| About
Identity Management Principles
Identity
Management Technical Standards
Help
About:
Identity
Management Architecture Principles represent the highest
level of guidance for technology infrastructure planning and decision
making. Principles are simple statements of the University’s beliefs
about how it wants to use Identity Management over the long term.
They provide the primary linkage between business strategies and
identity management strategies, and thus between the administration
and management of the Identity Management system. Principles are
derived from business goals and corporate values and play a key
role in developing any technology architecture. They formalize a
commitment by upper management to make investments in the Identity
Management infrastructure. Three categories of Principles - Management,
Vendor, and User - are presented for guiding current and future
development of the Identity Management system.
Identity
Management Architecture Technical Standards
work in conjunction with Principles to create a uniform system.
Standards are predetermined rules, which assure uniformity during
the design and implementation phases of a new identity management
infrastructure. The technical standards included in this document
present those technical approaches that afford the best opportunity
to meet the management principles and goals of the University.
Identity
Management
Principles:
Management
Principles
Vendor Principles
User Principles
Management
Principles (6)
Management Principles define how an organization addresses the use
of identity management from a business standpoint. Issues include
the acceptability of technological risk, requirement for flexibility,
the use of identity management to differentiate Georgia State University,
where architecture and design decisions are made, compliance stance
and the acceptance of technology risk.
- The
enterprise will mitigate or transfer risks appropriately, based
on policy.
Implications
The University will assess risk and consequences on an
individual project or basis and make decisions based on the
individual project’s potential risks and rewards. These
decisions will be guided by the Universities strategic directions
and policies.
Pros
Risk
acceptance and mitigation will be more aligned to the needs
of the individual project and its strategic importance to
the University.
Cons
The
absence of a single simple guideline for risk acceptance will
require additional time, resources and management attention
to resolve risk acceptance and mitigation issues.
- The
identity infrastructure will enable the flexibility to support
future applications.
Implications
The Identity Management
system will over time encompass all or most computing systems
including future new systems.
Pros
•
IT infrastructure could accommodate new applications at a
rapid rate.
• Developers would not have to worry as much about capacity
constraints or availability of appropriate identity or privacy
protections in developing new applications.
• Users are able to experiment more with new applications
and may discover new uses for the servers and the network.
Cons
•
Total expenses would
be higher because capacity that might never be used, such
as underutilized storage, server processing power, and advanced
features or functions, would be implemented.
•
Managing the
identity infrastructure could be more difficult because more
generalized technology may be more complex.
•
Generic identity
management systems might not offer full coverage for functionality
in the specific applications deployed by the University.
- The
University will manage the identity infrastructure as a production
mission critical infrastructure cost center.
Implications
The Identity Management System will be critical to the efficient
operation of the University, but it is not considered as strategic
differentiator for the University. Enhancements and additions
will be weighed on the basis efficiency gains, expense reductions
and proven business cases.
Pros
• IT costs will be lower.
• Continuing expenses will be predictable.
• The applications environment for users and developers
will be more stable due to fewer changes.
• Training and maintenance costs may be lower due to
a more stable environment.
Cons
• There may be an inability to capitalize on new
technology and innovations that could provide competitive
advantage
• The lack of new additional identity information might
make it difficult to develop new innovative personalized applications.
• Talented employees may leave to work in enterprises
with newer and more exciting technology.
- Identity Management infrastructure
decisions are made at the University level.
Implications
A central identity management agency has the best information
for making the decisions across the enterprise. This makes
for easier overall management of the Identity Management System,
in that it has the efficiency of a single decision maker.
Enforcement of standards is easier here since installation
and operations are centrally administered and procedures are
centrally developed and distributed.
Pros
• Decisions can be made more quickly by a centralized
group.
• There is clear understanding and coordination of enterprise-wide
actions.
• IT resource management is easier.
• Costs are easier to derive and allocate.
Cons
• Variations in local requirements may be harder to
implement because they require central permission and coordination.
• Responsiveness to users may be more difficult to achieve.
• Retention of departmental unit IT staff may be more
difficult, particularly if they perceive themselves as “technical
maintenance staff members” rather than IT professionals.
5.
The University will put forth only the effort necessary
to meet compliance requirements.
Implications
The University will meet, but not expend resources to exceed
in complying with regulations.
Pros
• Costs of compliance are minimized.
• Technology choices may be more varied, because compliance-related
controls are minimal.
Cons
• Judicial or administrative regulators may not consider
the enterprise's “minimal” effort sufficient, and
consequently may deem it noncompliant.
• Knowledge of the minimal compliance stance may inhibit
implementation of otherwise beneficial IT projects.
• Minimal security technology might not cover threats
posed by typical attacks, thus subjecting the enterprise not
only to compliance scrutiny but also to damaging intrusions
or security breaches. The university may only be postponing
the inevitable cost of stronger compliance. Legislative or administrative
changes such as new regulations might cause costly and intrusive
projects to become compliant on an emergency basis.
6.
The University will manage the identity infrastructure as
a production mission critical infrastructure
cost center.
