Transcript WS-I Overview Presentation

Promoting Web services interoperability across platforms,
applications and programming languages
Paul Cotton, Microsoft
June, 2004
Outline









2
Introduction
WS-I goals
WS-I organization and deliverables
Web services security standards
OASIS WS-Security TC
WS-I Basic Security Profile Working Group
WS-I Security Scenarios
WS-I Basic Security Profile 1.0
Questions
THE CONTEXT
 The shift to Web services is underway
 An Internet-native distributed computing model based on XML
standards has emerged
 Early implementations are solving problems today and generating
new requirements
 The Web services standards stack is increasing in size and
complexity to meet these requirements
 The fundamental characteristic of Web services is
interoperability
3
THE CHALLENGE
 “[the] architecture of Web services is not fully crystallized.
Without guidance, standards may fragment”
Gartner
 “Inevitably, companies involved with Web services will
define them in their own way. The term Web services will
be a messy catchall phrase.”
Intelligent Enterprise
 “standards…allow Web services to overcome the barriers
of different programming languages, operating systems,
and vendor platforms so multiple applications can
interact.”
eWeek
4
THE OPPORTUNITY
Market Impact
1997
HTTP, HTML
5
XML
Web Services
1999
2001
2003
WS-I formed
1995
2005
WHAT IS NEEDED?
 Guidance
 A common definition for Web services
 Implementation guidance and support for Web services adoption
 Interoperability
 Across platforms, applications, and languages
 Consistent, reliable interoperability between Web services
technologies from multiple vendors
 A standards integrator to help Web services advance in a
structured, coherent manner
6
GOALS
 Achieve Web services interoperability
 Across platforms, applications and languages
 Encourage Web services adoption
 Among customers, industries and end users
 Accelerate Web services deployment
7
ACHIEVE INTEROPERABILITY
 Promote a common, clear definition for Web services
 Integrate specifications from various standards bodies
 Provide a visible representation of conformance through
use of WS-I logo
8
ENCOURAGE ADOPTION
 Build industry consensus to reduce early adopter risks
 Provide a forum for end users to communicate
requirements
 Act as a customer advocate to raise awareness of
business requirements
9
ACCELERATE DEPLOYMENT
 Offer implementation guidance and best practices
 Deliver tools and sample applications
 Provide a forum for Web services developers to
collaborate and share expertise
10
ORGANIZATION
 Board of directors
 Management and administration body
 Ensure the organization and its working groups adhere to their
defined scope
 Working groups
 Develop materials and other deliverables to aid Web services
interoperability
 Membership
 Vote to approve adoption and distribution of any materials
developed by the working groups
11
TECHNICAL WORKING GROUPS
 Basic Profile
 Chris Ferris, IBM
 Scenarios and Sample Applications
 Marc Goodner, SAP
 Testing Tools and Materials
 Narendra Patil, Optimyz Software
 Basic Security Profile
 Paul Cotton, Microsoft
 Requirements Gathering
 Rimas Rekasius, IBM
12
WORKING GROUP DELIVERABLES
 Profiles
 Named groups of specifications at given version levels with
conventions about how they work together
 Use cases and usage scenarios
 Solution scenarios based on customer requirements
 Sample code and applications
 Test suites and supporting materials
 Conformance testing tools
 Supporting documentation and white papers
13
SAMPLE DELIVERABLES
scenarios and
sample
use cases
usage scenarios
applications
web services
profiles
basic profile
testing tools
and materials
14
testing
tools
other test
materials
sample
applications
PROFILES
 Provide guidance on general purpose Web services
functionality
 Address interoperability at a level above specification-byspecification
 Supporting specifications and standards will be
considered from multiple industry sources
 Profile development will reflect market needs and
requirements
15
USE OF DELIVERABLES
 The public is free (and encouraged) to
 Download, use, and review each Profile
 Download and use test tools and material to test their applications
 Download, use, modify, and redistribute WS-I sample applications
 Adopters may (in addition to the above)
 Reproduce and redistribute specifications with their products
 Members may (in addition to all of the above)
 Ship test tools and material (as is or modified) within their
products
19
KEY MILESTONES

Delivered Basic Profile 1.0 (Aug, 2003)
 Profile of SOAP 1.1, WSDL 1.1, UDDI 2.0


Delivered Sample Applications 1.0 (Dec, 2003)
Delivered Basic Profile 1.1, Attachments Profile 1.0 and Simple SOAP
Binding Profile 1.0 Working Group Drafts (Dec, 2003)
 Reorganization of Basic Profile 1.0
 Profile of SOAP with Attachments




