# Presentation: 346395

## eAuthentication in Higher Education

- Tim Bornholtz

**Session 58**

## What is eAuthentication?

- What is a Federation?
- What is Transitive Trust?
- How are they different?

## Let’s start with a math lesson

- Transitive property of equality
- If *a = b* and *b = c*
- Then *a = c*

## Translate that to trust

- Christopher trusts Nicholas
- Nicholas trusts Stephanie
- Christopher will (usually) trust Stephanie

## Boundaries of Trust

- These trust relationships can only go so far.
- We probably would not trust a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend.
- There are not indefinite levels of trust.
- The boundaries of your trust make up the Federation.

## Federation

- A Federation is a group of organizations that have agreed to trust each other.
- All members of the federation trust all other members within the federation.
- Separate agreements with each and every member are not necessary.

## Rules of a Federation

- Members agree to abide by rules of the federation.
- Each federation has some sort of “steering committee” that decides on the rules:
- Legal rules – who can participate and what can they do within the federation.
- Technical rules – technical infrastructure and specifications necessary to communicate with other federation members.

## A federation must provide

- Privacy
- Strength of identity proof
- Regulation / policies
- Ease of use
- Audit
- Indemnification

## So what is eAuthentication?

- eAuthentication is a Federation of US government agencies and private sector organizations.
- GSA is coordinating the federation
- Determined the legal policies required for joining the network.
- Specified the technical requirements to participate.

## Federal eAuthentication

- Leverages many existing NIST standards
- Set standards for
- Identity proofing
- SAML bindings
- Credential Assessment Framework
- Risk Assessment
- Interoperability lab

- As of 6/30/06
- Sixteen agencies signed up as Relying Party
- Twelve Relying Parties in production
- Six Credential Service Providers

## Electronic Authentication Partnership

- EAP is a multi-industry partnership that is bringing together both the public and private sector.
- Replacing custom bilateral agreements with a uniform set of rules.
- Developing a standard evaluation process for credentials and setting uniform approaches and minimum requirements for authentication.

## Authentication vs. Authorization

- Members of a federation determine what to trust and for what purposes on an application level basis.
- Authenticate locally.
- Passwords **never** go over the wire.

## eAuthentication levels of risk

- Each application needs to determine its level of risk.
- A public service to reserve campgrounds is a very low risk.
- A financial application for grants and loans is a higher risk, but there is no risk of loss of life.
- The security codes to access a nuclear warheads is a very very high risk.

## eAuthentication Credential Strength

- NIST levels of user authentication in M-04-04.
- Level 1: little or no confidence
- Level 2: Some confidence
- Level 3: High confidence
- Level 4: Very high confidence

- These are based on the strength of identity proofing and strength of credentials.
- Something you know (e.g. password)
- Something you have (e.g. ID badge)
- Something you are (e.g. fingerprint)

## Shibboleth

- Shibboleth is open source software which provides Web Single SignOn (SSO).
- Uses Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) as defined by OASIS.
- Access control based on attributes
- Users can decide which attributes are released to each service provider.
- Each service provider can specify a minimum set of requirements necessary to grant access.

## InCommon

- Federation to support a common framework to access online resources in support of education and research.
- Uses Shibboleth as the federating software.
- Provides standard conduct for all members to collaborate.
- Economies of scale for contractual agreements.

## Members of InCommon

- Case Western Reserve University
- Cornell University
- Dartmouth
- Georgetown University
- Internet2
- Miami University
- Napster, LLC
- OhioLink - The Ohio Library & Information Network
- Penn State
- Stanford University
- SUNY Buffalo

- The Ohio State University
- The University of Chicago
- University of California, Los Angeles
- University of California, Office of the President
- University of California, Riverside
- University of Virginia
- University of Rochester
- University of Southern California
- University of California, San Diego

## Other Shibboleth Federations

- University of Maryland – 16 campuses
- University of Texas – 23 campuses
- University of California system
- California State system
- The Ohio State University

## Prominent International Federations

- FEIDE – Norway
- Educational sector in Norway.
- HAKA Federation – Finland
- Identity federation of Finnish universities, polytechnics and research institutions

- SDSS – United Kingdom
- Federation for managing access to UK academic online resources
- SWITCH – Switzerland
- Eleven universities - more than 140,000 users
- More than 80 resources - primarily in the field of e-learning

## Inter-federation models

- Some organizations will join several federations and manage them as distinct groups.
- A more streamlined approach, though more difficult, is to create peering arrangements between the distinct federations.
- These peering arrangements allow all members of one federation to access the resources of the other federation.
- Some peering arrangements may be bilateral – meaning the sharing works both ways.

