NISTIR 7665 

Proceedings of the Privilege 

Management Workshop, 

September 1-3, 2009 

Editors: 

Sheldon A. Durrant 

The MITRE Corporation 

Tanya Brewer 

Annie Sokol 

NIST 
NISTIR 7665 

Proceedings of the Privilege 

Management Workshop, 

September 1-3, 2009 

Editors: 

Sheldon A Durrant 

The MITRE Corporation 

Tanya Brewer 

Annie Sokol 

NIST 

January 2010 

U. S. Department of Commerce 

Gary Locke, Secretary 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Patrick D. Gallagher, Director 
(This page intentionally left blank) 
Table of Contents 

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 

Plenary Proceedings ....................................................................................................... 1 

Track 1: Standards, Definitions, and Terms .................................................................... 2 

Track 2: Models and Frameworks ................................................................................... 2 

Track 3: Technology and Research Agenda ................................................................... 2 

Track 4: Policies and Requirements................................................................................ 3 

Links and Resources....................................................................................................... 3 

Appendix A: Proceedings of the Plenary Question and Answer Session .................... 4
 

Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document 

in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately. Such 

identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the entities, 

materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose. 
Introduction 

The first Privilege Management Workshop, co-sponsored by the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Security Agency (NSA), was held at 

NIST’s main campus in Gaithersburg, Maryland, September 1–3, 2009. The workshop 

was attended by approximately 120 people representing executive branch federal 

agencies, the private sector, and academia. 

Like so many other areas of information assurance-related technical endeavor, privilege 

management is large and complex, often the source of heated debate and opinion, and 

fraught with widely understood, yet ill-defined terminology and concepts. Thus, a 

primary goal of this first workshop was to bring together a wide spectrum of individuals 

representing differing viewpoints, use cases, and organizational needs with the intent of 

reaching a common understanding of several facets of this important area. This 

includes reaching consensus on the definition of privilege management and other 

terminology; understanding and analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of current and 

proposed access control models; ascertaining the current state of the practice and 

future research directions in privilege management; and understanding and articulating 

the managerial, legal, and policy requirements associated with privilege management. 

To facilitate these objectives, the workshop was organized into four tracks: 

 Standards, Definitions, and Terms 

 Models and Frameworks 

 State of the Technology and Research Agenda 

 Policies and Requirements 

This document is a synopsis of the major proceedings of the plenary and tracks. 

One major point of consensus reached at the workshop was that the term “privilege 

management” describes a set of processes for managing the data, attributes and 

policies in particular that determine a user’s access rights to a system. This definition 

aligns with the Federal Identity, Credential, and Access Management (FICAM) definition 

of privilege management, and firmly establishes privilege management as one 

component of the wider access management framework. A more detailed technical 

position on privilege management can be found in an upcoming NIST Interagency 

Report (NISTIR 7657) on privilege management. 

Plenary Proceedings 

The Plenary, a precursor to the track discussions, set the overall tone for what issues 

and topics attendees should address during the course of the workshop. The plenary 

session began with an outline of a potential framework and context within which to view 

the privilege management space. Subsequent presenters stressed the importance—and 

difficulty—of representing, creating, and enforcing policies, and used healthcare and the 

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to illustrate the shortfalls 

between legal requirements and what could actually be enforced with current privilege 

1 
management capabilities. Presenters briefed attendees on eXtensible Access 

Control Markup Language (XACML) and the differences between it and an 

implementation of a Policy Machine. Presenters also introduced the Risk-Adaptable 

Access Control (RAdAC) concept, and discussed what constitutes an authoritative 

attribute source, which provided the seed for further discussion in the various tracks. 

During the plenary proceedings, attendees were invited to comment on the presenters’ 

briefings and to pose questions. Details of these discussions can be found in 

Appendix A. 

Track 1: Standards, Definitions, and Terms 

Participants in Track 1 focused their efforts on one of the most important goals of the 

workshop—defining many of the key concepts associated with privilege management. 

After much debate, track participants agreed that “privilege management” is a 

component of the larger “access management” space. This is consistent with the 

FICAM framework supported by the Federal Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council 

and adopted by the Department of Defense (DoD). 

