I am pleased to have ignited the establishment of a new Technical Committee called as "Oasis Identity In The Cloud" at the Oasis standards consortium. Prominent security experts in the industry were gracious to participate in the initial brainstorming group I created.
You can read more on the charter here: IDCloud Charter
Apart from Red Hat, the proposers of the TC include Microsoft, IBM, CA, Novell, Rackspace, SafeNet, Yaana Technologies along with a few prominent individuals in the security/identity space. I am sure the proposer list will grow in a few days.
If you are an Oasis member or your company is an Oasis member, you should definitely look at joining this effort.
More details and a call for participation will be announced by the Oasis consortium in a few days.
Keywords: Oasis Cloud Security.
UPDATE: The Oasis Call For Participation is here.
Showing posts with label oasis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oasis. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Monday, September 8, 2008
Can history help us prepare for HiTech Crime?
A very interesting answer from Paul Wright, Head of Computer Crime at City of London Police on LinkedIn Q&A forum (the question was "How important is to safeguard customer data?". I had asked the question. Well, you may say it is a dumb question. I was more interested in the answers from the experts than be satisfied with my perception.)
======================================================
Hi,
Can history help with this? Who brought down Alfonso Capone? Was it, Frank J Wilson, George E Q Johnson or Elliot Ness? They all played their part but in real terms, it was none of them, it was a shooting in February 1930 that led to Capone's downfall. The details of which are sparse, fragmented, and shrouded in secrecy, but what the event did do was trigger the formation of the 'Secret Six'.
There aim was to assist law enforcement to take down organised crime and in particular Alfonso Capone; and they succeeded for in July 1931 'The Chicago Herald' reported him as saying;
"The Secret Six has licked the rackets. They've licked me. They've made it so there's no money in the game."
Since that time the upper echelon of the criminal fraternity have responded by moving into the unlawful obtaining of customer data, where the perception is that information is less well protected and the sentencing of offenders, when caught, is relatively light.
If we do not invest in the skills necessary to enable us to investigate such abuse in this ever-changing environment, will have to contend with playing 'catch-up' in understanding how new technologies are associated with a range of traditional wrong doings.To achieve this all will have to commit adequate funding and combine it with a promise of quality.
Unfortunately not all of those who use the Internet do so with good intentions. In order to facilitate the goals of this element there is a growing amount of information on the web that is showing them how to commit various unlawful acts using a computer and the information highway.
Why is customer data so easily exploited? This is due to the Internet and it being readily available, then once obtained it is used to facilitate a cocktail of offences. This causes some to ask, should we consider the use of private sector controls requiring organisations to take effective steps to tackle the risk of security breaches. Especially as the works of those who produce investigative guidelines for hi-tech and e-crime tend to focus on detection and prosecution, give reduced attention to the area of e-crime prevention and little attention to the forensic intelligence analysis of seized data.
Therefore, is there a need for multidisciplinary partnerships between academia, industry and law enforcement to work on the loss of customer data? The combined effort could produce a number of significant results, from developing research into technologies and tools, to creating a repository for technical papers. Many already encourage us to share knowledge, expertise and experience. This sharing of information could give organisations the tools to put in place better defences to tackle the abuse of computers and computer systems. It is only through better understanding of the scale and the scope of the problem that they will be able to build effective strategies to deal with it.
Regrettably the percentage of organisations reporting computer intrusions has continued to decline. The key reason given for not reporting intrusions was the fear of negative publicity. As a consequence this has resulted in a belief that the threat and impact has also been gravely underestimated.
There has to be a realisation that organisations cannot create such a secure environment in isolation. It will require them to establish internal and external partnerships that are supported by a framework of regulation and legislation.
The 'Secret Six' showed us how an alliance can defeat organised crime, however seventy years on we are faced with a similar predicament, only now it's on a huge global scale and is being facilitated by the Internet and technology. Could a modern day 'Hi-Tech Six' achieve the same results?
Regards
Paul
===============================================================
Paul will be keynoting at the Oasis Security Forum in London this month. See you there, Paul.
If you live in/around London and are interested in software security, then you should try to attend the forum. I will be moderating two panels at the forum.
======================================================
Hi,
Can history help with this? Who brought down Alfonso Capone? Was it, Frank J Wilson, George E Q Johnson or Elliot Ness? They all played their part but in real terms, it was none of them, it was a shooting in February 1930 that led to Capone's downfall. The details of which are sparse, fragmented, and shrouded in secrecy, but what the event did do was trigger the formation of the 'Secret Six'.
