Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architecture?
Fabien Imbault <fabien.imbault@gmail.com> Sat, 20 March 2021 12:42 UTC
Return-Path: <fabien.imbault@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: txauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: txauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AE193A2168 for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 05:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dwr_a1m3Y8Sx for <txauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 05:42:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd34.google.com (mail-io1-xd34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D50563A2167 for <txauth@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 05:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd34.google.com with SMTP id x16so9006611iob.1 for <txauth@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 05:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=HRGSVwueXjo+aiUgZQSbZi5SrEOX2RfwBa1pxgStOLs=; b=Ele3+c0sT7pfmygJMMMpz3GnOsRLOXjNQmFi1VCfXoP7twcurrg2Jp8ZTufROb/k4o Lh6ibgBuKJGr7BMUTGW1ELjgAnHbh7cST6P+7csIqTbgf12lzMLAWLutME1o1ab1Phe1 cbU00kNpG4CgKho49jgjw2HyhdOXS7bWdmrRc0JSBQafTpqxzKKHNXz1o4q003fAV2A0 stu5eW86kQZrYMJKvch3gVqqT7tkqe80Kcu2u3Mt6YbpS2VB+5bmGzC+I3g3PSGDP4AO 7U0MuZ+St3X+3FJXXmq+XNoibhdGv8Y1NpYnXn0liG3VCSGNrgwwg4WjkzXwT3As1X8r nK6A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=HRGSVwueXjo+aiUgZQSbZi5SrEOX2RfwBa1pxgStOLs=; b=h09cW6SOtdtctWpxhULnzdSzpXXkcFb4Za4qFAUNvihmuI3HZL5ORKUS3BPxN5cp7o H3mwFP/zhsvB5dyjDj1kq375S3jm0344OzskbrC+ye6CkZdzcIjwtJAMhMEKnzRE5HcW +jZ5tSkW5uHM1CkiCc7ocX+4jJIj4MDWO8vflQm47bkR5Pvp/JgO7ymGlNd4kRnTXvFv U3Dh497pCGOerQxCwi6iK0f7kgmny846oaacG+ex1dZCyNmCQodPisoZHm2OSgnaXZvz 9dAlqfXoq9nMXm6l6Wm665H3nD+ffJMR4T1PfTAxZpdMozC53udMadEia6kSngSmIBL4 IqOQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531wsLCIzXSMYXA4xdNpPjU0G0t/HLmUQi6beVykesEiUh10hd9I oAx5soCSl1Uk9pMBSrJcBgURDaXWs8XEIwZj80qXGDDGMiw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwQjKBjIfJ25cO2sY3hqd2yOzZiWJe03I6uWo6lm7paQ++e1kfLnln1rGu9AqIT6epOMH0vUw5FQ3s8PFLMTMM=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:224e:: with SMTP id m14mr5068815jas.8.1616244119188; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 05:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CANYRo8jBZFVWyvAgVSWSmnuC+i1NaEkJEGWextzGB0xNFnD9fA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM8feuSUmfL8thipf=hV-QHtkuy-Zh5txbAspvO9vxm6P3MgZg@mail.gmail.com> <CANYRo8gPcPqjmonr_bJOgF_bS5E-o-o2ZVN3WfQCwbnwv0jPQw@mail.gmail.com> <CAM8feuTS5SCLVdO0ZZ-RJOWV08=gEeAvC8hrdUD0c9L8AHjYtQ@mail.gmail.com> <CANYRo8ijHOSYJfrFS6FmtU1XPMvt4jmPqLC2M=-nYDDpSoV=kA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANYRo8ijHOSYJfrFS6FmtU1XPMvt4jmPqLC2M=-nYDDpSoV=kA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fabien Imbault <fabien.imbault@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 13:41:46 +0100
Message-ID: <CAM8feuSCgsprirHuZSmag1LuHTK_3SeBo6ksSe1Kwd4HLKQPBA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
Cc: Alan Karp <alanhkarp@gmail.com>, GNAP Mailing List <txauth@ietf.org>, Mark Miller <erights@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000098367705bdf72812"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/txauth/fpCUGaTdiMbz0g9nHovXehL70fg>
Subject: Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architecture?