Implications
New IT technologies and services would not be implemented until
after they are proven to be successful in order to:
•
Minimize the risk in the near term and reduce learning curves
for faculty, staff and students.
• Minimize internal technical support requirements
Pros
• This approach reduces costs and risk by avoiding investments
in technologies or services that are not proven.
Cons
• The University may lose some standing to early adopters
willing to make investments in new unproven technology.
Vendor Principles
(4)
Vendor Principles address aspects of network technology procurement
and relationships
with suppliers of hardware, software, and services. They
address issues such as preferred vendors, degree of vendor independence,
or degree to which partnership arrangements are acceptable.
-
Novell Inc. is the universities strategic identity management
vendor and where possible and reasonable Novell’s identity
management tools will be implemented.
Implications
With
this Principle, the university puts its faith in the abilities
and product direction of Novell. As long as Novell’s
product line and direction continues to fits the needs of
the university, this is very efficient method of doing business.
It leverages the universities existing investments in software
and staff expertise in Novell technology.
Pros
• The Novell Academic Licensing program provides
very low cost access to Novell’s extensive and mature
Identity Management Suite.
• Interoperability may be eased, at least for products
from the same vendor.
• Some System integration help is usually available
at no cost
• Total costs may be lower because of the lack of integration
costs.
• When security failures or performance problems are
encountered, having fewer vendors can reduce finger pointing.
Cons
• If the vendor is not tracking mainstream or current
identity management technologies, the enterprise may find
itself at risk in a technological dead end.
• Due to lack of competition, prices may go up once
the enterprise is locked into using a particular vendor.
• New technologies may be more expensive to integrate
if they come from a vendor other than the strategic one.
• A single vendor may suffer from common exploitable
security failures among its products.
-
The university will implement open protocols and solutions where
practical, but recognizes that many portions of a complete Identity
Management solution will utilizes close or proprietary products
and interfaces.
Implications
This principle recognizes that while open interoperable
solutions are desirable, that the current state of open technologies
is not mature and full featured enough to support a completely
open identity management system implementation.
Pros
•
Individual components will utilize the open or closed solutions
and protocols best suites to that components needs.
• Closed or partially closed products may be more effective
or efficient than ones using only lowest-common denominator
standards.
• Open, interoperable products give the enterprise considerable
flexibility in deployment and choice of vendors.
Cons
•
Requires that each component be individually asses as to whether
an open or closed solution is appropriate
• Will experience the disadvantages of both types of
approaches on an individual component level.
- The
university will only buy from well-established vendors with large
market shares.
Implications
Larger companies with an established track record are
better, more reliable, and less risky. However, adopting such
a principle can be limiting since it precludes taking advantage
innovative new venture-funded startup vendors.
Pros
•
Major suppliers have established channels and inventories
that can ensure that customers get on-time delivery of products
or services.
• Administration of vendors is easier because there
are typically fewer of them with larger, "mature"
vendors.
• Less risk of the vendor going out of business or dropping
a product line, leaving the enterprise with unsupported products.
• Mature vendors typically have a better developed service
and support infrastructure.
• Large market share equates to large market acceptance
and therefore higher likelihood of 3rd-party vendor support
or ancillary products/services.
Cons
• Prices may be higher in some cases due to the overhead
needed to maintain inventory and administrative staff.
• Attention and support may not be as personal as it
could be from a small startup firm with fewer customers.
• Well-established vendors usually are slower to introduce
new products, because they have to worry about compatibility
with an installed base of products and customers.
• Well-established vendors are susceptible to business
failure, merger or acquisition.
- The
enterprise will own, operate, and control all IT services and
applications related to identity management.
Implications
This position implies that the university will own private
IT resources, such as computers, network, security, and storage.
The enterprise will employ people to operate the IT resources.
IS&T will also own and operate facilities to control the
IT resources and will have responsibility for managing digital
identities for the university.
Pros
• The university can maintain more complete control
over the IT infrastructure's operation and potentially provide
a higher level of security for applications that need it.
• More flexibility is provided; the university is free
to make changes to IT services, and security infrastructure
whenever necessary.
• The university may be able to obtain unique features
not supported by some outsourcers (for example, unique support,
specialized equipment, or geographic reach).
Cons
• It may be difficult to find and retain the skilled
in-house staff necessary to plan or operate a complex IT services
infrastructure.
• Support costs may be higher if some of the technology
is not mainstream.
• The enterprise may not have the same economies of
scale as outsourced service providers, resulting in higher
total cost of ownership.
User
Principles (2)
User Principles address the responsibilities and capabilities of
individuals, groups, and business units outside the IT department
who ultimately use the products and services provided by IT, or
create applications and use patterns that affect the IT infrastructure.
- Users
and applications can access and utilize the IT infrastructure
with appropriate strength credentials, ranging from ordinary passwords
over encrypted links to two factor or biometric credentials.
