[OIDFSC] AATOC Working Group Charter
Adam Dawes
adawes at google.com
Thu Feb 26 08:06:17 UTC 2015
Okay, I've revised the charter, with a new name, USESC (I couldn't fathom
losing the "O" in AATOC). It doesn't have quite the ring but it's a bit
more general which is useful since I think what will be produced will have
uses beyond abuse and account takeovers. I've also included a deliverable
on trust frameworks.
Here it is:
USESC Charter
1) Working Group name:
User Security Event Sharing and Coordination Working Group (USESC Working
Group)
2) Purpose
The goal of USESC is to provide data sharing schemas, privacy
recommendations and protocols to:
-
Share information about important security events related to user
accounts in order to thwart attackers from leveraging compromised accounts
from one Service Provider to gain access to accounts on other Service
Providers (mobile or web application developers and owners).
-
Enable users and providers to coordinate in order to securely restore
accounts following a compromise.
Internet accounts that use email addresses or phone numbers as the primary
identifier for the account will be the initial focus.
3) Scope
The group will define:
-
Security events
These are events – whether directly authentication-related or occurring
at another time in the user flow – that take place on one service that
could also have security implications on other Service Providers. The group
will develop a taxonomy of security events and a common set of semantics to
express relevant information about a security event.
-
Privacy Implications
Sharing security information amongst providers has potential privacy
implications for both end users and service providers. These privacy
implications must be balanced against the recognized benefits of protecting
users’ accounts and data from abuse. The group will consider ways to
optimize this balance when defining mechanisms to handle the various
security events and recommend best practices for the industry.
-
Communications mechanisms
Define bindings for the use of an existing transport protocol defined
elsewhere.
-
Event schema
Define a schema describing relevant events and relationships to allow
for dissemination between interested and authorized parties.
-
Trust Frameworks
Define at least one model for the conditions under which information
would be shared.
-
Account recovery mechanisms
Standardized mechanism(s) to allow providers to signal that a user has
regained control of an account, or allow a user to explicitly restore
control of a previously compromised account, with or without direct user
involvement.
Out of scope:
Determining the account quality/reputation of a user on a particular
service and communicating that to others.
Definition of APIs and underlying mechanisms for connecting to, interacting
with and operating centralized databases or intelligence clearinghouses
when these are used to communicate security events between account
providers.
4) Proposed Deliverables
The group proposes the following Non-Specification deliverables:
Security Event and Account Lifecycle Schema
-
A taxonomy of security events and a common set of semantics to express
relevant information about a security event and its relationships to other
relevant data, events or indicators.
Security Event Privacy Guidelines
A set of recommendations on how to minimize the privacy impact on users and
service providers while improving security, and how to provide appropriate
privacy disclosures, labeling and access control guidelines around
information in the Security Event Schema.
The group proposes the following Specification deliverables:
Communications Mechanisms
Define bindings for the event messages to an already existing transport
protocol to promote interoperability of sending event information to
another Service Provider. This will allow a Service Provider to implement a
single piece of infrastructure that would be able to send or receive event
information to any other service provider.
Order of Deliverables
The group will work to produce the Security Event and Account Lifecycle
Schema before beginning work on the Communications Mechanism.
5) Anticipated audience or users
-
Service Providers who manage their own account systems which require an
email address or phone number for registration.
-
Account and email providers that understand key security events that
happen to a user’s account.
-
Identity as a Service (IDaaS) vendors that manage account and
authentication systems for their customers.
-
Users seeking to regain control of a compromised account.
6) Language
English
7) Method of work:
E-mail discussions on the working group mailing list, working group
conference calls, and face-to-face meetings from time to time.
8) Basis for determining when the work is completed:
Rough consensus and running code. The work will be completed once it is
apparent that maximal consensus on the draft has been achieved, consistent
with the purpose and scope.