## InCommon and eAuthentication

- InCommon and the federal eAuthentication are working on a peering agreement to allow members to interoperate
- High priority effort by PMO
- One group working on policy
- One group working on the technology
- Hoping for agreement by 9/30/06
- Looking to demo in 12/06

## InCommon and eAuthentication phases

- Phase 1)
- Use the existing SAML 1.0 profile
- NSF FastLane
- Department of Education systems
- Small number of campus users

- Phase 2)
- Upgrade to the SAML 2.0 profile
- More agency applications and more agencies
- More campuses

## Horizontal Federations vs Vertical Federations

- Most federations take a horizontal slice of the application space
- The federation deals with authentication and authorization but does not care about the actual business process.
- Some federations take a vertical slice of a business process
- The federation deals with one specific line of business or one specific application within a line of business.

## Meteor – a Vertical Federation for student aid

- Meteor is an effort to provide financial aid professionals and students with online aggregated financial aid award information from various industry participants.
- Meteor enables students to obtain detailed, real time student aid information directly from the web.
- Meteor enables the financial aid professional to supplement their counseling services.

## Types of Data Available

- FFELP
- Alternative/Private Loans
- State Grants & Scholarships (Summer 2006)
- Perkins (In development)
- Direct Loans (Planned)
- Pell Grants (Planned)

## The Meteor Process

- One

- Two

- Access Providers

- Data Providers

- Financial Aid Professional orStudent/BorrowerorAccess Provider RepresentativeorLender

- Three

- Index Providers

- Users

## Authentication Process:

- Student logs into Access Provider site (i.e. school, lender, servicer or guarantor)
- Access Provider follows their local authentication procedures, assigns a role and retrieves the appropriate assurance level from the Meteor Registry
- Access Provider builds the security assertion
- AP Unique ID
- User Role
- End User Identifier
- Authentication Process ID
- Assurance Level

## Authentication Process:

- Access Provider digitally signs the request and queries the Index Provider
- Index Provider validates the provider (digital certificate) against the Registry;
- Index Provider builds a response message and digitally signs and sends the request to the Access Provider
- Access Provider receives the response and validates the provider against the Registry; validates the digital signature; validates assurance levels for Data Provider requirements; builds, signs, and sends the request message

## Authentication Process:

- The same validation process continues for the Data Provider’s receipt and response and the Access Provider’s receipt and display of the Meteor messages.

## Clearinghouse as Index Provider

- 100% of FFELP guarantee volume
- Over 5.6 million Direct Loan Program accounts
- Over 13.2 million FFELP servicer accounts
- Over 1.6 million Perkins/Private/Alternative Loan servicer accounts (including some managed by schools themselves)

## Meteor Customization	

- Meteor screens can be customized to blend with the service providers current web services
- Meteor allows a service provider to customize the use of the data provided in the Meteor Network
- e.g. MYF Exit Counseling application
- Not a standard Meteor implementation
- Customized screens
- Further integration is possible!
- Meteor software can be used in other internal applications with approval from the MAT

## Reliability and Security

- Data is sent directly from the data provider’s system and is not altered in any way within the Meteor software
- All data is electronically transmitted securely using SSL encryption
- Independent audit showed no serious vulnerabilities with the software

## Building Trust and Integrity

- The Meteor Advisory Team sought input and expertise regarding privacy and security from the sponsoring organizations and the NCHELP Legal Committee.
- Analysis was provided in relation to GLB and individual state privacy laws.
- The analysis revealed that Meteor complied with GLB, FERPA, and known state privacy provisions.

## Creating the Federation – Challenges and Opportunities

- Policy
- Provider eligibility
- Security and privacy
- Removal from the network
- Consensus Building
- Over 40 providers (challenge!)
- Collaboration
- Over 40 providers (opportunity!)

## Lessons learned

- The policy work is much harder than the technical work.
- The legal staff at every member will need to review the policies.
- Usually need to be educated:
- Why federations work
- Why they are secure

## Benefits of Federations

- Business process optimization.
- No need to manage large userid database.
- Get the authentication information from the very best source!

## Possible future directions

- Identity Providers
- College Board and ACT
- More schools
- FAMS vendors

- Service Providers
- Department of Education
- Lenders, Guarantors, Servicers
- School Information Systems
- Many many others

## Contact Information

- We appreciate your feedback and comments.
- I can be reached at:
- Name:	Tim Bornholtz
- Phone: 	540-446-8404
- Email: 	tim@bornholtz.com
- Web: 		http://www.bornholtz.com
**Federal eAuthentication  - *****http://cio.gov/eauthentication***
**Electronic Auth Partnership - *****http://eapertnership.org***
**InCommon - *****http://incommonfederation.org***
**Shibboleth - *****http://shibboleth.internet2.edu***
**Meteor - *****http://nchelp.org/Meteor.htm***