There aim was to assist law enforcement to take down organised crime and in particular Alfonso Capone; and they succeeded for in July 1931 'The Chicago Herald' reported him as saying;
"The Secret Six has licked the rackets. They've licked me. They've made it so there's no money in the game."
Since that time the upper echelon of the criminal fraternity have responded by moving into the unlawful obtaining of customer data, where the perception is that information is less well protected and the sentencing of offenders, when caught, is relatively light.
If we do not invest in the skills necessary to enable us to investigate such abuse in this ever-changing environment, will have to contend with playing 'catch-up' in understanding how new technologies are associated with a range of traditional wrong doings.To achieve this all will have to commit adequate funding and combine it with a promise of quality.
Unfortunately not all of those who use the Internet do so with good intentions. In order to facilitate the goals of this element there is a growing amount of information on the web that is showing them how to commit various unlawful acts using a computer and the information highway.
Why is customer data so easily exploited? This is due to the Internet and it being readily available, then once obtained it is used to facilitate a cocktail of offences. This causes some to ask, should we consider the use of private sector controls requiring organisations to take effective steps to tackle the risk of security breaches. Especially as the works of those who produce investigative guidelines for hi-tech and e-crime tend to focus on detection and prosecution, give reduced attention to the area of e-crime prevention and little attention to the forensic intelligence analysis of seized data.
Therefore, is there a need for multidisciplinary partnerships between academia, industry and law enforcement to work on the loss of customer data? The combined effort could produce a number of significant results, from developing research into technologies and tools, to creating a repository for technical papers. Many already encourage us to share knowledge, expertise and experience. This sharing of information could give organisations the tools to put in place better defences to tackle the abuse of computers and computer systems. It is only through better understanding of the scale and the scope of the problem that they will be able to build effective strategies to deal with it.
Regrettably the percentage of organisations reporting computer intrusions has continued to decline. The key reason given for not reporting intrusions was the fear of negative publicity. As a consequence this has resulted in a belief that the threat and impact has also been gravely underestimated.
There has to be a realisation that organisations cannot create such a secure environment in isolation. It will require them to establish internal and external partnerships that are supported by a framework of regulation and legislation.
The 'Secret Six' showed us how an alliance can defeat organised crime, however seventy years on we are faced with a similar predicament, only now it's on a huge global scale and is being facilitated by the Internet and technology. Could a modern day 'Hi-Tech Six' achieve the same results?
Regards
Paul
===============================================================
Paul will be keynoting at the Oasis Security Forum in London this month. See you there, Paul.
If you live in/around London and are interested in software security, then you should try to attend the forum. I will be moderating two panels at the forum.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Oasis Cross-Enterprise Security And Privacy Authorization (XSPA) Technical Committee
Mark and I have supported a proposed Oasis Technical Committee Charter.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200806/msg00007.html
===========
PROPOSED CHARTER FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT
OASIS CROSS-ENTERPRISE SECURITY AND PRIVACY AUTHORIZATION (XSPA) TECHNICAL
COMMITTEE
1a. Name
OASIS Cross-Enterprise Security and Privacy Authorization (XSPA) TC
1b. Statement of Purpose
Enterprises, including the healthcare enterprise, need a mechanism to exchange
privacy policies, consent directives and authorizations in an interoperable
manner. At this time, there is no standard that provides a cross-enterprise
security and privacy profile. The OASIS Cross-Enterprise Security and Privacy
Authorization (XSPA) TC will address this gap.
The need for an XSPA profile has been identified by the security and privacy
working group of the Healthcare Information Technology Standards Panel (HITSP).
HITSP is an ANSI-sponsored body charged with identifying standard building
blocks that can be leveraged to implement common healthcare use cases. The XSPA
profile will require the participation of subject matter experts in several
areas, including WS-Federation, SAML, WS-Trust, and possibly others noted below.
OASIS has the unique combination of member expertise necessary to complete this
work.
The purpose of the XSPA profile is to address common needs: allow parties to
adopt a set of methods that, taken together, will enable them immediately
interoperate with other diverse participants in the same data exchanges; use
readily available open standards, so that participation is broadly possible
without significant licensing limitations, hardware or software choice
constraints or single-source vendor risks; and provide a fully specified stack
or set of specifications or options, all known to be interoperable. The
foregoing needs are especially acute when the use of a particular set of methods
is mandated, either by law or as a practical matter by its adoption by central
actors in a mandatory system.