Track 2: Models and Frameworks 

A variety of models and frameworks exist for controlling access to enterprise resources. 

Track 2 participants sought to understand them, put them into context, and come to 

consensus on their advantages and limitations. The models discussed ranged from 

basic Access Control Lists (ACLs) and Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) to emerging 

models such as Attribute-Based Access Control (ABAC) to over-the-horizon models that 

include Policy-Based Access Control (PBAC) and Risk-Adaptable Access Control 

(RAdAC), a concept for integrating risk metrics, complex policies, machine learning, and 

a variety of attributes into making automated, dynamic access control decisions. One 

key conclusion reached in Track 2 discussions is that no access control model is better 

or worse than any other; they each have their place in the enterprise and should be 

adopted according to their suitability for a particular set of circumstances. Participants 

also concluded that Risk-Adaptable Access Control held promise, but had limitations 

that would preclude its use any time in the near future. 

Track 3: Technology and Research Agenda 

Track 3 attendees discussed the current state of the practice for privilege management 

and access control; analyzed gaps in current privilege management capabilities; 

discussed on going research in government, academia, and commercial spaces; and 

made suggestions on future research areas that need to be addressed. Participants 

agreed, with very few exceptions, that current privilege management implementations 

were limited to RBAC and that Attribute-Based Access Control was necessary, but 

needed to be more clearly defined and thoroughly researched. This research should 

include both stand-alone and federated ABAC models. 

2 
 

Track 4: Policies and Requirements 

Track 4 tasked participants to discuss and analyze the relationship between privilege 

management and policy. Participants discussed what they thought would be needed to 

enable privilege management to address organizational policy, legal, and compliance 

requirements. Track attendees concluded that the trend in privilege management is 

toward using it to enforce organizational policy and compliance requirements, but that 

the greatly needed mechanisms to express digital policies were not yet mature. XACML 

was presented as a mechanism that has the potential to address some of these 

concerns, but it is not yet fully mature and has a variety of limitations. 

Links and Resources 

The following list includes the briefing slides from the workshop, as well as other 

materials and background information pertinent to the workshop proceedings. For 

further information, visit the workshop’s Web site available at 

http://csrc.nist.gov/news_events/privilege-management-workshop/. 

	 Ferraiolo, David. “Policy Machine: Towards a Unifying Access Control 

Mechanism” http://csrc.nist.gov/news_events/privilege-managementworkshop/presentations/Ferraiolo_Plenary.pdf. Privilege Management Workshop. 

September 1, 2009. Last Accessed 10/05/09. 

	 Ferraiolo, David, Serban Gavrila and Steve Quirolgico. “The Policy Machine: A 

Mechanism for the Specification and Enforcement of Arbitrary Attribute-Based 

Access Control Policies.” 

http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SNS/pm/PMInventionDescription.pdf. Last Accessed 

10/05/09. 

	 LaPadula, Leonard J. “Privilege Management Framework.” 

http://csrc.nist.gov/news_events/privilege-managementworkshop/presentations/Len_LaPadula.pdf. Privilege Management Workshop. 

September 1, 2009. Last Accessed 10/05/09. 

	 Lafky, Deborah L. “Health Information Technology and Privilege Management: A 

Policy Agenda for Progress.” http://csrc.nist.gov/news_events/privilegemanagement-workshop/presentations/Deborah_Lafky.pdf. Privilege Management 

Workshop. September 1, 2009. Last Accessed 10/05/09. 

	 McGraw, Robert W. “Risk-Adaptable Access Control (RAdAC).” 

http://csrc.nist.gov/news_events/privilege-management-workshop/radacPaper0001.pdf . Last Accessed 10/05/09. 

 Waterman, K. Krasnow. “Representing Policy for Enterprise Compliance.” 

http://csrc.nist.gov/news_events/privilege-managementworkshop/presentations/Krasnow_Waterman.pdf Privilege Management 

Workshop. September 1, 2009. Last Accessed 10/05/09. 

	 Westman, Roger. “What Constitutes an Authoritative Attribute Source?” 

http://csrc.nist.gov/news_events/privilege-managementworkshop/presentations/Roger_Westman.pdf Privilege Management Workshop. 

September 2, 2009. Last Accessed 10/05/09. 

