PublicKey Infrastructure for Higher Education Mark Luker EDUCAUSE

Public-Key Infrastructure for Higher Education Mark Luker EDUCAUSE

EDUCAUSE is. . . • An association of over 1, 800 colleges, universities, and corporate partners – professional education and best practice – Net@EDU for advanced networking – NLII for distributed learning – Government and campus policy • Partner with I 2 and SURA on NMI

What’s new in technology? • • affordable “human” interactions affordable digital content affordable networked communications This changes everything!

What is different this time? • Convergence to common digital forms – incredible reduction in unit costs – incredible resource sharing – speeds both innovation and production • Global sharing of opportunities – technology, information, human

Why critical for higher ed? • Our stock is in knowledge and information • Our core activities focus on learning, research, analysis, dissemination, preservation … • All can be improved through better, cheaper, broader, faster communications • Irrational exuberance?

Major barrier to success • • • Low level of “trust” on the Internet Who are you really dealing with? How do you know? Is this signed document authentic? Can you prove it? Can the Internet support our core business?

Fact… Networked applications require an environment of rules and law: – Official and personal transactions – Shared resources and collaboration – Distributed systems and information – B 2 B and web services – Networked organization – Distributed learning – Networked research

Aspects of trusted communications • • • Authentication Data integrity Confidentiality Non-repudiation Authorization

All a matter of degree • Assurance of products and services – Liabilities and regulations • Balance costs and risks – Physical and network security – Policies and procedures – Penalty of regulations and law – Insurance and indemnification • Traditional business models

Passwords fail the test • • • Either hard to remember or easy to guess Difficult and expensive to manage Towers of Babel Lock you into online transactions Low level of trust

PKI - the only known solution • • Issue a unique, digital “cert” to each person Guard and manage it with high security Use it automatically to prove identity Can support digital signatures – Provides all five types of trust – For both transactions and documents – Fits normal business models

What is needed in a PKI? • A registration authority (RA) that performs the physical identity checks • A Certificate Authority (or CA) that issues, manages, and vouches for the certs • An “authoritative” directory of roles • Standards, policies, training, oversight

What else is needed? • “PKI Aware” applications that automatically use the certs and the directory – Browsers, email, online transactions – Digital signatures • Business rules for trusted communications • Re-engineer business workflow

The ROI? (Wrong term? ) • Costs similar to ERP – Big bucks for full implementation – Hardware and software only a small part – A long-term, ongoing investment • Rewards even larger than ERP – Efficiency – A basic necessity for e-education

Mathematical underpinnings • Asymmetric or Public Key cryptography • Encode and decode messages using a common algorithm with pairs of “keys” – Only you have your private key – Everyone else has your public key • Either key can encode a message – Only the other key can then decode it • It is “impossible” to determine your private key from your public key

Confidentiality • To send a confidential message to Mary – Encode message with Mary’s public key – She decodes it with her private key • To save a confidential copy of a message – Encode message with your own public key – Decodes it later with your private key • What if you lose your private key? – Key escrow - a system to recover lost keys – Once a big policy flap with the feds

Non-repudiation • Send a message “guaranteed to be from you” – Send the message coded with your private key – Mary decodes it with your public key – If this works, it is really from you • Also called technical non-repudiation: – No one else could have sent the message – ASSUMING no one else has your private key

Integrity • Send a signed document to Mary – Compute a “ 1 -way hash” of the message – Encode the hash using your private key • Send message + coded hash to Mary – Mary decodes hash with your public key – She recomputes the hash from the message and compares with the decoded hash • If they match, it guarantees integrity • Can do all combinations with Digital Signatures

What for? Authorization • Provide controlled access to resources – Use certificate to determine identity – Check for appropriate authorization using access lists, class membership rules, etc. – Store attributes in a directory • Problems? – Need expiration dates and revocation lists – Must be alert to privacy concerns – Need high quality, secure directory!

Assumptions • You and only you have your private key – Never escrow your private signing key – Must use two pairs of keys – Must revoke obsolete or lost keys • Keys are easy to use – PKI-enabled applications • Everyone has access to your public key – And they can trust that it is really yours

Challenges • Must prevent brute force attacks – Key size, algorithms, management, guard dogs • Where to keep your private key? – Your head? your hard drive? the network? – Smart cards, biometrics • How to publish your public key and guarantee it is yours?

