Open dhs-BI opened 1 week ago
Following yesterday's call, I suggest that the task forces are generally broken down based upon specific outcomes. The following list is a starting point: a. Single Sign On (e.g. OIDC/SAML) b. Application authorization (OAuth) c. User synchronization (e.g. SCIM & non-SCIM mechanisms) d. Signal sharing (e.g. Shared Signals Framework & non-SSF mechanisms such as API calls, message queues, etc.) e. End user authentication
As suggested on yesterday's call, Karl McGuinness is going to put together a straw man to identify the work that is cross-cutting. As this comes to fruition, we should use this as guidance to the task forces. Task forces with cross-cutting concerns must coordinate to ensure their work streams remain aligned. Conflicts should be resolved between the task forces with unresolved conflicts being raised to the larger IPSIE WG for discussion and resolution.
"Orchestration taskforce"
"Threat"
At a high level, let's agree on 1 inital use case that the taskforce groups will solve. Here's a proposal:
1) As a new user, I want to be onboarded to the IdP for the first time, securely enroll for my first credentials, and use that to sign-on to my first app.
All 5 of Dean's taskforce should have an opinion on how to make this use-case secure from day 0.
@kennchong Thank you for the use case. I suggest we come up with a few more use cases so that the group can make progress in parallel. (@dhs-BI edited this sentence for clarity.)
With my chair hat off, I'll offer a few examples:
This is just a quick list off the top of my head without any implied prioritization.
Chair hat back on: I encourage the group to continue writing use cases to help us find the "right" task forces and interconnections between them.
As an enterprise, I want AI-driven search to unify knowledge access while ensuring secure integration, advanced authentication, automated user management, and robust tracking of cross-system interactions to enhance security and productivity.
There should be a framework on defining how a user/machine is identified. (JA3/JA4, Browser signatures).
There should be a different emphasis on how login flows for mobile are kept secure. Mobile is uniquely placed in terms of how secrets are managed. While the client_id
is not associated with a secret, each app has access to a vaulted secret store which is present on the mobile device.
With OIDC, to add more security PKCE is required, but often the flow is much complex vs. a full browser. Mobile applications needs to authenticate inside a webview, which has constrained capabilities vs a full browser. Enterprises define their own custom way of handing off artifacts between a full browser on the mobile OS to the app or webview (and try to circumvent restrictions). There should be a standard way in which the flow is handed over to a mobile in the different contexts. ( for example - React Native layer and webviews). Bottom line is that we should provide guidelines and/or specify how all IPSIE flows relate to mobile.
Here's an initial list of categories, user stories, and actors I'd suggest. Task forces by category with category leaders in a "master council" style to bring things together across the categories.
Do we also want to define the actors in the ecosystem that we want to think about their experiences within each task force?
On the November 12 2024 call, we discussed setting up task forces to work across different subsets of the IPSIE profiles.