Governmental health regulators are increasingly requiring certain parties
exchange health and health payment information (such as personal health records,
and itemize statements of health care charges and benefit payments) in
electronic form, and use sets of data standards identified as broadly suitable
and secure. Similar government-sponsored or government-encouraged
standardization projects are underway in many other countries. The XSPA profile
will provide another "building block" in the creation of large scale
interoperability of health information. These profiles will also aid in
achieving interoperability for secure data exchange among various health care
entities including providers, hospitals, pharmacies and insurance companies. It
is envisioned that the work produced by this committee will also help the
National Health Information Network (NHIN) in the US for secure data exchange.
It specifying the XSPA profile, where stable open standards exist, they should
be noted and adopted. Where functions are not available, or some connective
choices or additional material is required, it will be created. Doing so is the
purpose for this committee's creation.
The profile specified by this TC will have broad applicability to health
communities beyond the regulated portion of U.S. healthcare data transactions
that the HITSP panel is directed to address. Use cases from other instances of
cognate data exchanges, particularly in healthcare privacy contexts, may be
solicited and used to improve the TC's work. However, the first priority of
this committee will be to deliver and demonstrate sets of standards-based
methods that fulfill the identified security & privacy functions needed by
HITSP's specifications of functions and mandates.
The XSPA TC may also cover a more general enterprise server profile which will
provide the building blocks for business models and industry applications. Some
of the models investigated will include enterprise security and more generally
SOA security. Application of how these security and privacy models apply to
different industry sectors, including domains such as finance where privacy
rights must be supported, will also be investigated if time permits.
1c. Scope
The purpose of the TC is to specify sets of stable open standards and profiles,
and create other standards or profiles as needed, to fulfill the security and
privacy functions identified by the functions and data practices identified by
HITSP, or specified in its use cases, as all are mandated or specified from time
to time. These functions will at a minimum support the HITSP Access Control
Transaction Package specification TP20, including those access control
capabilities required to support the HITSP Manage Consent Directive Package
specification TP30. This includes the support of reliable and auditable methods
to identify, select and confirm the personal identity, official authorization
status, and role data for the subjects, senders, receivers and intermediaries of
electronic data; data needed to convey and/or enforce permitted operations on
resources and associated conditions and obligations; and reasonable measures to
secure and maintain the privacy and integrity of that data from end to end.
1. The TC may identify existing, stable open standards, and sets of standards,
and alternative standards, extensions and profiles, for fulfilling each of the
HITSP-identified functions and use cases. Where HITSP subject-matter-specific
profiles have already identified such standards as recommended, those approved
standards will be included in the TC's identified sets of standards. Where the
TC identifies elements or alternatives not already so identified as recommended,
the TC should, if it believes the additional alternatives are necessary or
advisable, recommend their inclusion to the appropriate HITSP expert panel.
2. The TC may create and approve specifications, and extensions or profiles of
specifications, as needed to fulfill HITSP-identified functions and use cases
not satisfied by existing stable open standards. Contributions made to the
committee for work issued by the committee itself will be subject to the OASIS
IPR Policy. Any such work must include appropriate conformance clause or test
information. Such work will be recommended for inclusion, as appropriate, in
the standing recommendations of the appropriate HITSP expert panel.
3. The TC may elect, in the above specifications, extensions or profile, to
indicate methods for the fulfillment of other publicly-available health-related
use cases (or mandates), or functions described in those use cases (or
mandates), including from other regions and other regulatory regimes; and may
elect to create and approve additional specifications, and extensions or
profiles of specifications, as needed, to fulfill those use cases or component
functions.
4. The TC may elect to elaborate or extend any of the above use cases or
functions, publish the same and create additional standards, profiles or
extensions to support those augmented use cases or functional descriptions. In
any such augmented work the TC must specify whether it is intended to fulfill an
HITSP (or other) mandate. Any such work must include appropriate conformance
clause or test information. Such work completed may be recommended for
inclusion, as appropriate, in the recommendations or reports of any relevant
health regulatory or advisory body.
5. The TC may elect to create supplemental information regarding the above
matters such as demonstrations, implementation guides, best practices, FAQs, or
other explanatory, implementation or promotional material as it may deem useful.