Delivered Security Scenarios Working Group Draft (Feb, 2004)
Delivered Testing Tools 1.0 (Mar, 2004)
Delivered Basic Security Profile Working Draft (May, 2004)
Future
 Final materials on BP 1.1, AP 1.0, SSBP 1.0
 Final materials on BSP 1.0
 More Testing and Sample Apps materials
22
WS-I AND STANDARDS BODIES
 Web services standards come from a variety of bodies
 W3C, OASIS, IETF, ISO, ECMA, etc.
 WS-I is a standards integrator
 Downstream from standards organizations
 Upstream from industry and industry consortia
 Ensure interoperability of implementations
 Collaboration with other bodies is a requirement
23
WS-I, STANDARDS AND INDUSTRY
Standards and
Specifications
Requirements
Requirements
Implementation
Guidance
Businesses, Industry Consortia, Developers, End-Users
24
WS-I AND STANDARDS BODIES
 Support relationships with standards bodies who own
specifications referenced by WS-I profiles
 Ensure consistency
 Minimize redundancy
 Foster communication and cooperation with industry
consortia and other organizations
25
WEB SERVICES SECURITY STANDARDS
WSSecureConversation
WS-Policy
WS-Federation
WS-Trust
WS-Authorization
WS-Privacy
XKMS
SAML
XACML
SPML
WS-Security
SOAP Foundation
27
XML
Encryption
XML
Digital
Signature
OASIS WS SECURITY TC
 OASIS Web Services Security TC created September, 2002
 Interoperability testing Summer 2003
 Voted Committee Draft September, 2003
Core specification plus Username and X.509 tokens