Background information
Related work:
-
RFC6545 Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID)
-
RFC6546 Transport of Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID) Messages over
HTTP/TLS
-
RFC6684 Guidelines and Template for Defining Extensions to the Incident
Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF)
-
draft-ietf-mile-rolie Resource-Oriented Lightweight Indicator Exchange
-
ISO/IEC 27002:2013 Information technology — Security techniques — Code
of practice for information security controls
-
ISO/IEC 27035:2011 Information technology — Security techniques —
Information security incident management
Proposers
-
Adam Dawes, Google
-
Mark Risher, Google
-
Trent Adams, Paypal
-
George Fletcher, AOL
-
Andrew Nash, Confyrm
-
Nat Sakimura, Nomura Research Institute
-
John Bradley, Ping Identity
-
Henrik Biering, Peercraft
Anticipated contributions:
“Security event reporting between Service Providers 1.0” under the OpenID
Foundation’s IPR Policy <http://openid.net/intellectual-property/>.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Andrew Nash <andrew at confyrm.com> wrote:
> Trent,
>
> we (Confyrm) have started work on a number of aspects of a trust framework
> in conjunction with Tom Smedinghoff as part of the work we did with the Uk
> Govt and the NSTIC pilot - still early but hopefully will bootstrap some of
> the work here
>
> --Andrew
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:00 PM, 'Adam Dawes' via Abuse and ATO
> Coordination <aatoc at googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> +aatoc-list
>>
>> For name, I agree with Nat's suggestion of 'Abuse and Account Take Over
>> Coordination Work Group (AATOC Work Group)'. This just prevents a name
>> change for everyone as well as the mailing list mechanics.
>>
>> @mike, I think your suggestions about defining trust frameworks also make
>> sense. Do you have any good examples of where this has been done? Will need
>> to discuss this with the rest of the group but in our discussion of
>> transport, there have been some implicit trust framework concepts at play.
>> In the end, I think there may be different models about with whom info is
>> shared. This will depend on the specific data we define, the quality of
>> data that service providers can share, and the relevant privacy policies of
>> those providers.
>>
>> thanks,
>> AD
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> While we are in the title, in view of the recent executive order
>>> http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/13/executive-order-promoting-private-sector-cybersecurity-information-shari,
>>> we might suggest including the name "Information Sharing and analysis",
>>> e.g., AATISAC.
>>> 2015年2月25日(水)、11:59 John Bradley <ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com>:
>>>
>>> That is a different WG outside of the OIDF;)
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 24, 2015, at 9:40 PM, Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Simplicity wins, but does not it sound like the WG is creating a
>>>> protocol to take over accounts ;-) ?
>>>>
>>>> 2015-02-25 11:25 GMT+09:00 Ashish Jain <ashishjain at vmware.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> I’m not objecting…merely suggesting that referring it as Account
>>>>> Takeover WG is simpler
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com>
>>>>> Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 6:09 PM
>>>>> To: Ashish Jain <ashishjain at vmware.com>
>>>>> Cc: Adam Dawes <adawes at google.com>, "
>>>>> openid-specs-council at lists.openid.net" <
>>>>> openid-specs-council at lists.openid.net>
>>>>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [OIDFSC] AATOC Working Group Charter
>>>>>
>>>>> I am fine with ATO WG as well. My objection was that the name had
>>>>> the Group in it, which is not a defined word in OpenID Process, so the WG
>>>>> name would become AATOC Group WG, which is repeating "Group" and awkward.
>>>>> It is just an editorial stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you objecting to the first A and the last C of AATOC?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2015-02-25 10:59 GMT+09:00 Ashish Jain <ashishjain at vmware.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand the need to be precise but ATO WG can probably convey
>>>>>> the same message.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Nat Sakimura <sakimura at gmail.com>
>>>>>> Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 4:56 PM
>>>>>> To: Adam Dawes <adawes at google.com>
>>>>>> Cc: "openid-specs-council at lists.openid.net" <
>>>>>> openid-specs-council at lists.openid.net>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [OIDFSC] AATOC Working Group Charter
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Specs Council members,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looks generally fine, with one friendly amendment:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Change the title of the working group from:
>>>>>> Abuse and Account Takeover Coordination Group
>>>>>>
>>>>>> to:
>>>>>> Abuse and Account Takeover Coordination Working Group
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as "Abuse and Account Takeover Coordination Group Working Group" is a
>>>>>> bit awkward.