6. In all of its work, the TC should, to the extent feasible, prefer widely
implementable, widely interoperable, modular standards, extensions, profiles and
methods that permit use by a variety of participants with diverse hardware,
software, data architecture and messaging practices. The TC intends to ask
OASIS to contribute all or part of its final work, as relevant, HITSP or related
panels for incorporation into its recommendations and mandates.
1d. List of Deliverables
1. A list of the specific HITSP use cases and functions that the TC plans to
fulfill, by October 2008.
2. A set of specifications, sets, profiles and extensions, as described in
paragraphs #1 and #2 under 'Scope', to fulfill each of the HITSP use cases and
functions identified for fulfillment in deliverable paragraph #1, with the first
such specification or profile to be approved as a Committee Specification by
[December 2008], and the remainder if any to be approved by Committee
Specifications by [June 2009]. The TC may elect to create one or more of such
deliverables in whatever combinations it deems appropriate.
3. An interoperability demonstration of the XSPA profile, consistent with
paragraph #5 under 'Scope,' demonstrating the end-to-end enforcement of
healthcare security policy at the HIMSS (Healthcare Information and Management
Systems Society) meeting (April 2009).
4. Optionally, such other deliverables (e.g., those listed in paragraphs 1-6
under 'Scope') as the TC may elect, until the later of December 2009 or such
later date as the TC may elect to conclude.
1e. IPR Mode:
Royalty Free on Limited Terms under the OASIS IPR Policy
1f. Anticipated Audiences:
Health-related data transaction participants, especially in exchanges subject to
security or privacy regulation; regulators of healthcare, health payment and
personal privacy; vendors and integrators supplying products or services to the
foregoing; and, secondarily, participants in regulated or closely monitored
data exchanges with privacy and security requirements in other topical fields.
1g. Language:
English
(2) Non-normative information regarding the startup of the TC, which includes:
(2)(a) Identification of similar or applicable work that is being done in other
OASIS TCs or by other organizations, why there is a need for another effort in
this area and how this proposed TC will be different, and what level of liaison
will be pursued with these other organizations.
The proposed Cross-Enterprise Security and Privacy Authorization (XSPA) TC will
be incorporating several standards in a profile allowing the exchange of privacy
policies, consent directives and authorizations in an interoperable manner. The
need for an XSPA profile has been identified by the security and privacy working
group of the ANSI-sponsored Healthcare Information Technology Standards Panel
(HITSP). No other organization is addressing this identified gap in standards.
The profile will use standards from several OASIS TCs: SAML (SSTC), WS-Trust
(WS-SX) and XACML. Liaison will be established by concurrent work items in the
cited TCs' area of expertise.
(2)(b) The date, time, and location of the first meeting, whether it will be
held in person or by telephone, and who will sponsor this first meeting. The
first meeting of a TC shall occur no less than 30 days after the announcement of
its formation in the case of a meeting held exclusively by telephone or other
electronic means, and no less than 45 days after the announcement of its
formation in the case of a meeting held face-to-face (whether or not a telephone
bridge is also available).
The proposed XSPA TC will hold the first official meeting on August 8, 2008 by
telephone and will use a free conference call service.
(2)(c) The projected on-going meeting schedule for the year following the
formation of the TC, or until the projected date of the final deliverable,
whichever comes first, and who will be expected to sponsor these meetings.
The TC will meet biweekly or as otherwise agreed upon by the members of the
technical committee.
(2)(d) The names, electronic mail addresses, and membership affiliations of at
least Minimum Membership who support this proposal and are committed to the
Charter and projected meeting schedule.
Mark Little (Redhat)
Anil Saldhana (Redhat)
Sampo Kellomki (Symlabs)
Anil Tappetla (Cisco)
David Staggs (Veterans Health Administration)
(2)(e) The name of the Convener who must be an Eligible Person.
David Staggs.
(2)(f) The name of the Member Section with which the TC intends to affiliate, if
any.
None.
(2)(g) Optionally, a list of contributions of existing technical work that the
proposers anticipate will be made to this TC.
None.
(2)(h) Optionally, a draft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document regarding
the planned scope of the TC, for posting on the TC's website.
To be provided at a later date.
(2)(i) Optionally, a proposed working title and acronym for the specification(s)
to be developed by the TC.
To be provided at a later date.
