Access management for repositories: challenges and approaches for MAMS

James Dalziel Professor of Learning Technology and Director, Macquarie E-Learning Centre Of Excellence (MELCOE) [email protected]

www.melcoe.mq.edu.au

Overview

• COLIS and access management • COLIS and DRM • Access management challenges • MAMS • Shibboleth and MAMS • Repository federation – search and access

COLIS and access management

• Demonstrator project based on open standards – IMS CP, IMS DRI, IMS LRM, ODRL • Five universities and five vendors – Many different conceptions of the problem – Language difficulties • The COLIS Demonstrator is not “the solution” – Work in progress to help uncover practical issues – Functioning Demonstrator for discussion

Systems Chunks in COLIS Learning Space Application Integration Content Management Learning Content Management Learning Management Library E-Services E-Reserve E-Journals Directory Services Integration Services Digital Rights Management

COLIS and access management

• Access management requirements – No modification to target systems – SSO “Deep linking” – Support multiple windows • Different approaches to solving access management – Large scale “corporate” solution – Small scale pragmatic approach, legacy systems

User Browser Login Form

COLIS SSO Model

User hasn’t logged in

LDAP Authentication

Authorisation DBase Application URL Authentication Challenge

Authentication Token

Web Page 1 User hasn’t logged in User has logged in

Access management challenges

• Need for practical, incremental solutions • Recognition of university systems environment – Legacy systems • No single solution will be sufficient – Need more than one way of accessing targets – “Multi-modal Single Sign On” • Intra-institutional and inter-institutional needs • Role of identity management – Directories

MAMS

• MAMS - “Meta Access Management System” • An umbrella system with numerous modules for access to different systems as required • Inter-institutional communication between MAMS

Current University Access Management Challenge Application A (requires scripting) x Access System (eg, Portal) One type of SSO mechanism (eg, Kerberos) ?

Directories x Application B (requires reverse proxy) x Application C (requires IP address restriction) Application D (requires Kerberos)

Other Institution MAMS Meta Access Management System (MAMS) Architecture Access System (eg, Portal) Scripting module Local MAMS Reverse proxy modules IP address restriction module Kerberos module Directories Application A (requires scripting) Application B (requires reverse proxy) Application C (requires IP address restriction) Application D (requires Kerberos)

Example MAMS Implementation (Type 4) X.500

Access System University B MAMS Access System University A MAMS Kerberos Certificate system LDAP Learning Management System (scripting enabled) Learning Object Management System (reverse proxy enabled) Library Premium Databases (IP restrictions enabled) Library Premium Databases (Kerberos enabled) Digital Rights Management System (Kerberos enabled)

Shibboleth and MAMS

• Shibboleth as best practice for cross-institutional connections • Standards basis to Shibboleth, eg SAML • Common elements – MAMS umbrella and Shibboleth – Shibboleth “resource handlers” and MAMS modules – Shibboleth inter-institutional federation • Links to other Internet2 projects, eg eduPerson

Example MAMS Implementation (Type 4) + Recent Projects overlay WALAP X.500

Access System MAMS University University B

Shibboleth

A Access System Kerberos Certificate system

MAMS (Resource Handlers)

WALAP LDAP PKI or other Digital Certificates Learning Management System (scripting enabled) Learning Object Management System (reverse proxy enabled) Library Premium Databases (IP restrictions enabled) Library Premium Databases (Kerberos enabled) Digital Rights Management System (Kerberos enabled)

MAMS Project Components

(1) Iterative demonstrations to help drive the gathering of user requirements (2) Development of common services prototypes – Intra-institutional multi-modal SSO – Inter-institutional access management • Attribute exchange (Shibboleth) • Automation of policy – Federated and extensible identity – Other common services: DRM, search, metadata (3) Implementation advice and programs

Repository Federation - Search

• The problem of “portal envy” • Search as an “anonymous” service, rather than building “one portal to rule them all” – No one may know of the existence of your repository until they access a specific item from someone’s search gateway (based on harvesting/federation of your MD) • The importance of Federated Search Gateways – COLIS experiences

Repository Federation - Search - COLIS

LOM Metadata

CP

XML

Z39.50

LOM Metadata LOM Metadata OAI Server

OAI Harvest

SRW Server

SRU

OAI Server

OAI Harvest

E-Reserve DC+ext Metadata Library Catalogues

Z39.50

XML

Z39.50

Web Content

InfoSeefer

Repository Federation - Access

• If content is free to the world (including no restrictions on potential commercial use), then access restrictions are not normally a concern

Otherwise….

• Traditional access restrictions across repositories – Endless names and password, management nightmare • Or…federated access using attribute exchange – The next generation - but requires important changes to how repositories handle access issues – Non trivial technical challenges to repository architecture

Conclusion

• Access management is a key element of research (and other) common services infrastructure • Need for Demonstrator, incremental development, recognition of current university realities • No single SSO method will be sufficient • Importance of open standards • Common ground between – MAMS and Shibboleth – MAMS and repository projects – MAMS and vendors