incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jan i <>
Subject [VOTE] [PROPOSAL] Accept OpenAz (Access Control Tools) into the Apache Incubator
Date Tue, 13 Jan 2015 20:08:54 GMT
+1 binding

have fun
jan i

On Tuesday, January 13, 2015, Alan D. Cabrera <
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','');>> wrote:

> +1 binding
> Regards,
> Alan
> > On Jan 5, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Hal Lockhart <>
> wrote:
> >
> > I call a vote to accept OpenAz as a new Incubator project.
> >
> > The proposal can be found here:
> >
> > and is included below in this email.
> >
> > Voting will remain open until at least January 20, 2015 23:00 ET.
> >
> > Hal Lockhart
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Abstract
> >
> > OpenAz is a project to create tools and libraries to enable the
> development of Attribute-based Access Control (ABAC) Systems in a variety
> of languages. In general the work is at least consistent with or actually
> conformant to the OASIS XACML Standard.
> >
> > Proposal
> >
> > Generally the work falls into two categories: ready to use tools which
> implement standardized or well understood components of an ABAC system and
> design proposals and proof of concept code relating to less well understood
> or experimental aspects of the problem.
> >
> > Much of the work to date has revolved around defining interfaces
> enabling a PEP to request an access control decision from a PDP. The XACML
> standard defines an abstract request format in xml and protocol wire
> formats in xaml and json, but it does not specify programmatic interfaces
> in any language. The standard says that the use of XML (or JSON) is not
> required only the semantic equivalent.
> >
> > The first Interface, AzAPI is modeled closely on the XACML defined
> interface, expressed in Java. One of the goals was to support calls to both
> a PDP local to the same process and a PDP in a remote server. AzAPI
> includes the interface, reference code to handle things like the many
> supported datatypes in XACML and glue code to mate it to the open source
> Sun XACML implementation.
> >
> > Because of the dependence on Sun XACML (which is XACML 2.0) the
> interface was missing some XACML 3.0 features. More recently this was
> corrected and WSo2 has mated it to their XACML 3.0 PDP. Some work was done
> by the JPMC team to support calling a remote PDP. WSo2 is also pursuing
> this capability.
> >
> > A second, higher level interface, PEPAPI was also defined. PEPAPI is
> more intended for application developers with little knowledge of XACML. It
> allows Java objects which contain attribute information to be passed in.
> Conversion methods, called mappers extract information from the objects and
> present it in the format expected by XACML. Some implementers have chosen
> to implement PEPAPI directly against their PDP, omitting the use of AzAPI.
> Naomaru Itoi defined a C++ interface which closely matches the Java one.
> >
> > Examples of more speculative work include: proposals for registration
> and dispatch of Obligation and Advice handlers, a scheme called AMF to tell
> PIPs how to retrieve attributes and PIP code to implement it, discussion of
> PoC code to demonstrate the use of XACML policies to drive OAuth
> interations and a proposal to use XACML policies to express OAuth scope.
> >
> > AT&T has recently contributed their extensive XACML framework to the
> project.
> >
> > The AT&T framework represents the entire XACML 3.0 object set as a
> collection of Java interfaces and standard implementations of those
> interfaces. The AT&T PDP engine is built on top of this framework and
> represents a complete implementation of a XACML 3.0 PDP, including all of
> the multi-decision profiles. In addition, the framework also contains an
> implementation of the OASIS XACML 3.0 RESTful API v1.0 and XACML JSON
> Profile v1.0 WD 14. The PEP API includes annotation functionality, allowing
> application developers to simply annotate a Java class to provide
> attributes for a request. The annotation support removes the need for
> application developers to learn much of the API.
> >
> > The AT&T framework also includes interfaces and implementations to
> standardize development of PIP engines that are used by the AT&T PDP
> implementation, and can be used by other implementations built on top of
> the AT&T framework. The framework also includes interfaces and
> implementations for a PAP distributed cloud infrastructure of PDP nodes
> that includes support for policy distribution and pip configurations. This
> PAP infrastructure includes a web application administrative console that
> contains a XACML 3.0 policy editor, attribute dictionary support, and
> management of PDP RESTful node instances. In addition, there are tools
> available for policy simulation.