>>>>>> I am fine with putting it as just "Abuse and Account Takeover
>>>>>> Coordination" as well, since there is a precedence for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could any specs council member respond early in this thread if you
>>>>>> have any objection or friendly amendment. We have been a bit slack lately
>>>>>> that we have been relying on two weeks limit to execute a charter, but we
>>>>>> should be able to act more quickly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nat
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2015-02-24 19:02 GMT+09:00 Adam Dawes <adawes at google.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to form a new work group, AATOC. Here is our proposed
>>>>>>> charter:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> AATOC Charter
>>>>>>> 1) Working Group name:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Abuse and Account Takeover Coordination Group (AATOC)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) Purpose
>>>>>>> The goal of AATOC is to provide data sharing schemas, privacy
>>>>>>> recommendations and protocols to:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Share information about important security events in order to
>>>>>>> thwart attackers from leveraging compromised accounts from one Service
>>>>>>> Provider to gain access to accounts on other Service Providers (mobile or
>>>>>>> web application developers and owners).
>>>>>>> - Enable users and providers to coordinate in order to securely
>>>>>>> restore accounts following a compromise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Internet accounts that use email addresses or phone numbers as the
>>>>>>> primary identifier for the account will be the initial focus.
>>>>>>> 2) Scope
>>>>>>> The group will define:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Security events
>>>>>>> These are events – whether directly authentication-related or
>>>>>>> occurring at another time in the user flow – that take place on one service
>>>>>>> that could also have security implications on other Service Providers. The
>>>>>>> group will develop a taxonomy of security events and a common set of
>>>>>>> semantics to express relevant information about a security event.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Privacy Implications
>>>>>>> Sharing security information amongst providers has potential
>>>>>>> privacy implications for both end users and service providers. These
>>>>>>> privacy implications must be balanced against the recognized benefits of
>>>>>>> protecting users’ accounts and data from abuse. The group will consider
>>>>>>> ways to optimize this balance when defining mechanisms to handle the
>>>>>>> various security events and recommend best practices for the industry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Communications mechanisms
>>>>>>> Define bindings for the use of an existing transport protocol
>>>>>>> defined elsewhere.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Event schema
>>>>>>> Define a schema describing relevant events and relationships to
>>>>>>> allow for dissemination between interested and authorized parties.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Account recovery mechanisms
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Standardized mechanism(s) to allow providers to signal that a user
>>>>>>> has regained control of an account, or allow a user to explicitly restore
>>>>>>> control of a previously compromised account, with or without direct user
>>>>>>> involvement.
>>>>>>> Out of scope:
>>>>>>> Determining the account quality/reputation of a user on a particular
>>>>>>> service and communicating that to others.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Definition of APIs and underlying mechanisms for connecting to,
>>>>>>> interacting with and operating centralized databases or intelligence
>>>>>>> clearinghouses when these are used to communicate security events between
>>>>>>> account providers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4) Proposed Deliverables
>>>>>>> The group proposes the following Non-Specification deliverables:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Security Event and Account Lifecycle Schema
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - A taxonomy of security events and a common set of semantics to
>>>>>>> express relevant information about a security event and its relationships
>>>>>>> to other relevant data, events or indicators.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Security Event Privacy Guidelines
>>>>>>> A set of recommendations on how to minimize the privacy impact on
>>>>>>> users and service providers while improving security, and how to provide
>>>>>>> appropriate privacy disclosures, labeling and access control guidelines
>>>>>>> around information in the Security Event Schema.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The group proposes the following Specification deliverables:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Communications Mechanisms
>>>>>>> Define bindings for the event messages to an already existing
>>>>>>> transport protocol to promote interoperability of sending event information
>>>>>>> to another Service Provider. This will allow a Service Provider to
>>>>>>> implement a single piece of infrastructure that would be able to send or
>>>>>>> receive event information to any other service provider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Order of Deliverables
>>>>>>> The group will work to produce the Security Event and Account
>>>>>>> Lifecycle Schema before beginning work on the Communications Mechanism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5) Anticipated audience or users
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Service Providers who manage their own account systems which
>>>>>>> require an email address or phone number for registration.
>>>>>>> - Account and email providers that understand key security
>>>>>>> events that happen to a user’s account.