X-BeenThere: txauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: GNAP <txauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/txauth>, <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/txauth/>
List-Post: <mailto:txauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth>, <mailto:txauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 12:42:02 -0000
Indeed I was asking because it's easy to get it wrong, so the feedback of higher authorities (Mark or Alan) is most welcome! In the flow I was indeed expecting bearer tokens. Fabien Le sam. 20 mars 2021 à 13:03, Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com> a écrit : > Fabien, that is not the way I think of capabilities working. I would > prefer to leave the explanation to experts that have tried to teach me over > the years. That’s, in part, why I recommended Alan’s 40 minute talk at the > beginning of this thread. > > To hold us over until one of them responds, I think of capabilities as a > token that is signed by the issuer so no trust is involved. If the RS > issues a capability to the RO signed by the RS, then it’s a pure bearer > token and any client that appears at the RS API with that capability will > access the resource. That’s option 1. > > Option 2 is not based on capabilities. The RS stores a public key and > trusts any token signed to that public key. The public key represents the > identity of the RO or the AS that the RO delegated to. That’s opaque to the > RS. > > So the difference between the two options is in who signed the access > token. The RS can offer both options to the RO if they’re nice. > > Adrian > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 6:52 AM Fabien Imbault <fabien.imbault@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Thanks for the description. >> >> Trying to summarize what a capability flow would look like following >> those ideas: >> >> 1) RS issues a capability for the RO. For instance "view and download >> photo". >> >> 2) RO can delegate that capability (or an attenuated version) to the AS. >> Say "view photo", possibly with some ambient conditions. >> If the RO further wants to choose between a list of possible ASs, the RO >> would have to signal its choice to the RS, which would then have to signal >> it to the client (what we had called RS preflight in some discussions). So >> the AS-RS relationship would be mediated via the RO (or more precisely its >> agent). >> >> 3) a core GNAP negociation takes place with the AS (traditional photo >> example). >> >> Is that correct? Do not hesitate to correct me if I didn't accurately >> capture what you said. >> (I volontarily put DID aside for now) >> >> Steps occurring before 3 are optional (for reasons discussed before and >> also because we can't assume all RSs would be able to support that). >> >> Fabien >> >> Le sam. 20 mars 2021 à 10:49, Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com> a >> écrit : >> >>> Hi Fabien, >>> >>> Yes, it’s optional and adding meaningful options is one way to consider >>> the ethical imperative http://www.cybsoc.org/heinz.htm >>> >>> If I understand Alan’s teachings, the RS has the option to either issue >>> one or more capabilities to the RO or to store some identity-related >>> information about the RO such as the DID of the RO and, by reference, the >>> AS service endpoint controlled by that DID. >>> >>> Given some capabilities, the RO can either deal with them manually or >>> hand them to an AS. Either way, the RS has no idea of the RO’s choice until >>> it receives a token from some end user. This seems to be what the Letters >>> of Transit in Casablanca were all about. >>> >>> If, on the other hand, the RO chooses to give 5e RS a DID, a >>> self-sovereign identifier, instead of taking some capabilities, then the RS >>> has the expectation to trust tokens signed by that DID. >>> >>> It’s my hope that GNAP can allow an ethical RS to offer both choices to >>> the RO. >>> >>> Adrian >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 4:23 AM Fabien Imbault <fabien.imbault@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Adrian, >>>> >>>> Calling to one AS per persona can only be optional, as we have no way, >>>> and no wish, of knowing all the identities used by the RO. >>>> >>>> I think this relates to the idea of the RO having its own distinct >>>> agent, but I still don't understand how that would work (even re-reading >>>> the thread in issue 145). Could you elaborate? >>>> >>>> Thxs >>>> Fabien >>>> >>>> >>>> Le sam. 20 mars 2021 à 06:08, Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com> >>>> a écrit : >>>> >>>>> @Alan Karp <alanhkarp@gmail.com> shared a talk about the Principle Of >>>>> Least Authority (POLA) in a recent comment >>>>> https://github.com/ietf-wg-gnap/gnap-core-protocol/issues/145#issuecomment-803099693 >>>>> I recommend it. >>>>> >>>>> We might expect a protocol with authorization in the title to use >>>>> authority as a core principle. I advocate for a GNAP design that maximizes >>>>> the power of the RO, to be seen as a human rights issue when the RO is a >>>>> human. This causes me to ask how to combine better security with better >>>>> human rights in GNAP. >>>>> >>>>> Who should have the least authority in the GNAP design? >>>>> >>>>> The AS derives authority as a delegate of the RO. If we ask the RO to >>>>> partition limited authority across dozens of different ASs by domain and >>>>> function, then we are not using technology to empower the individual. >>>>> Probably the opposite, as we introduce consent fatigue and burden normal >>>>> people to partition