=============================================================================
I strongly feel that this TC is a great step toward health care security.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200806/msg00007.html
===========
PROPOSED CHARTER FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT
OASIS CROSS-ENTERPRISE SECURITY AND PRIVACY AUTHORIZATION (XSPA) TECHNICAL
COMMITTEE
1a. Name
OASIS Cross-Enterprise Security and Privacy Authorization (XSPA) TC
1b. Statement of Purpose
Enterprises, including the healthcare enterprise, need a mechanism to exchange
privacy policies, consent directives and authorizations in an interoperable
manner. At this time, there is no standard that provides a cross-enterprise
security and privacy profile. The OASIS Cross-Enterprise Security and Privacy
Authorization (XSPA) TC will address this gap.
The need for an XSPA profile has been identified by the security and privacy
working group of the Healthcare Information Technology Standards Panel (HITSP).
HITSP is an ANSI-sponsored body charged with identifying standard building
blocks that can be leveraged to implement common healthcare use cases. The XSPA
profile will require the participation of subject matter experts in several
areas, including WS-Federation, SAML, WS-Trust, and possibly others noted below.
OASIS has the unique combination of member expertise necessary to complete this
work.
The purpose of the XSPA profile is to address common needs: allow parties to
adopt a set of methods that, taken together, will enable them immediately
interoperate with other diverse participants in the same data exchanges; use
readily available open standards, so that participation is broadly possible
without significant licensing limitations, hardware or software choice
constraints or single-source vendor risks; and provide a fully specified stack
or set of specifications or options, all known to be interoperable. The
foregoing needs are especially acute when the use of a particular set of methods
is mandated, either by law or as a practical matter by its adoption by central
actors in a mandatory system.
Governmental health regulators are increasingly requiring certain parties
exchange health and health payment information (such as personal health records,
and itemize statements of health care charges and benefit payments) in
electronic form, and use sets of data standards identified as broadly suitable
and secure. Similar government-sponsored or government-encouraged
standardization projects are underway in many other countries. The XSPA profile
will provide another "building block" in the creation of large scale
interoperability of health information. These profiles will also aid in
achieving interoperability for secure data exchange among various health care
entities including providers, hospitals, pharmacies and insurance companies. It
is envisioned that the work produced by this committee will also help the
National Health Information Network (NHIN) in the US for secure data exchange.
It specifying the XSPA profile, where stable open standards exist, they should
be noted and adopted. Where functions are not available, or some connective
choices or additional material is required, it will be created. Doing so is the
purpose for this committee's creation.
The profile specified by this TC will have broad applicability to health
communities beyond the regulated portion of U.S. healthcare data transactions
that the HITSP panel is directed to address. Use cases from other instances of
cognate data exchanges, particularly in healthcare privacy contexts, may be
solicited and used to improve the TC's work. However, the first priority of
this committee will be to deliver and demonstrate sets of standards-based
methods that fulfill the identified security & privacy functions needed by
HITSP's specifications of functions and mandates.
The XSPA TC may also cover a more general enterprise server profile which will
provide the building blocks for business models and industry applications. Some
of the models investigated will include enterprise security and more generally
SOA security. Application of how these security and privacy models apply to
different industry sectors, including domains such as finance where privacy
rights must be supported, will also be investigated if time permits.
1c. Scope
The purpose of the TC is to specify sets of stable open standards and profiles,
and create other standards or profiles as needed, to fulfill the security and
privacy functions identified by the functions and data practices identified by
HITSP, or specified in its use cases, as all are mandated or specified from time
to time. These functions will at a minimum support the HITSP Access Control
Transaction Package specification TP20, including those access control
capabilities required to support the HITSP Manage Consent Directive Package
specification TP30. This includes the support of reliable and auditable methods
to identify, select and confirm the personal identity, official authorization
status, and role data for the subjects, senders, receivers and intermediaries of
electronic data; data needed to convey and/or enforce permitted operations on
resources and associated conditions and obligations; and reasonable measures to
secure and maintain the privacy and integrity of that data from end to end.
1. The TC may identify existing, stable open standards, and sets of standards,
and alternative standards, extensions and profiles, for fulfilling each of the
HITSP-identified functions and use cases. Where HITSP subject-matter-specific
profiles have already identified such standards as recommended, those approved
standards will be included in the TC's identified sets of standards. Where the
TC identifies elements or alternatives not already so identified as recommended,
the TC should, if it believes the additional alternatives are necessary or
advisable, recommend their inclusion to the appropriate HITSP expert panel.