> >
> > Background
> >
> > Access Control is in some ways the most basic IT Security service. It
> consists of making a decision about whether a particular request should be
> allowed and enforcing that decision. Aside from schemes like permission
> bits and Access Control Lists (ACLs) the most common way access control is
> implemented is as code in a server or application which typically
> intertwines access control logic with business logic, User interface and
> other software. This makes it difficult to understand, modify, analyze or
> even locate the security policy. The primary challenge of Access Control is
> striking the right balance between powerful expression and intelligibility
> to human beings.
> >
> > The OASIS XACML Standard exemplifies Attribute-Based Access Control
> (ABAC). In ABAC, the Policy Decision Point (PDP) is isolated from other
> components. The Policy Enforcement Point (PEP) must be located so as to be
> able to enforce the decision, typically near the resource. The PEP first
> asks the PDP if access should be allowed and provides data, in the form of
> Attributes, to be used as input to the policies held by the PDP.
> >
> > In addition to responding permit or deny, XACML allows a policy to emit
> Obligations or Advice, which direct the PEP to do certain things, such
> logging the access or failure or promising to get rid of the data after 30
> days.
> >
> > Attributes are identified as being in a certain category which
> represents one element in the proposed access. For example attributes may
> be associated with the resource being accessed, the action being taken or
> the environment, .e.g. date/time. Attributes may also be associated with
> any or several types of Subjects, which represent the active parties to the
> access, such as the requester, intermediaries, the recipient (if
> different), the codebase, the machine executing the code.
> >
> > Attributes may be provided by the PEP and usually at least a few are,
> but Attributes may also added by other components of the system. It is also
> possible for a PDP to add attributes in the middle of policy evaluation.
> All of these obtain Attributes from the Policy Information Point (PIP).
> >
> > The Policy Administration Point (PAP) creates policies and manages then
> through their life cycles and generally the entire infrastructure.
> >
> > The XACML language is essentially a set of expressions which evaluate to
> a Boolean. If true the policy is said to be applicable. The Policy contains
> permit or deny and may include Permissions and or Advice. If policies
> disagree we resolve the conflict with combining algorithms. XACML provides
> some standard ones and you can implement your own. Mostly they are common
> sense like drop non-applicable polices. A commonly used algorithm is
> default deny. Deny overrides permit.
> >
> > Rationale
> >
> > Access Control may be the most basic security service, but for the most
> part it remains primitive in practice. While other services like message
> protection and authentication have seen many advances in recent years and
> decades, deployed access control systems are opaque, difficult to us and
> harder to manage. Most organizations claim that they have security
> policies, protect privacy and accurately report financial results, but in
> practice they have no real way of discovering whether their systems
> actually behave the way they are alleged to do.
> >
> > Just the foreground problems relating to deploying practical ABAC
> systems make a formidable list. If only the PDP knows what the policies
> are, how do we make sure it gets the attributes it needs to evaluate
> policies? How can we name organize, register and dispatch Obligations and
> Advice, allowing handlers to be provided by the system and added by users?
> How can the XACML 3.0 feature of being able to create your own attribute
> categories best be supported by the infrastructure and utilized by users?
> What are the best ways to create and test policies? What tools will best
> help us analyze the effects of the policies in force?
> >
> > However, new requirements are rapidly being introduced and need to be
> met. Privacy requirements continue to increase in complexity and scope.
> Data which moves around, such as documents, need to be protected. We need
> secure ways to delegate authority without undermining the integrity of the
> access control system. New applications, business and social relationships
> are driving the need for new policy and delegation capabilities.
