Secure Virtual Enclaves February 4, 2000 Deborah Shands, Richard - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

secure virtual enclaves
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Secure Virtual Enclaves February 4, 2000 Deborah Shands, Richard - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Secure Virtual Enclaves February 4, 2000 Deborah Shands, Richard Yee Jay Jacobs, E. John Sebes Outline Project Overview SVE Architecture Observations Results/Conclusions 2/4/2000 2 Coalition Examples Commercial :


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Secure Virtual Enclaves

February 4, 2000

Deborah Shands, Richard Yee Jay Jacobs, E. John Sebes

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2/4/2000 2

Outline

Project Overview SVE Architecture Observations Results/Conclusions

slide-3
SLIDE 3

2/4/2000 3

Coalition Examples

Commercial: outsourcing, contractors, or customers needing limited access to corporate data Civilian: disaster/incident response teams and crisis management Military: joint task forces engaged in distributed collaborative planning

slide-4
SLIDE 4

2/4/2000 4

SVE Project Goals

Support collaborative computing Provide mechanisms to control sharing Enable unified approach to multiple distributed application technologies (e.g., Java, DCOM, web apps.) Support dynamic access policies, allowing changes to: SVE membership, resources to be shared, and access types permitted

slide-5
SLIDE 5

2/4/2000 5

SVE Project Constraints

Ensure application transparency Retain organizational autonomy over local resources Use only standard network protocols Use only commercially available operating systems

slide-6
SLIDE 6

2/4/2000 6

Concept of Operation

enclaveA.com enclaveB.com

Legend:

Services in SVE Services partly in SVE Services not in SVE Principals not in SVE Principals in SVE

STOP

slide-7
SLIDE 7

2/4/2000 7

SVE Concept of Operation

Virtual enclave: formed by collaborators sharing resources and services

– Enclaves define limited trust relationships with one another – Each enclave specifies internal resources accessible to partners

Secure virtual enclave: each enclave’s exports are

– Protected from access by non-SVE members – Available to SVE members as specified by access policy

Dynamic modification: automatic reconfiguration due to changes in SVE membership, resources, access policy

slide-8
SLIDE 8

2/4/2000 8

Outline

Project Overview SVE Architecture Observations Results/Conclusions

slide-9
SLIDE 9

2/4/2000 9 Server

SVE Interceptor/ Enforcer

Server

SVE Interceptor/ Enforcer

Gateway

Enclave A

Client Client

Enclave B

Client-Server Architecture

slide-10
SLIDE 10

2/4/2000 10 SPEX Controller Access Calculator Access Calculator Access Calculator SPEX Admin GUI Policy GUI Interceptor/ Enforcer Interceptor/ Enforcer Interceptor/ Enforcer Interceptor/ Enforcer

Enclave A

SPEX Controller Access Calculator Access Calculator Access Calculator SPEX Admin GUI Policy GUI Interceptor/ Enforcer Interceptor/ Enforcer Interceptor/ Enforcer Interceptor/ Enforcer

Enclave B

SVE Control Messages

SVE Infrastructure Architecture

slide-11
SLIDE 11

2/4/2000 11

Current SVE policy semantics are very similar to Object- Oriented Domain and Type Enforcement (OODTE) Principals are mapped to a domain equivalence class using a set of domain derivation rules Resources are mapped to a type equivalence class Access matrix is formed by associating a set of types with a given domain Principal recognition rules are domain derivation rules that are published by an SVE member to allow its principals to be recognized by other SVE members

SVE Policy Semantics

slide-12
SLIDE 12

2/4/2000 12

Outline

Project Overview SVE Architecture Observations Results/Conclusions

slide-13
SLIDE 13

2/4/2000 13

Enclave Autonomy

Organizations require a certain level of autonomy Autonomy is a difficult requirement for distributed security systems SVE system supports autonomy

Most components of access policy used only within

the local enclave

An enclave may unilaterally withdraw from an SVE

at any time Need to balance autonomy and collaboration requirements via business decisions

slide-14
SLIDE 14

2/4/2000 14

Ambiguous Policy Semantics

Meaning of policy statements known only within defining enclave (e.g., “manager” role) How to prevent misunderstandings as coalitions are formed???

Establish semantics offline Represent and negotiate semantics within system

slide-15
SLIDE 15

2/4/2000 15

Outline

Project Overview SVE Architecture Observations Results/Conclusions

slide-16
SLIDE 16

2/4/2000 16

SVE Prototype Results

Supports coalition sharing Supports dynamic changes to both coalition membership and resource access policies Supports enclave autonomy Provides experimental platform for studying security policies for distributed systems