Digital ID World - Bloggers Unite!

It looks like a number of you Identity bloggers will be at DIDW in Anaheim. Anyone up for a bloggers meet-up? ...maybe just a happy hour somewhere? ...or during one of the exhibit area receptions?

Ash?
Nishant?
Dave Kearns?
Jackson?
Mark Dixon?
Pamela?
Felix?
Ian Glazer?
Who else is going?

Let me know by leaving a comment or contact me directly.

[UPDATED 9/4 - details are here]

A few interesting Identity findings

User-Centric vs. Enterprise Identity

Dave Kearns offers a concise explanation of the core difference between user-centric identity and enterprise identity. His summary:

Enterprise-centric identity management is really all about tying together all the activities and attributes of a single entity into a readily accessible (and reportable and auditable) form. User-centric identity is about keeping various parts of your online life totally separated so that they aren’t accessible and no report can be drawn.

I like the simplicity of this explanation. I think it really captures the essence of the difference in an understandable way.


Management Profile

In this article from ComputerWorld, the Director of IS, strategy and architecture at Universal Service Administrative Co. is profiled. He talks about his current project:

An IAM framework will allow for customer information of applicants and contributors to remain consistent across IT platforms while spanning new and legacy systems and applications. My goal is to have one authoritative repository for contributors' and applicants' access information that will be used in managing a secure access control infrastructure. I believe that identity and access management will become an underpinning technology that IT leaders need to address.

He goes on to say that Identity Management is the most critical technology of the year. It's nothing earth shattering, but I always give priority to real customer insights.


Interesting Service Offering

I've discussed the idea of outsourcing identity and managed identity services, but CoreBlox, a company founded by ex-Netegrity folks, have this posted in their service offerings:

Dedicated CA SiteMinder Support Professional

It's an interesting twist on managed identity services and one that I think would resonate with customers. I've known a number of companies who would've liked to just outsource the identity support role to someone who knows what they're doing -- without having to hire and without having to pay for a full-time resource who sits around waiting for something to go wrong. One of the things I like about this is that CoreBlox isn't trying to provide a support professional for any identity system. They're focused on the technologies that they know.

So, if you had a provisioning solution from Courion or SAP and Siteminder for Web Access, you might need to go to two different people or companies to get the right support. BUT - that focus on core expertise is a recipe for success (especially in a support role). And likely still more cost effective than hiring, training, and retaining someone to support these complex systems.

Criminal Data Loss

Seems like some people just aren't paying attention. Every time I think we've gotten past a point as an industry, someone proves me wrong. I would think by now we wouldn't be carrying very large highly confidential data sets on unencrypted USB sticks.

Can you imagine how the exposed data on 130,000 criminals will be used? I'm sure someone would find a way to monetize a list like that. I can see a few angles:

----

SUBJECT: WORK FROM HOME!!

Dear _____,

Why break into homes and cars when you can steal from the comfort of home?!? Try our latest web site phishing kit and collect credit card information from unsuspecting shoppers. No black ski masks, no up-front discovery work, and no commute!

----

Or maybe...

----

ATTN Hiring Manager:

Are you having trouble staffing up for your next big heist? Contact CriminalTemps where we can provide full or part time criminals. 100% no-police guarantee!!

Insider Threat: Crime of Opportunity

For the past few years, I've talked to many people about the insider threat. I don't spend too much time focused on the hardcore criminal element that plan an attack against their employer. I have mostly been thinking about the 35% of employees that claim they need to break policies in order to get their jobs done (see my post on Insider Threat - By the Numbers). And the unknown percentage of employees who break policies without being noticed (or in many cases without even knowing it).

A few days ago, security researcher Ira Winkler articulated one aspect of this very plainly.

Why is there a sudden epidemic of violations of sensitive personal information? The answer is, Because it’s there.