> >
> > We believe that the way to meet these challenges is to get more people
> actively engaged in using what is currently available so they can
> understand its limitations and make it better. We need to make it far
> easier to get a basic access control infrastructure up and running. We need
> more people who are familiar with XACML the way many people are familiar
> with SQL. If as some people say, XACML is the assembly language of access
> control, we need the real world experience with it that will lead us to the
> useful abstractions that can be implemented in higher level languages and
> other tools.
> >
> > Initial Goals
> >
> > Work is currently underway to extend the PEPAPI and increase its
> flexibility. Since it does not directly correspond to any standard the way
> AzAPI does, it is necessary to struggle with the issues of what to expose
> and what to hide from consumers of the API.
> >
> > Other work in progress involves the architecture of Obligations and
> Advice. There is also an effort to develop a remote client which can easily
> be dropped into any Java environment and make decision requests of any
> commercial or open source XACML PDP.
> >
> > The contribution of AT&T's framework creates a need to integrate the
> prior work with it. Most of the focus will be on AzAPI and the
> corresponding AT&T API, which do largely the same thing. The result is
> likely to be a synthesis, since each has features the other lacks. Then
> PEPAPI will need to be integrated with the new API. The AT&T PDP and PAP
> will be incorporated as is. There has been some parallel work done in the
> area of PIPs. Work will be required to understand how to proceed here.
> >
> > Current Status
> >
> > Meritocracy
> >
> > The project was started by Prateek Mishra, Rich Levinson and Hal
> Lockhart in 2010. Rich Levinson wrote most of the AzAPI and PEPAPI code.
> Naomaru Itoi defined the C++ version of the PEPAPI. In 2013 Duanhua Tu and
> Ajith Nair contributed code both using and extending AzAPI and PEPAPI and
> incorporating PIPs using the AMF as originally proposed by Hal Lockhart. In
> 2013 Erik Rissanen, Srijith Nair and Rich Levinson updated AzAPI to include
> all XACML 3.0 features. In 2014 Pam Dragosh and Chris Rath contributed the
> XACML infrastructure they had developed at AT&T.
> >
> > During most of its history the project has been very small and has made
> decisions by informal consensus. Major design issues have been decided by
> open debate. Minor issues and experimental proposals have been openly
> welcomed. Several of the participants have a background in open
> consensus-based standards making.
> >
> > In addition to the mailing list, the project has regular phone calls
> every other Thursday.
> >
> > Community
> >
> > The original focus of the project was to attract developers of XACML
> products, either individuals or corporations, and to build alignment among
> vendors on a common API that could simplify technical integration for their
> customers. As OpenAz has matured, our community has grown to include
> application developers working to adopt and deploy XACML in their
> applications. So, for example, contributions reflect what individual
> developers have learned in vertical industries such as financial services,
> healthcare, and computing and communications services, and our APIs and
> internal component architecture have evolved to reflect a strong practical
> understanding of what it takes to deploy XACML applications in a large
> organization.
> >
> > Core Developers
> >
> > The following developers have written most of the code to date.
> >
> > Pam Dragosh <pdragosh at research dot att dot com> Rich Levinson <
> rich.levinson at oracle dot com> Ajith Nair <ajithkumar.r.nair at jpmchase
> dot com> Chris Rath <car at research dot att dot com> Duanhua Tu
> <duanhua.tu at jpmchase dot com>
> >
> > The following people made other significant technical contributions.
> >
> > David Laurence <david.c.laurance at jpmorgan dot com> Hal Lockhart
> <hal.lockhart at oracle dot com> Prateek Mishra prateek.mishra at oracle
> dot com>
> >
> > Alignment
> >
> > It has always been a goal to make OpenAz an Apache project. The Apache
> license was used for all contributions. We believe the project has now
> reached a critical size in terms of developers, organizations and
> contributed code to make it appropriate to make a proposal to the Incubator.
> >
> > Known Risks
> >
> > Orphaned Projects
> >
> > Given the small size of the project, there is a risk of the project
> being orphaned. There seems to be strong interest in the use of our tools,
> which should markedly increase with the contribution of the AT&T code.