How to share public keys? • Can share one-to-one, but does not scale – How can a published key be trusted? • Breakthrough – Send the public key in a Certificate signed by a trusted, third party – This Certificate Authority or CA vouches for the identity and public key of the sender – We recognize and trust the CA due to its process, rules, reputation, and liability

Managing trust in communities • Can’t have just one CA for the entire world • Hierarchical models have a root CA that determines overall policy requirements – System, Campuses, Colleges – State, System, … – Veri. Sign, Campuses, … • Trust partners in a common framework – Trust, risk, and liability – Works like a family tree • Must validate certs through chains of trust

Early projects • • • University of Texas system University of California system University of Pittsburgh CREN early adopters Digital library federation Federal agencies – especially Defense Automotive Network Exchange American Bankers Association Health Key

Stepping up to the next level • Need to work with certs across communities • Difficult and expensive to manage separate certs for separate applications • Risk PKI Tower of Babel • Would like to use your “main” identity in most transactions • Need to validate certs from other root CAs

Collaboration between root CAs • Establish trust through “sufficient” commonality of process and policy – A job for lawyers and managers – Enforced by technology, management, contract • Cross-certify peer CAs – Trust each other, vouch for it – Examine detailed policy documents – Sign certificates for each other’s public keys

Implementing trust between CAs • The number of pairwise agreements between N CAs is about N squared / 2 – Pairwise trust between 1, 000 root campus CAs requires the work of 1 million lawyers – Try to use a small number of root CAs • Breakthrough – Use a common “bridge CA” in the middle – Translate trust between N kinds of certificates – Requires only 2 x N lawyers

The bridge solution • Translates certs and levels of trust from one PKI to another • Provides online verification that a cert issued by another system is valid • Provides interoperability across vendors • (Solves the N-squared problem of trust)

Federal Bridge • FBCA connects CAs for federal agencies – Recognizes de facto autonomy – Supports common vendors – Authority of Federal CIO Council – 150 -page detailed policy statement – New implementation by Mitre. Tek – Online now

Higher Education Bridge • HEBCA proposed for higher ed CAs – Recognizes actual autonomy – Supports common vendors – Authority of ? ? ? – Mimic federal policy statement – Prototype implementation by Mitre. Tek – Online for testing now • Cross-certify to the federal bridge!

Example • Campuses join some hierarchical CA – Can interoperate through HEBCA • Big bonus – Can interoperate through FBCA with feds – NSF, NIH, VA, INS, DOD, Ed, HHS, … • Trial projects – Campus – HBCA – FBCA – NIH – Campus - FSA

EDUCAUSE / NIH pilot • Build bridges for Federal Government and Higher Education • Hook them together (with trust!) • Demonstrate that this model could support trusted communications between any campus and federal agency • Won the Pioneer “Best of the Best” award

A Picture is Worth Five Slides HEBCA E-Lock FBCA Internet University of Wisconsin. Madison E-Lock Assured Office Digital Signed Grant App. Certificate Validation UW-M E-Lock Assured Office Digital Signed Grant App. NIH Recipient Dartmouth College Certificate Validation UA-B NIH Mail Server University of Assured Office Alabama. Digital Signed Grant App. Birmingham Certificate Validation Dart. C Middleware: CAM with DAVE E-Lock Assured Office CAM-enabled

Advantages of the bridge approach • Campuses and agencies can use their own PKI vendors, identification, and signatures. • They do not have to create new certificates or passwords for each new application. • They have a standard way to check credentials received from one another. • Could be used for trusted correspondence between higher education and NIH, NSF, NASA, FSA, INS, IRS, VA, Do. D, ….

Role of EDUCAUSE • Implement the bridge for higher education – Interoperate with vendors and feds – Alliance with ACE for authority – Collaborate with Internet 2 on technology – Focus in Net@EDU working group on PKI • Arranging trials with Mitre. Tek, Feds, NIH, and several campuses

People Glue It All Together • • • Clair Goldsmith, University of Alabama-Birmingham Jill Gemmill, University of Alabama-Birmingham Keith Hazelton, University of Wisconsin-Madison Eric Norman, University of Wisconsin-Madison Bob Brentrup, Dartmouth College Ed Feustel, Dartmouth College Michael Gettes, Georgetown University; Internet 2 David Wasley, University of California Office of the President Bill Weems, University of Texas – Houston Health Science Center

D. Wasley’s PKI Puzzle

Campus next steps for PKI • Understand PKI as an institution • Implement initial components – CA services, directory, enabled applications – Policies, practices, contracts, business models – Stay within the emerging framework • The payoff – Efficiency and power of networked operations – Requisite capabilities for e-education

Whew! • Will it work? • Are there alternatives? • See – www. educause. edu/netatedu on PKI – NMI, I 2, SURA, HEPKI – www. cio. gov/fbca, etc. – PKI by Tom Austin, Wiley Tech Brief, 2001