Public Review completed October, 2003
Adopted as OASIS standard in January, 2004
REL (XRML) token type voted CD June, 2004
Other token types under interoperability testing
Kerberos, SAML, etc.
28
OASIS WSS
 Security Header
Can contain mustUnderstand
Can be addressed to Role
 Tokens
Associated with signature or encryption or otherwise used to identify party
to message exchange
Binary Token - encapsulates binary object
 X.509 certificate – defined by ITU/IETF
 Kerberos ticket – defined by IETF/Microsoft
XML Token – inserted as is
 Username Token – defined by OASIS WSS TC
 SAML Assertion – defined by OASIS SS TC
 REL (XrML License) – defined by ContentGuard
29
OASIS WSS
 Security Token Reference
 Points to or encapsulates a token
 Four types
 Direct – URI or URI fragment
 Key Identifier – specific to token type – identifies key, certificate, ticket, assertion, etc.
 Key Name – identifies token by content, e.g. SubjectName
 Embedded – encapsulates token, allows association of additional information with token
 Signature element
 New transform - STR Dereference Transform
 Encryption ReferenceList or EncryptedKey elements
 Timestamp element
 Only applies to security mechanisms
 Created and/or Expires
30
WS-I BASIC SECURITY PROFILE WG
 BSP WG chartered in March, 2003
 Two initial deliverables
Security Scenarios
Basic Security Profile 1.0
Based of Basic Profile 1.0 and the following technologies:
– HTTP over TLS
– SOAP with Attachments
– WSS and X.509, username & Kerberos tokens
Complete by 9 months after WSS is Committee Draft
(Sep, 2003)
 Large WG with over 20 active member companies
31
SECURITY SCENARIOS WORKING DRAFT
 Security Challenges
 Threats
 Security Solutions and Mechanisms
 Transport Layer & Message (SOAP) Layer
 Scenarios
 Generic Requirements (no scenario-specific ones yet)
 Scenarios (From WS-I Sample Applications)
 One-way
 Synchronous Request/Response
 Basic Callback
 Others?
 Feb 2004 draft for public comment
 http://ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicSecurity/2004-02/SecurityScenarios-0.15-WGD.pdf
32
SECURITY SCENARIO SECTIONS
Challenges
Threats
33
Scenarios
Mechanisms
THREATS – IN SCOPE
 In scope
Message Alteration
Attachment Alteration
Confidentiality
Falsified Messages
Man in the Middle
Principal Spoofing
Repudiation
Forged Claims
Replay of Message Parts
Replay
Denial of Service - Amplifier
34
THREATS – OUT OF SCOPE
 Out of Scope
Key Attack / Weak Algorithm
Traffic Analysis
Host Penetration / Access
Network Penetration / Access
Timing
Covert Channels
Message Archives
Network Spoofing
Trojan Horse
Virus
Tunneling
Denial of Service - Other
35
SECURITY SOLUTIONS AND MECHANISMS
 Integrity, Confidentiality, Authentication, Attributes
 Transport Layer (HTTP/HTTPS)
HTTP & SSL/TLS mechanisms
 Message Layer
WSS mechanisms
 Combinations
Large number of theoretically possible combinations
Identified nine believed to be of practical utility
 Security Considerations
Properties, Threats addressed, Limitations
36
SECURITY CHALLENGES
 Peer Identification and Authentication
 Data Origin Identification and Authentication
 Data Integrity
Transport Data Integrity
SOAP Message Integrity
 Data Confidentiality
Transport Data Confidentiality
SOAP Message Confidentiality
 Message Uniqueness
 Out of Scope
Credentials Issuance
37
SCENARIOS
 Notations and conventions
 Generic requirements
Peer Authentication
Integrity
Confidentiality
Origin Authentication
 Scenario descriptions
One-Way
Synchronous Request / Response
Basic Callback
Others?
38
SECURITY SCENARIOS - CURRENT WORK
 How to secure SOAP with Attachments used by Attachment
Profile 1.0?
 WG Charter originally proposed S/MIME
 WG has decided that it is better to extend Web Services
Security to handle AP 1.0
 OASIS WSS TC now working on a proposed solution
 Final Security Scenarios expected in Aug, 2004
39
WS-I BASIC SECURITY PROFILE (BSP) 1.0
 Guiding principles of profile design
 No guarantee of interoperability
 Focus profiling effort
 Application semantics
 Testability
 Strength of requirements
 Restriction vs. relaxation
 Multiple mechanisms
 Future compatibility
 Compatibility with deployed services
 Focus on interoperability
 Conformance targets
 Do no harm
40
WS-I BASIC SECURITY PROFILE (BSP) 1.0
 Methodology
Reviewed WSS Documents (WSS core, username, X.509)
 Comments to WSS TC
 Generated potential profiling points (captured as issues)
Reviewed underlying documents
 IETF RFCs covering TLS
 XML Signature, XML Encryption
 Identified 90+ potential profiling points by looking for anything
other than MUST (e.g. optionality in spec)
 Many have since been dropped
 First public WD published May, 2004
http://ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicSecurityProfile-1.0-2004-05-12.html
41
BSP 1.0 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
 Cover SSL?
Yes, mentioned in WS-I Basic Profile 1.0
 Address SOAP Intermediaries?
Yes, must be considered because of security implications
 What will document look like?
Identify constraints by category, as in Basic Profile
 If and how to handle security considerations?
Added security considerations section even though it is not testable
 One profile or several?
BSP 1.0 will be one document
Subsequent token profiles can be published separately
 How to secure Attachment Profile 1.0?
Decided to use WSS and to request OASIS TC to do this work
42
EXAMPLE REQUIREMENT
4. Transport Layer Security
This section of the Profile incorporates the following specifications by reference, and
defines extensibility points within them:
 HTTP over TLS
Extensibility points:
 E0001 - Ciphersuites - Additional ciphersuites may be specified.
4.1 SSL and TLS
The following specifications (or sections thereof) are referred to in this section of the
Profile;
HTTP over TLS: Section 2.2.1
SSL and TLS are both used as underlying protocols for HTTP/S. This profile places the
following constraints on those protocols:
4.1.1 Use of SSL 2.0
SSL 2.0 has known security issues and all current implementations of HTTP/S support
more recent protocols. Therefore this profile prohibits use of SSL 2.0.
R2001 A SENDER MUST NOT use SSL 2.0 as the underlying protocol for HTTP/S
R2002 A RECEIVER MUST NOT use SSL 2.0 as the underlying protocol
for HTTP/S
43
OTHER BSP 1.0 DELIVERABLES
scenarios and
sample
use cases
usage scenarios
applications
web services
profile
basic security profile
testing tools
and materials
44
testing
tools
other test
materials
sample
applications
TESTING AND DEMONSTRATING BSP 1.0
 How to test Basic Security Profile 1.0?
BP 1.0 Testing Tools used a man in the middle testing strategy
Will this work for BSP 1.0 since one of its objectives is to stop man
in the middle attacks?
What level does the testing take place at?
Highest level message syntax?
After parts of the message have been decrypted?
 BSP sample applications and usage scenarios
Based on sample application for BP 1.0 adding security aspects
45
FUTURE WORK PLANS
 Security Scenarios
Add text for attachments using WSS
Final material ETA: Aug, 2004
 Basic Security Profile 1.0
Small number of issues pending work by OASIS TC
Add text for attachments using WSS pending work by OASIS TC
Final material ETA: Sep, 2004
 Additional token profiles
Candidates include Kerberos, REL, SAML
Depends on progress by OASIS TC
Final material ETA: Nov, 2004
46
QUESTIONS
 Today
 Later
mailto:[email protected]
 Comments on BSP documents
mailto:[email protected]
 Security Scenarios published Feb, 2004
http://ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicSecurity/2004-02/SecurityScenarios0.15-WGD.pdf
 BSP 1.0 WD published May, 2004
http://ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicSecurityProfile-1.0-2004-05-12.html
47