> "Where can I get an open source PDP?" and "where can I get an open source
> policy editor?" are frequent questions on XACML mailing lists.
> >
> > Inexperience with Open Source
> >
> > While few of the developers have extensive experience with open source,
> a number of us have long experience in standards making in open
> consensus-based environments. For example the XACML TC has operated since
> 2001 based on consensus building, with few, if any votes which were not
> unanimous. The main challenge to the project will be managing the process
> with more participants and a more formal process.
> >
> > Homogeneous Developers
> >
> > Currently all the contributors are employees either of companies
> offering an XACML product or large end users deploying XACML technology for
> internal use. The positive aspect is that they are all highly experienced
> senior developers used to operating in a disciplined environment. The
> disadvantage is that the focus to date has mostly been problems that arise
> in large scale environments typified by the infrastructure of large
> corporations.
> >
> > Reliance on Salaried Developers
> >
> > All current committers are salaried developers. However the
> organizations they work for have a long term commitment to the technology.
> We hope that in the Apache foundation we will be able to attract new
> developers to help us address the many fascinating unsolved technological
> problems associated with deploying ABAC.
> >
> > Relationship with other Apache Projects
> >
> > As far as we can determine, no existing Apache project overlaps with
> OpenAz in its goals of the technology developed so far. However, beyond the
> immediate project goals there are many potential opportunities for
> integration with existing Apache projects. Shiro, Turbine and WSS4J are
> Java frameworks which could incorporate XACML as the policy language using
> OpenAz components. Manifold CF, Qpid and Archiva already have hooks to
> incorporate external access control systems.
> >
> > An Excessive Fascination with the Apache Brand
> >
> > We hope that becoming an Apache project will not only attract new
> participants to OpenAz, but will draw attention to the neglected field of
> access control. As previously stated it has always been our goal to join
> Apache, the only question was when the time was ripe.
> >
> > Documentation
> >
> > The OpenAz web site is:
> >
> >
> >
> > Java docs can be found here:
> >
> >
> >
> > Initial Source
> >
> > The AzAPI, PEPAPI and other related code can be found on sourceforge:
> >
> >
> >
> > AT&T's framework can be found on github:
> >
> >
> >
> > Source and Intellectual Property Submission Plan
> >
> > All the OpenAz code has been submitted under the Apache 2.0 license. The
> AT&T software is available under the MIT license. Over time the project
> will move to a single license.
> >
> > External Dependencies
> >
> > There aren't any we are aware of.
> >
> > Cryptography
> >
> > OpenAz does not provide any cryptographic capabilities. The XACML
> Standard does specify some uses of cryptography directly, e.g. digital
> signatures over policies and others by implication, e.g. authentication via
> cryptography.
> >
> > Required Resources
> >
> > Mailing lists
> >
> > The standard lists should be sufficient at the current time.The mailing
> list name will be openaz.
> >
> > Git Directory
> >
> > We propose:
> >
> > Issue Tracking
> >
> > The project will use JIRA for issue tracking.
> >
> > Initial Committers
> >
> > Rich Levinson Hal Lockhart Prateek Mishra David Laurance Duanhua Tu
> Ajith Nair Srijith Nair Pam Dragosh Chris Rath
> >
> > Affiliations
> >
> > Rich Levinson, Hal Lockhart and Prateek Mishra work for Oracle. David
> Laurance, Duanhua Tu and Ajith Nair work for JP Morgan-Chase. Srijith Nair
> works for Axiomatics. Pam Dragosh and Chris Rath work for AT&T.
> >
> > Sponsors
> >
> > Champion
> >
> > Paul Fremantle
> >
> > Nominated Mentors
> >
> > Emmanuel L├ęcharny Colm O hEigeartaigh Hadrian Zbarcea
> >
> > Sponsoring Entity
> >
> > The Sponsoring Entity will be the Incubator.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message