2. The TC may create and approve specifications, and extensions or profiles of
specifications, as needed to fulfill HITSP-identified functions and use cases
not satisfied by existing stable open standards. Contributions made to the
committee for work issued by the committee itself will be subject to the OASIS
IPR Policy. Any such work must include appropriate conformance clause or test
information. Such work will be recommended for inclusion, as appropriate, in
the standing recommendations of the appropriate HITSP expert panel.
3. The TC may elect, in the above specifications, extensions or profile, to
indicate methods for the fulfillment of other publicly-available health-related
use cases (or mandates), or functions described in those use cases (or
mandates), including from other regions and other regulatory regimes; and may
elect to create and approve additional specifications, and extensions or
profiles of specifications, as needed, to fulfill those use cases or component
functions.
4. The TC may elect to elaborate or extend any of the above use cases or
functions, publish the same and create additional standards, profiles or
extensions to support those augmented use cases or functional descriptions. In
any such augmented work the TC must specify whether it is intended to fulfill an
HITSP (or other) mandate. Any such work must include appropriate conformance
clause or test information. Such work completed may be recommended for
inclusion, as appropriate, in the recommendations or reports of any relevant
health regulatory or advisory body.
5. The TC may elect to create supplemental information regarding the above
matters such as demonstrations, implementation guides, best practices, FAQs, or
other explanatory, implementation or promotional material as it may deem useful.
6. In all of its work, the TC should, to the extent feasible, prefer widely
implementable, widely interoperable, modular standards, extensions, profiles and
methods that permit use by a variety of participants with diverse hardware,
software, data architecture and messaging practices. The TC intends to ask
OASIS to contribute all or part of its final work, as relevant, HITSP or related
panels for incorporation into its recommendations and mandates.
1d. List of Deliverables
1. A list of the specific HITSP use cases and functions that the TC plans to
fulfill, by October 2008.
2. A set of specifications, sets, profiles and extensions, as described in
paragraphs #1 and #2 under 'Scope', to fulfill each of the HITSP use cases and
functions identified for fulfillment in deliverable paragraph #1, with the first
such specification or profile to be approved as a Committee Specification by
[December 2008], and the remainder if any to be approved by Committee
Specifications by [June 2009]. The TC may elect to create one or more of such
deliverables in whatever combinations it deems appropriate.
3. An interoperability demonstration of the XSPA profile, consistent with
paragraph #5 under 'Scope,' demonstrating the end-to-end enforcement of
healthcare security policy at the HIMSS (Healthcare Information and Management
Systems Society) meeting (April 2009).
4. Optionally, such other deliverables (e.g., those listed in paragraphs 1-6
under 'Scope') as the TC may elect, until the later of December 2009 or such
later date as the TC may elect to conclude.
1e. IPR Mode:
Royalty Free on Limited Terms under the OASIS IPR Policy
1f. Anticipated Audiences:
Health-related data transaction participants, especially in exchanges subject to
security or privacy regulation; regulators of healthcare, health payment and
personal privacy; vendors and integrators supplying products or services to the
foregoing; and, secondarily, participants in regulated or closely monitored
data exchanges with privacy and security requirements in other topical fields.
1g. Language:
English
(2) Non-normative information regarding the startup of the TC, which includes:
(2)(a) Identification of similar or applicable work that is being done in other
OASIS TCs or by other organizations, why there is a need for another effort in
this area and how this proposed TC will be different, and what level of liaison
will be pursued with these other organizations.
The proposed Cross-Enterprise Security and Privacy Authorization (XSPA) TC will
be incorporating several standards in a profile allowing the exchange of privacy
policies, consent directives and authorizations in an interoperable manner. The
need for an XSPA profile has been identified by the security and privacy working
group of the ANSI-sponsored Healthcare Information Technology Standards Panel
(HITSP). No other organization is addressing this identified gap in standards.
The profile will use standards from several OASIS TCs: SAML (SSTC), WS-Trust
(WS-SX) and XACML. Liaison will be established by concurrent work items in the
cited TCs' area of expertise.
(2)(b) The date, time, and location of the first meeting, whether it will be
held in person or by telephone, and who will sponsor this first meeting. The
first meeting of a TC shall occur no less than 30 days after the announcement of
its formation in the case of a meeting held exclusively by telephone or other
electronic means, and no less than 45 days after the announcement of its
formation in the case of a meeting held face-to-face (whether or not a telephone
bridge is also available).