3 
 

Appendix A: Proceedings of the Plenary Question and Answer 

Session 

Question/Comment Answer/Response 

Introductory Access Control Framework 

What are your thoughts on real-time risk 

management? 

Stakeholders need to consider the risks and 

benefits of dynamically allowing access versus 

the risks and benefits of providing 

inappropriate access to a resource. These 

risks will be different depending on whether 

the organization in question is a profit-making 

company or a military organization. There is 

no single acceptable answer for everyone and 

every situation. 

Where does federation fit into the framework I have no opinion on federation at this 

that you presented and what about crossing moment. The topic of federation and whether 

authority boundaries? and how it fits into privilege management is 

something that the tracks will address during 

the workshop. 

Policy Machine 

There is a need for standardized definitions of 

Policy Enforcement Point and Policy Decision 

Point. With regards to the Policy Machine, are 

there any papers that support the details of the 

work that the team can make available? 

Yes. The policy machine team has papers, 

specifications, reference implementations, etc. 

What is the difference between XACML 

(eXtensible Access Control Markup Language) 

and the Policy Machine? 

XACML is based on a language. It does not 

deal with processes like cut-and-paste, etc. 

XACML is only a way to specify policy, not a 

way to enforce policy, which the policy 

machine is able to do. 

4 
FICAM 

How extensible are Personal Identity The goal is to minimize the number of PIVs 

Verification (PIV) credentials? and to have interoperable systems that include 

attribute management. Another goal is to be 

able to provision and validate identities across 

the board. PIVs need to be extensible to 

accomplish all of that. 

Strong authentication is stable with Public Key There is a Defense Information Systems 

Infrastructure (PKI). Does Authorization need Agency's request for proposal (DISA RFP) 

commensurate levels? coming for authorization, product evaluations, 

and procurement in FY11. 

A federation component is going to be needed The Chief Information Officers (CIO) council 

in order to access policies. Will there be rules has an ICAM subgroup that should focus on 

in the framework on how to validate or verify addressing those issues. 

access control policies like the Liberty Alliance 

uses with third-party assessors? 

Has there been an uptake on Information 

Cards? 

InfoCards have not taken off yet. 

RAdAC 

Is RAdAC a model or a set of requirements? There are many ways to quantify risk and 

there are many ways to implement RAdAC. 

There are still pieces that need to be 

addressed. RAdAC is more of a concept than 

a model at this point. 

RAdAC conceptually feels good but the devil is 

in the details. What has been done to socialize 

and quantify risk? 

IBM has done some work in this area. For 

RAdAC to be successful the capabilities have 

to be put out in parallel and we need to 

develop the knowledge base so that 

appropriate risk models are put in place. Also, 

the infrastructure for Attribute-based Access 

Control (ABAC) needs to be in place. 

Will there be a human in the loop in RAdAC 

deployments? 

Initially, there will be a human in the loop, but 

the vision is to have a fully automated system. 

Who is held accountable in a RAdAC Who will be responsible is going to depend on 

environment if a machine makes all the access who sets and manages the policy, whether 

control decisions? Many people will be that is the CIO, the CISO or the data owner, 

nervous about removing a human from the etc. 

loop because of a perceived lack of 

accountability. 

Could RAdAC allow only partial access to a 

resource in order to offset the risks of not 

having a human in the loop? 

RAdAC does not have to be a yes or no 

answer. Provisions could be made to 

leverage “hints.” 

5 
Health IT 

What are the privacy implications of the 

government mandate that all health records be 

digitized by 2014? Big Brother is not just the 

U.S government. Isn’t there a risk that 

centralization in the private sector could pose 

privacy concerns? 

From a U.S. government point of view, 

centralization is not an option because the 

public may perceive the government taking on 

the role of “big brother.” The goal of making 

health records digitized and available online is 

to have a network of networks in which Health 

Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 

(HIPAA) will be the standard with which 

everyone must comply. This would take the 

pressure off the U.S. government and place 

responsibility onto the owners and stewards of 

the data. 

60-80% of the medical practitioners are not 

from “technical” backgrounds. Does that shift 

concerns away from privacy and onto 

availability of the health data? 

Yes. The more medical practitioners rely on 

online data, the more this reliance will drive 

the requirements for availability guarantees. 

6