The scenario of an employee viewing sensitive information that they shouldn't be viewing is a fairly common example of real-world insider security breaches. While it won't likely lead to a $7 Billion loss, it could mean a failed audit, bad publicity, lost customers, or other lost business opportunities. In today's transparent business environment, it's only a matter of time before juicy information is made public. State Dept. employees were probably snooping on passport information for years before they found the 2008 presidential candidates. Then, it got out and became a news story.

Winkler goes on to note:

Anyone developing or maintaining information just better accept that their fellow workers will look at information and that they need to track and limit access. More importantly, they better look at their audit logs and specifically search for violations.

I agree. One of the scenarios I often run into is where administrators require access to files (in order to manage access) but they don't require access to the information within those files. A good example is the admin who controls access to HR files and has the ability to open offer letters containing salary and other personal information. To Winkler's point, if the capability is there, they will likely open the files to take a peek. After all, they have been explicitly granted access to those files in order to do their jobs. Doesn't that make it OK? No. And to Winkler's final point, the admin would probably exercise additional restraint if they knew that file access was being monitored.

Something Old and Something New

Eric Norlin provides some insight into what to do (related to identity management) in an economic slowdown:

Something Old:

"1. SSO and Password Reset: The facts are on the wall. If you can reduce the number of helpdesk calls for password reset, you're going to save a TON of money. You can do that through self-service modules, E-SSO, web sso, or even federation. Just do it."

Something New:

"2. Automating Compliance: This is a big one, and you probably won't get it done before the recession ends. However, the more you achieve automated compliance controls, the more big bucks you can save on manual audits. Throw everything from RBAC to de-provisioning into this bucket and then get started looking at what really will slice greenbacks soonest."

Password Reset and SSO have long been good entry points into Identity Management and also proven creators of cost reduction and efficiency.

Automated Compliance is a somewhat more recent phenomena that also yields cost reduction and efficiency. You may be wondering though how many companies are able to get to automated compliance without giving an arm and a leg to define requirements and processes that enable automated compliance. Might the initial effort might defeat the purpose of cost reduction?

One thing Eric wrote is probably key to that discussion – "the more you achieve automated compliance controls..." which to me means, let's not get caught up in the grand notion of automated compliance. Implement a few key automated controls that eliminate significant manual effort in the compliance audit process. And that will bring you cost reduction.

SaaS Eases Security Cost and Complexity

I first read an article in InformationWeek titled SaaS Makes A Run At Security and then found this very similar article by the same author online.

I've posted recently about identity as a service (be sure to check the comments and links if you visit that posting). But my day job dictates that I think more about identity reporting as a service. (intelligence around who has what access and what changes are being made).

One of the striking take-aways from the article is the Gartner estimate that by 2018, 85% of security intelligence will be offered as a service. I guess the words "offered as" seem to deflate the energy of the claim. I wonder what the estimates are for how much will be consumed as a service in 10 years.

In any case, I think the writer hits on the right points - cost and complexity. Especially for the mid-market (his target audience). I think (particularly in the mid-market) the simplification of key capabilities will outweigh the emotional hurdles that make SaaS a tough sell for security. Of course, actual security capabilities may remain a harder sell than security capabilities. That is, companies may be more willing to have managed identity reporting than managed provisioning.

I think mid-market security practitioners want their lives to be easier. They're not driven by the same concerns as large enterprises. What do you think?

Ouch

Dave Kearns calls my argument smoke and mirrors and labels it FUD. His argument is that the Global 2000 have more users and are therefore more important? Should their needs drive solutions for the mid-market?

Dave, I don't think the number of users is even relevant. What is relevant is the experience of those customer organizations and how they can meet their requirements. The number of infrastructures is more relevant than the number of end users in this discussion. I don't think a huge amount of them have a need or desire for multiple user directories. They seem to run off of AD and seem to prefer to have apps leverage AD instead of figuring out how to use a virtual directory (or metadirectory for that matter). Where is the FUD in that? Where is the smoke? What would be my motive to raise smoke and mirrors?