their lives into non-overlapping domains. >>>>> >>>>> My experience says we should aim for one AS per persona because that >>>>> maps into the way we manage our public and private identities. POLA would >>>>> then teach care in keeping ASs and RSs related to work / public separate >>>>> from ASs and RSs related to private life so that a policy vulnerability in >>>>> our delegation to an AS would have the least likelihood of harm. >>>>> >>>>> Beyond that fairly obvious principle, we could spread our interactions >>>>> among as many services as possible. We already do this when we spread >>>>> assets across multiple banks, internet services across redundant platforms, >>>>> or we use LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook with limited overlap in social >>>>> graphs. >>>>> >>>>> At the next level down, we want to manage resources at each RS using >>>>> least authority in order to make AS policy vulnerabilities easier to spot >>>>> and debug. My AS might get multiple capabilities or access to scopes from >>>>> an RS, each one carefully labeled with its intended uses so that the policy >>>>> engine of my AS could be structured to consider requests relative to only >>>>> one capability or scope family at a time. For example, in issuing health >>>>> record authorizations, I might separate the behavioral health capabilities >>>>> from capabilities to access the physical parts of my record at a given >>>>> hospital's GNAP RS API. >>>>> >>>>> Lastly, at the level of attenuation, I would choose a relationship >>>>> with RSs that issue to me capabilities that can be attenuated not only by >>>>> my AS but also by the requesting parties that receive them as part of an >>>>> access token. >>>>> >>>>> Adrian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> TXAuth mailing list >>>>> TXAuth@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth >>>>> >>>>
- [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architecture? Adrian Gropper
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Adrian Gropper
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Adrian Gropper
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Adrian Gropper
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Adrian Gropper
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Alan Karp
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Adrian Gropper
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Adrian Gropper
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Alan Karp
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Adrian Gropper
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Justin Richer
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Justin Richer
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Adrian Gropper
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Adrian Gropper
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Justin Richer
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Adrian Gropper
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Alan Karp
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Alan Karp
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Alan Karp
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Adrian Gropper
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Alan Karp
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Adrian Gropper
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Adrian Gropper
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Adrian Gropper
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Adrian Gropper
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Denis
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Adrian Gropper
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Justin Richer
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Fabien Imbault
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Adrian Gropper
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Denis
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Justin Richer
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Justin Richer
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Alan Karp
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Justin Richer
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Denis
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Alan Karp
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Adrian Gropper
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Justin Richer
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Adrian Gropper
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Justin Richer
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Adrian Gropper
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Justin Richer
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Alan Karp
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Adrian Gropper
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Alan Karp
- Re: [GNAP] Will GNAP support Zero Trust Architect… Adrian Gropper
- [GNAP] Relationship between Authentication and Au… Denis
- Re: [GNAP] Relationship between Authentication an… Justin Richer
- Re: [GNAP] Relationship between Authentication an… Denis
- Re: [GNAP] Relationship between Authentication an… Justin Richer
- Re: [GNAP] Relationship between Authentication an… Denis
- Re: [GNAP] Relationship between Authentication an… Adrian Gropper
- Re: [GNAP] Relationship between Authentication an… Denis
- Re: [GNAP] Relationship between Authentication an… Adrian Gropper
- [GNAP] Alice a J&J COVID vaccine Denis
- Re: [GNAP] Alice a J&J COVID vaccine Adrian Gropper