Pages

Wednesday, 11 April 2018

Checking Authentication Context at Resource Access Time

What we need is more buzz words.  Contextual access.  Continual access.  Dynamic access.  Dynamic Adaptive and Continual access.  You get the drift.  I want to demo something more accurate in description.  Responsive access.  Access control as handled in a responsible and responsive manner – any slight changes in context and the response will be different.

The classic flow is something like the following:

Using context captured at authN time at authZ time

Contextual data is captured during authentication, which at its most basic, could be IP, User-Agent or geo-location.  That information is then stored against the user’s profile (or anywhere accessible in honesty).  

Zero Trust and CARTA


That information is then retrieved and compared at authorization time – following Forrester's Zero-Trust model, or Gartner’s CARTA (Continuous Adaptive Risk & Trust Assessment) concept.  Any slight changes that may have occurred in the time since login, will be captured and, even if the session/cookie/access_token is live and valid, if the context has altered access is denied, redirected, audited differently and so on.

Why is that important?  Numerous scenarios can arise when token validity is not enough.  What about session hijacking, man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks, replay attacks and so on?  Applying a layer of context provides a type of access binding, similar in concept to things like proof-of-possession.  Reducing the gaps that may exist between token issuance and token use.

The classic half-parabola, sees assurance at its highest just after login time – perhaps the application of MFA has provided a nice high value.  But the seconds, minutes and hours after the initial login, will see the level of associated trust degrade:

Degrading assurance as time goes by



So by the time the user is accessing resources, long after authentication time, the actual assurance could be low.  To solve this, things like step-up or transaction based authentication can be used to regain trust.

Another approach, is the concept of “continuous” access.  This takes the above and makes tiny interruptions, in an attempt to re-calibrate the trust level up again.  This can result in a “saw tooth” trust concept:

Continual trust "bounce"

Capturing Context At Login Time

So let's create a basic authentication tree in ForgeRock AM looking something like the following:

Basic tree capturing IP and User Agent


So we just group together the Save IP To Profile and Save User-Agent To Profile nodes after a success DataStore authentication has taken place.

The settings for each capture node, allow for the hashing of the captured value.  This is important for privacy preservation (also worth noting that consent would be needed and end user notification given, explaining that this level of information is being stored…).


Optional hashing of context data


So a basic login, using already available fields, would look something like the following:


Example of context storage



Great.  So how can we use this stuff at authorization time?  Pretty simple really.  We just use a scripted authorization condition to check the inbound values against those stored on the user profile.


The newer agents 5.0 (https://backstage.forgerock.com/docs/openam-jee-policy-agents/5/java-agents-guide/#jee-agent-continuous-security) or simple REST calls via IG or native apps, can provide AM with any environmental attribute.  

A simple request to the ../openam/json/policies?_action=evaluate endpoint looking like the following would do it:

{
    "resources": [
    
        "http://app.example.com:8080/main.html"
    
    ],
    
    "application":"ResponsiveAccess",
    
    "environment" : {
        
        "IP":["127.0.0.5"],
        "User-Agent": ["Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/65.0.3325.181 Safari/537.37"] 
        
    }
}


The script evaluates both the inbound context and the static context on the user profile.  Any differences would result in the necessary advice being triggered:

Mismatch advice


A more complex and less intrusive extension, could be to use the OR operator within the Environmental conditions, to basically require additional checks to be completed if the Responsive Context Check fails.

1 comment:

  1. many similarities are found to the best fumigation treatment cycle and procedure in different area of the world.

    ReplyDelete