Implications
There is sensitive information within the University, but
much of the information is not of a sensitive nature. Stronger
authentication methods will be employed in a subset of users
and applications where the risk and costs justify them. The
initial user identification and authorization must be just
as rigorous as the subsequent strong authentication processes.
Pros
• The cost and interoperability issues of strong identification,
authentication, and assurance services are only incurred when
deemed necessary
• There is greater ease of use and convenience for users.
Cons
• New applications must address the limitations of enterprise
security. Programs have lower surety about the users they
are dealing with and mitigate risks in the application.
• Strong identification, authentication, and high assurance
when employed coma at a relatively high cost; budgets must
address the credentials, credentials management, administration,
and support.
• Some desired applications may not work with the high-assurance
infrastructure, or may require additional integration.
• Users may find strong credentials inconvenient when
employed, and the authorization may slow down registration
and provisioning processes.
• Additional servers and services are required for establishing,
issuing, and validating credentials. These new services will
make the infrastructure more complex, and risk aggregation
issues must be resolved.
- IS&T
must approve all new identity management applications and uses
of identity management services.
Implications
This protects the identity management systems from applications,
devices, or networked computers that are not “good network
citizens,” such as those that make inefficient use of
IDMS services or do not properly protect the identity information
they access. An application approval process would be defined
wherein new applications would be tested and examined to ensure
that proper care and use is made of identity information.
Pros
• IdMS crashes or slowdowns due to unexpected service
demand are reduced.
• Critical applications get resources when needed.
• Applications can be catalogued for risk assessment
and management.
• Costs are lowered as nonessential applications become
restricted in their use of expensive resources.
Cons
• Testing and approval increases time to implement for
new applications
• This principle may be difficult to enforce.
• Innovation may be reduced because experimentation
is discouraged.
Identity
Management Technical Standards (10)
- CampusIDs
represent either individuals or non-person entities such as organizational
units, devices or administrative roles.
Position: Identity management encompasses identities
of not just individuals, but of other entities that require account
provisioning and management. Examples of such entities may include
administrative roles, organizational units, printers, servers and
other network devices.
- An
individual may have one and only one CampusID.
Position: Individuals
must be uniquely identified by their Campus ID. A one to one relationship
between individuals and their personal Campus ID is necessary to
provide for the consistent and correct provisioning and deletion
of accounts. Multiple individual Campus IDs would create confusion
and incorrect assignment of authentication and authorization credentials.
Individuals may sponsor or have sponsored for them non-person CampusIDs
to perform roles assigned to them.
- A CampusID
for an individual person is formed by default from the first letter
of the first name plus the last name plus as many numeric digits
as necessary to ensure uniqueness.
Position: A predictable, consistent and easily understandable
naming scheme is a desirable feature for Identity management. Such
account names are meaningful to customers and allow for easy identification
of account holders.
- A CampusID
will not be reused for a minimum of two years after it no longer
has accounts provisioned to it.
Position: While it is desirable to reuse CampusIDs
in order to preserve name space and minimize the use of appending
digits for uniqueness, a period of retirement after use will minimize
potential errors in authorization and access for a reused CampusIDs.
- The
authoritative source of identity information for the Creator Identity
Management system is the Person Registry.
Position: The Person Registry obtains and consolidates
identity information from multiple authoritative source systems.
As a relational database application it has the data manipulation
and connectivity facilities to correctly correlate and consolidate
multiple sources of identity information to a single entity.
- The
Person Registry obtains identity information from the authoritative
source system that originates that information.
Position:
The
authoritative source system for faculty and staff information
is the PeopleSoft Human Resource Management System used by the
University. The authoritative source system for student information
is the GoSOLAR Student Information System. The authoritative source
of affiliate information is the Profile Manager.
-
Affiliates
must be sponsored by a current faculty or staff member.
Position: Affiliates must be sponsored by a current faculty
and staff member that attests to the relationship for the affiliation.
Sponsors are responsible for the affiliate accounts actions.
-
Affiliates
will expire and must be renewed on a periodic basis.
Position: Affiliations are not permanent and
must be reaffirmed by the sponsor on a periodic basis. The length
of affiliation will vary by the type of affiliation. If the sponsor
does not reaffirm the affiliation, accounts provisioned to the
affiliate will be revoked.
- The
preferred application authentication method is the CampusID LDAP
directory via secure version 3 LDAP API.
Position: LDAP authentication is a broadly
implemented and open standard and is the preferred authentication
method. Other authentication methods may be made available and utilized
when LDAP is not supported. In some cases the sensitivity of the
application data may preclude the use of the CampusID LDAP directory
and sharing the password with other less sensitive and secure applications.
In that case, LDAP authentication against a separate LDAP directory
is the preferred technology.
- Passwords
must be transported across the network either in an encrypted form
or via an encrypted channel.
Position: Passwords may not traverse the network in the clear.
Connection to the authentication source must be performed with either
an encrypted transport or with encrypted passwords. The connection
between the application client and the application must transport
the password in a secure manner.
Help:
If you have
questions please contact the Help Center for assistance help@gsu.edu or (404) 413-HELP (4357).
|