OptimalIdM has announce support for Microsoft WIF (you can get more info here). What they have done is pretty interesting. The have created an STS that front ends their Virtual Directory. This allows a single STS to be used to issue claims against multiple identity stores.
Of course the main use case here is the multiple AD forest scenario, but it could also support disparate identity stores such as other LDAP directories, databases, etc.
[Full disclosure: I have done consulting work for OptimalIdm in the past.]
Posted in AD, Identity, Identity Bus, Standards, Virtual Directory
Tagged AD, ADFS, Federation, Identity, OptimalIdM, Virtual Directory, WIF
According to Don Schmidt Microsoft is finally going to support SAML 2.0:
At the Professional Developers Conference this week Microsoft is announcing the beta release of “Geneva”, the codename for its new claims based access platform. This platform helps developers and IT professionals simplify user access to applications and other systems with an open claims-based model. “Geneva” helps developers to externalize user authentication and identity processing from application code by using claims that are obtained with pre-built security logic that is integrated with .NET tools. “Geneva” helps IT professionals to efficiently deploy and manage new applications by reducing user account management, promoting a consistent security model, and facilitating seamless collaboration across departmental, organizational and vendor boundaries. User access benefits include shortened provisioning lead times, reduced accounts, passwords and logins, and enhanced privacy support. “Geneva” implements the Identity Metasystem vision for open and interoperable identity, and includes built-in support for standard federated identity protocols.
A fundamental goal of “Geneva” is to extend the reach of its predecessor, Active Directory Federation Services, and provide a common identity programming model for developers of both web applications and web services. To maximize interoperability with clients and servers from other vendors, it supports the WS-Trust, WS-Federation and SAML 2.0 protocols. To maximize administrative efficiency “Geneva” automates federation trust configuration and management using the new harmonized federation metadata format (based on SAML 2.0 metadata) that was recently adopted by the WSFED TC.
This is very interesting. It looks like in the Geneva release what was ADFS will now support SAML 2.0 along with WS-Federation. It also looks like Cardspace, Zermatt, and ADFS are going to be combined into a single “platform”.
Posted in Cardspace, Identity, Identity Bus, SAML, Standards, WS-Trust
Tagged ADFS, Cardspace, Geneva, Identity, Identity Bus, SAML 2.0, WS-Federation, Zermatt
Ian Yip has more yet another humorous summary of the virtual-meta-active-directory-identity-bus-hub-proxie debate. You can catch Part II here and Part I here.
I almost want to keep this debate going just so I can read Part III.
Here is an interesting post from Glenn O’Donnell of Forrester that argues the CMDB should contain identities (hat tip to Ryan Shopp):
Well, actually vice-versa! The configuration management database (CMDB) is a hot topic these days in IT. With my arrival at Forrester, I am ambitiously building upon the solid foundation of thought leadership my colleagues have built on CMDB. One topic I wish to address is the notion that people (yes, you and me) are configuration items within the whole CMDB discussion.
I find it interesting that nowhere in the article is the word identity used. I wonder if that was intentional?
The more I work in the CMDB area (the product I currently work on, ChangeGear, has a CMDB) the more similarities I see with the concepts being discussed as an Identity Bus.
It’s a shame there aren’t more people that work on both the IdM and ITSM sides of the fence. Both groups are trying to solve some of the same problems but with different technologies and standards. I think some convergence between these two areas, especially around Identities, would be a very good thing.
Radovan Semančík has some interesting thoughts on this recent Identity Bus discussion. Radovan sees a whole lot of Duct Tape:
All the “buses” are just that. A duct tape. The best product for temporary fixes ever made. But you cannot really build an infrastructure on duct tape, can you?. How you would make a water supply system for a big city using a duct tape? How long can that last? Can you duct tape an electricity distribution system?
My question is if all these buses go somewhere. What is the systemic solution that we want to achieve? What is our vision? Where we want to go? As the Cheshire Cat observed, if we do not know where we want to go it does not matter which road we take.
On the one hand I think Radovan is too hung up on the name “Identity Bus”. I think what we are discussing here is more of an Identity Layer that is intended to be ubiquitous in an enterprise infrastructure. Of course as I have pointed out before, we already have that in AD. What we are discussing is how to improve on that.
On the other hand Radovan is spot-on about one of my frustrations about the Identity Bus discussion. There is not nearly enough discussion about what such a system would actually do. So far the general consensus seems to be that an Identity Bus is:
- Enterprise Ubiquitous (i.e. an Identity Layer)
- Based on Claims and Claims Transformation
- Multi-protocol (i.e. supports LDAP, SAML, XACML, SPML, etc)
- Supports both push and pull models
OK, fine. Those are all laudable goals. But what exactly are we going do with all that? Is this a solution looking for a problem or is there a real vision? Is the Identity Bus a real infrastructure, or is it duct tape?
BTW: Why is duct tape like the Force? There is a light side and a dark side and it binds the Universe together.