Previous page:Finding privacy solutions to federated identity
Potential challenges
"Unfortunately, once these systems are put in, nobody wants to back out of them when they find out they aren't entirely standards-based. Government organizations should ask vendors directly about open standards and demand it in writing so it becomes a service level agreement - and if in fact the system doesn't work openly later, there's financial recourse," Chevalier adds.
There are other potential technology snafus lurking in the architecture of federated identity management systems. "When people talk about federation, they often talk about it at an object level," explains Chevalier. For example, John Smith is considered an object with identifying attributes such as a name, address and so on. "There are some attributes citizens may not care if they're shared with other organizations to improve their user experience, and others they absolutely don't want shared."
Trust mechanisms need to be built at the attribute level, not the object, he says. Two branches of government with standalone identity management systems may choose to federate the identities of their constituents. But issues may arise if the way objects and their attributes are defined in each system aren't considered. "If the federation agreement is not articulated correctly, some of these constituents' attributes may be trusted into another department where you don't want them to go."
Canadian directions
Although several standalone identity management systems have been implemented within the Canadian government, the concept is still relatively new, says Pierre Boucher, senior director of architecture and standards at the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS). The TBS has been focussing on creating a common set of terms and definitions for identity management concepts to bring clarity to discussions. "Many think identity management is just about provisioning users with authentication mechanisms, so we need to ensure people are talking about the same thing," he says.
The Canadian government is in the early stages of creating a framework for cross-jurisdictional identity management, he says. "There are no policies yet in this area." But the TBS's 2007 Transformation Strategy notes there are many benefits in a federated identity management approach, where each program does not have to provide its own set of authentication and identity-proving mechanisms, and this approach also improves the user experience.
In 2006, an inter-jurisdictional identity management and authentication task force (IATF) was set up to look at ways to accelerate progress in this area and to make recommendations about implementing a pan-Canadian identification and authentication framework. In its April 2007 interim report, the IATF highlighted some of the drivers in this area, from citizens' desire for seamless delivery of services to the government's need to increase program integrity and efficiency. Seven jurisdictions have an inter-departmental identity management initiative planned, and three have launched pilots: the GoC's ePass-Portageur, BC's BCeID, and Quebec's ClicSequr.
The report also identified key challenges in developing more inter-jurisdictional programs. Currently, there are no universal standards or processes for identifying an individual across Canada - the types of documents issued to prove identity and the identifiers required for government services vary from one area to another.
The report also noted there are limited connections within and across jurisdictions for real-time sharing and verification of identity information, which could contribute to fraud if there are time lags in exchanging identity information.
Lastly, many identification methods are based on names, but there are many variants - nicknames, shortened versions, different spellings - which make matching individuals across databases very difficult.
As CGR went to press in November, a ministers' conference was planned in Halifax to consider the IATF's final findings and recommendations.
The American way
The U.S. has already started down the path towards federated identity management in its policies and infrastructure. The government has articulated three high-level policies to guide the development of identity management initiatives, says Temoshok. "Our starting place from a policy standpoint is that we don't want to create a national ID card, we don't want to use a unique identifier, be it the social security number (SSN) or another ID, and we're not going to assemble a single registry of identity information about citizens."
The open and interoperable federated identity model being developed by the Liberty Alliance aligns well with the federal government's objectives, he says. The GSA recently mandated passing the Liberty Alliance's SAML 2.0 interoperability testing as a prerequisite for participating in the U.S. e-authentication identity federation.
"We have several dozen agencies using the common SAML network that we've implemented for identity federation," he says, adding that many countries such as the UK, Australia and France are also basing their initiatives on the Liberty Alliance's standards.
The need for standardized technology tools to support federated identity management will only expand as governments move more of their business online, he says. "But what we're seeing in the U.S. and worldwide is that simply establishing standards doesn't ensure vendors will in fact interpret those standards in exactly the same way, so we wind up seeing differences in products."
Initially, the U.S. government established its own testing program to ensure the interoperability of all the identity management protocols and products it uses, he says.B But it now works with Liberty Alliance for this validation. "What the Liberty Alliance has since done is establish an industry-based testing program for SAML products. This is crucial for organizations like ours - we can't pick a single product for the entire federal government and must support multiple products."
While interoperability is an issue, a more fundamental issue is developing common definitions and levels of identity that various federal departments can trust and share in a federated model.
"Interoperability of trust means being able to trust the identity management policies, practices and credentials of other organizations. What we're seeing is the development of trust models where trust policies can be mapped, where procedures can be audited to determine compliance with policy, and where we can assert those policies and procedures for the future through agreements among parties," says Temoshok.
Due to privacy concerns, the U.S. government is proceeding cautiously down the path of cross-jurisdictional sharing of identity information, he says. Identity information can be shared among agencies within the confines of privacy legislation if there's consumer consent. "For SAML-based identity federation, we do allow exchange of basic personal information, but it's not a long laundry list, and it's primarily used to ensure it's the same John Smith in two agencies. We have specific laws that permit that type of matching to ensure we're managing our programs properly."
Getting common identity definitions and models in place is a first step towards the next level, which is more cross-jurisdictional information sharing, he says. "You can't have interoperability if you're not starting with a common data model, otherwise you're just sharing meaningless data. Interoperability is about exchanging meaningful data across jurisdictions, and you need to start with common data definitions. To some extent, government organizations have started looking across the landscape to identify who they might need to share data with. It may seem like they're moving slowly, but this is really an important first step."
Continued:Canada Revenue Agency's identity management initiatives
Related content:
Understanding federated identity
Province of B.C. readies federated identity model
icon.