The proposed XSPA TC will hold the first official meeting on August 8, 2008 by
telephone and will use a free conference call service.
(2)(c) The projected on-going meeting schedule for the year following the
formation of the TC, or until the projected date of the final deliverable,
whichever comes first, and who will be expected to sponsor these meetings.
The TC will meet biweekly or as otherwise agreed upon by the members of the
technical committee.
(2)(d) The names, electronic mail addresses, and membership affiliations of at
least Minimum Membership who support this proposal and are committed to the
Charter and projected meeting schedule.
Mark Little (Redhat)
Anil Saldhana (Redhat)
Sampo Kellomki (Symlabs)
Anil Tappetla (Cisco)
David Staggs (Veterans Health Administration)
(2)(e) The name of the Convener who must be an Eligible Person.
David Staggs.
(2)(f) The name of the Member Section with which the TC intends to affiliate, if
any.
None.
(2)(g) Optionally, a list of contributions of existing technical work that the
proposers anticipate will be made to this TC.
None.
(2)(h) Optionally, a draft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document regarding
the planned scope of the TC, for posting on the TC's website.
To be provided at a later date.
(2)(i) Optionally, a proposed working title and acronym for the specification(s)
to be developed by the TC.
To be provided at a later date.
=============================================================================
I strongly feel that this TC is a great step toward health care security.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Oasis Open Standards Forum in London
At the end of September and beginning of October, OASIS is holding a very important forum in London.
http://events.oasis-open.org/home/forum/2008/about#pc
I am on the Program Management Committee for this forum which has an apt theme "Security Challenges for the Information Society".
-Image source from Oasis Event Page (http://events.oasis-open.org/home/sites/events.oasis-open.org.home/files/images/gebel.jpg)
Gerry Gebel from Burton, an analyst I envy and a good friend (ok, or a person I know) is one of the Keynote speakers.
So if you are going to be in the region around that time, this forum is for you.
I am pretty excited about this forum because it not only covers all the advances in the Federated Identity Space, but also some of my favourite topics such as E-Gov Security, Browsers Security, Healthcare Security, Key Management and Access Control.
Gerry's Bio:
Gerry Gebel, Vice President and Service Director for Burton Group Identity and Privacy Strategies
Gerry covers identity management, federation, entitlement management, user provisioning, authentication technologies, directories, privacy issues, and PKI. Since joining Burton Group in 2000, Gerry has written numerous reports and articles on these topics. Gerry has also been instrumental in advancing the state of identity-based interoperability by leading demonstration projects for federation, entitlement management, and user-centric standards and specifications. Prior to joining Burton Group, Gerry gained experience in architecture, engineering, integration, and production support of mainframe, client sever and distributed systems in the financial services industry since 1986. Gerry was a founding member of Securities Industry Middleware Council (SIMC), a vertical industry organization representing the securities industry to the IT provider community and served as council vice president and Security Focus Group chairman.
http://events.oasis-open.org/home/forum/2008/about#pc
I am on the Program Management Committee for this forum which has an apt theme "Security Challenges for the Information Society".
-Image source from Oasis Event Page (http://events.oasis-open.org/home/sites/events.oasis-open.org.home/files/images/gebel.jpg)
Gerry Gebel from Burton, an analyst I envy and a good friend (ok, or a person I know) is one of the Keynote speakers.
So if you are going to be in the region around that time, this forum is for you.
I am pretty excited about this forum because it not only covers all the advances in the Federated Identity Space, but also some of my favourite topics such as E-Gov Security, Browsers Security, Healthcare Security, Key Management and Access Control.
Gerry's Bio:
Gerry Gebel, Vice President and Service Director for Burton Group Identity and Privacy Strategies
Gerry covers identity management, federation, entitlement management, user provisioning, authentication technologies, directories, privacy issues, and PKI. Since joining Burton Group in 2000, Gerry has written numerous reports and articles on these topics. Gerry has also been instrumental in advancing the state of identity-based interoperability by leading demonstration projects for federation, entitlement management, and user-centric standards and specifications. Prior to joining Burton Group, Gerry gained experience in architecture, engineering, integration, and production support of mainframe, client sever and distributed systems in the financial services industry since 1986. Gerry was a founding member of Securities Industry Middleware Council (SIMC), a vertical industry organization representing the securities industry to the IT provider community and served as council vice president and Security Focus Group chairman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)