog post I write down my current thinking on this subject, hoping for input from others. The alternative architectures I found are:

  1. A single IdP – avoid the issue altogether. This kind of monopolist identity provider is however not an option in many cases.
  2. Centralized meta-information – centralize the meta-information, this obviously addresses the technical issues, and can also help with the trust issue since this list can serve as a whitelist. (This list does not have to be physically centralized, and can also be a list-of-list etc). It does not help with the business aspects, or protocol translations.
  3. Hub – one central component managed by a (very) trusted party that can basically address all four issues mentioned above, but does become a more-or-less monopolist, as used by for example SURFfederatie.
  4. Broker – similar to the hub architecture, but there is more than one hub (allowing competition between them), as used by for example eHerkenning (eRecognition).

The figure below depicts the four alternatives, with examples (biased to the Netherlands). The numbers indicate the amount of connections from the perspective of the source of the arrow.

There are three major arguments that came to my mind while looking into the architectural alternatives (ignoring the single-IdP architecture):

  • Standards compliant – What is interesting is that most (or all?) identity federation standards basically assume the world consists of three type of parties: users, relying parties (aka service providers) and identity providers, and have no concept of meta-data repository, hub (3.5 ? parties) or brokers (4 parties). Going into details is too much for this blog post, but I found that staying standard conformant can clash with the hub and broker architectures, or extensions to the standards are needed that may make it difficult to use COTS federation software (including for the meta-information architecture).
  • “Justifyable Parties” – in accordance with Kim Cameron’s Laws of Identity nr 3, there have to be good reasons to add parties, especially when they are in the protocol flow and have access to privacy sensitive information or/and are a security risk. For hub and broker architectures, this can be a difficult trade-off.
  • Security – related to both arguments above, but end-to-end security can and I think often is broken when introducing a hub or broker. The hub/broker thus needs to be trusted to an extend that for certain scenario’s is not desirable.

A major benefit of a hub or broker model is that should be easier for relying parties to hook up to the federation, both technically (there only need to connect to a single hub or broker), and organizationally (they trust the hub/broker to keep track of who is trusted, they only need to have a single contract contrary to many for each identity provider).

Disclaimer: the above thinking is work-in-progress, and I’m struggling with simplicity vs accuracy …