>>>>>>> - Identity as a Service (IDaaS) vendors that manage account and
>>>>>>> authentication systems for their customers.
>>>>>>> - Users seeking to regain control of a compromised account.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 6) Language
>>>>>>> English
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 7) Method of work:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> E-mail discussions on the working group mailing list, working group
>>>>>>> conference calls, and face-to-face meetings from time to time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 8) Basis for determining when the work is completed:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rough consensus and running code. The work will be completed once it
>>>>>>> is apparent that maximal consensus on the draft has been achieved,
>>>>>>> consistent with the purpose and scope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Background information
>>>>>>> Related work:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - RFC6545 Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID)
>>>>>>> - RFC6546 Transport of Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID)
>>>>>>> Messages over HTTP/TLS
>>>>>>> - RFC6684 Guidelines and Template for Defining Extensions to the
>>>>>>> Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF)
>>>>>>> - draft-ietf-mile-rolie Resource-Oriented Lightweight Indicator
>>>>>>> Exchange
>>>>>>> - ISO/IEC 27002:2013 Information technology — Security
>>>>>>> techniques — Code of practice for information security controls
>>>>>>> - ISO/IEC 27035:2011 Information technology — Security
>>>>>>> techniques — Information security incident management
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Proposers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Adam Dawes, Google
>>>>>>> - Mark Risher, Google
>>>>>>> - Trent Adams, Paypal
>>>>>>> - George Fletcher, AOL
>>>>>>> - Andrew Nash, Confyrm
>>>>>>> - Nat Sakimura, Nomura Research Institute
>>>>>>> - John Bradley, Ping Identity
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Henrik Biering, Peercraft
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anticipated contributions:
>>>>>>> “Security event reporting between Service Providers 1.0” under the OpenID
>>>>>>> Foundation’s IPR Policy
>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__openid.net_intellectual-2Dproperty_&d=AwMFaQ&c=Sqcl0Ez6M0X8aeM67LKIiDJAXVeAw-YihVMNtXt-uEs&r=PDGu4NI-duocVzLKrMLVZV9ccYh2Q-1cXto7c2DRReM&m=his8oMG2sVamzBa3dQLPovSTmI9fUVGF3mbIZ4ZzISQ&s=yV7iQ-h1QNIAyTmfXm6S6vIszebI2q_snUSkFyjxlkg&e=>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>>>>>> Chairman, OpenID Foundation
>>>>>> http://nat.sakimura.org/
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nat.sakimura.org_&d=AwMFaQ&c=Sqcl0Ez6M0X8aeM67LKIiDJAXVeAw-YihVMNtXt-uEs&r=PDGu4NI-duocVzLKrMLVZV9ccYh2Q-1cXto7c2DRReM&m=his8oMG2sVamzBa3dQLPovSTmI9fUVGF3mbIZ4ZzISQ&s=jmKQL3OD_c7eJXduzdJt5OJefY8ZjNiYCoAm8g-7oOA&e=>
>>>>>> @_nat_en
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>>>>> Chairman, OpenID Foundation
>>>>> http://nat.sakimura.org/
>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nat.sakimura.org_&d=AwMFaQ&c=Sqcl0Ez6M0X8aeM67LKIiDJAXVeAw-YihVMNtXt-uEs&r=PDGu4NI-duocVzLKrMLVZV9ccYh2Q-1cXto7c2DRReM&m=dibzrL00q20lgLcDv94EYh8Ums_bAaYivHuqDQgNfSI&s=jq4oX-tF55oVVtUOW6sW0RsihIhuUzSlJVyRWCVyAhQ&e=>
>>>>> @_nat_en
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>>>> Chairman, OpenID Foundation
>>>> http://nat.sakimura.org/
>>>> @_nat_en
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Abuse and ATO Coordination" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to aatoc+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to aatoc at googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/aatoc/CAOJhRMYKX6O8LVPzCf8x%2BFDnmuMuLDH8RdssTXqZ1YeU54bLNA%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/aatoc/CAOJhRMYKX6O8LVPzCf8x%2BFDnmuMuLDH8RdssTXqZ1YeU54bLNA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-council/attachments/20150226/8e64ae3e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the specs-council
mailing list