The discussion of how should Oracle build a product is very different than whether customers should consider metadirectory as an alternative. I think they should. I think there are still plenty of environments that could benefit from that approach. But I conceded Clayton's point -- if Oracle wants to build a virtual directory into it's suite to enable flexibility for customers, that's great. I just don't think a virtual directory is the answer to everything (and I spent a lot of time discussing the various use-cases that cry for one).

I would just hate to have people shy away from a good technology because some people say it's no good anymore. That doesn't make sense.

Ultimately, we might agree. Dave's conclusion is one that I've echoed over and over:

The need for, and uses of, virtual directories is growing and is still a few years away from peaking.

Let's just not declare something dead because it no longer seems cool to the in-crowd. It's OK to take a pragmatic approach to whatever challenge your organization is facing. That's my point.

Metadirectories: What's left to say?

If you haven't been following the flurry of conversation since my post last week stating that metadirectories aren't dead, well you're in luck. We couldn't have asked for a better recap of the conversation than the one provided by Ian Yip (although I think he gave Nishant a bum rap on this one).

There were so many different angles explored that I'm not really sure where to start or what's left for me to say.

• I'll restate that I see perfect use-cases for both metadirectory and virtual directory. Now and in the near future. In the far future, there will probably be better ways to achieve the same goals.


• Also, it sounded like Clayton took my comments to mean that "everyone needs to be using Active Directory for everything", which was (I think obviously) not the intent. My point is that although the top 500 or 1000 companies may have a number of directories for various strategic uses, there are probably 20x that number of companies that use only Active Directory as the central and primary user store because of it's network and email integration. And those companies might like for their application vendors to offer direct plug-in to AD as an option.
  
  Plugin to LDAP might be another good option and virtual directory technology would be a great enabler to incorporate various vendors, schemas and even relational databases through that single mechanism. But those mid-market companies probably would prefer not to take on the complexity of virtual directory (even if relatively simpler than writing numerous connections) if they could just use AD natively. And I think some percentage of the Fortune 1000 would see AD as strategic enough to ask the same as well.
  
  That's my guess based on a customer perspective as opposed to a software vendor's ideal state of architecture. And I don't think this is limited to companies who are 100% Microsoft shops. AD just has a very far reach and because it holds email in most of those companies it will already have an account for every employee, be available, etc..
  
  I don't think any of this should be seen as threatening to the role that stand-alone directories or meta- or virtual- directories play. The difference in viewpoint between me and Nishant & Clayton (if I can group them together) might be in the types of customers we've been talking to. There are still a ton of companies out there that aren't super-strategic about their Identity Management architecture. Or that just want a point solution because it fits the current business needs.

I think that's it. For now.

[UPDATE] - forgot one:

• Bavo, I wasn't requiring that the HR database is the primary source for account creation and status. I also wasn't telling you that the HR database should be the primary source for Identity information. (However, I think it's more true than you think.) I was stating a requirement (one that I've seen many times). HR has been deemed THE authoritative source for employee existence in a majority of the companies I've worked with. My experience seems to differ from yours. [That's at least interesting! ...and one of the reasons I blog – to engage with people that have different experiences.]
  
  Yes, companies struggle with getting HR updated for the employee's start date. But, I've actually seen more than one customer implement a complicated AD-to-HR-back-to-AD process to accommodate for the issue. One customer integrated the candidate review system into the provisioning system. I think the reason for HR being authoritative is usually for deprovisioning. They want a disabled HR account to ripple downward.
  
  I think what you call the IDM system assumes a provisioning solution with work flow and its own internal store. These are luxuries that are not always available. In my scenario, the cost and complexity of a provisioning solution is probably overkill based on the requirements. And that's my point. There are scenarios where the simplicity of a metadirectory are not only sufficient to meet the requirement but actually a bit more of an elegant way to meet the requirements.

OK, now I'm really done for the night.