The wiki is deprecated and due to be decommissioned by the end of September 2022.
The content is being migrated to other supports, new updates will be ignored and lost.
If needed you can get in touch with EGI SDIS team using operations @ egi.eu.
Difference between revisions of "SPG:Drafts:Assessment Community IDvetting adequacy"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Draft Procedure - Assessment of the Adequacy of Community ID vetting''' | '''Draft Procedure - Assessment of the Adequacy of Community ID vetting''' | ||
Authentication and identification is considered adequate, for each User authorised to access Services, if the combined assurance level provided by the end-user credential issuing authority, the e-Infrastructure registration service, and the VO registration service meets or exceeds the requirements of the approved IGTF authentication assurance profiles [AAP]. | |||
The VO or e-Infrastructure wishing to prove the adequacy of its identity vetting, in order to use its members' credentials in conjunction with the IGTF Assurance Profile DOGWOOD, must submit a request for assessment by the EGI Security Policy Group. | |||
The EGI SPG shall advise the EGI Operations Management Board with respect to suitability of the VO or e-Infrastructure for such combined adequacy in accordance with the Policy on Acceptable Authentication Assurance. | |||
The advise shall be based on the assessment of the following submitted information: | |||
* their compliance with the Community Membership Policy | |||
* documented description of the membership life cycle process and practices meeting the requirements of the IGTF ASPEN, BIRCH, or CEDAR assurance level, where | |||
** the membership registration data and issued assertions constitute the credential of the user | |||
** where the identifier is obtained from a DOGWOOD user credential, the membership registration data should maintain a persistent unique mapping to an appropriate representation of the real name of the user, and this name should be released where technically feasible | |||
** the Issuing Authority corresponds to the collection of membership management and assertion-issuing systems and services | |||
Revision as of 12:21, 9 June 2017
Draft Procedure - Assessment of the Adequacy of Community ID vetting
Authentication and identification is considered adequate, for each User authorised to access Services, if the combined assurance level provided by the end-user credential issuing authority, the e-Infrastructure registration service, and the VO registration service meets or exceeds the requirements of the approved IGTF authentication assurance profiles [AAP].
The VO or e-Infrastructure wishing to prove the adequacy of its identity vetting, in order to use its members' credentials in conjunction with the IGTF Assurance Profile DOGWOOD, must submit a request for assessment by the EGI Security Policy Group.
The EGI SPG shall advise the EGI Operations Management Board with respect to suitability of the VO or e-Infrastructure for such combined adequacy in accordance with the Policy on Acceptable Authentication Assurance.
The advise shall be based on the assessment of the following submitted information:
- their compliance with the Community Membership Policy
- documented description of the membership life cycle process and practices meeting the requirements of the IGTF ASPEN, BIRCH, or CEDAR assurance level, where
- the membership registration data and issued assertions constitute the credential of the user
- where the identifier is obtained from a DOGWOOD user credential, the membership registration data should maintain a persistent unique mapping to an appropriate representation of the real name of the user, and this name should be released where technically feasible
- the Issuing Authority corresponds to the collection of membership management and assertion-issuing systems and services