- DG-IDoT - mailman.kantarainitiative.org

blockchain-based identity solution
by j stollman 20 Nov '15

20 Nov '15

All, This solution is currently available for individuals. I see no reason to not be able to apply it to Things: onename.com --------------------------------- Jeff Stollman stollman.j(a)gmail.com 1 202.683.8699 Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out. Science advances one funeral at a time. Max Planck On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:36 AM, <Ingo.Friese(a)telekom.de> wrote: > Hello, > > I hope you are all doing well. I’d like to remind you that our next > IDoT-call is coming up today. > > I’m looking forward to talking to you! > > Best regards > > Ingo > > *Date and Time* > > - Friday, October 23th, at 7am PT (time chart) > <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=IDoT+Conf+Call&iso…> > - Voice: Skype: +99051000000481 or US +1-805-309-2350 / Alternate > Toll +1 (714) 551-9842 (international dial-in lines > <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/x/KYC_/>), room code > 613-2898# > - (Turbobridge call options <https://www.turbobridge.com/join.html>) > > > > _______________________________________________ > DG-IDoT mailing list > DG-IDoT(a)kantarainitiative.org > http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idot > >

1 0

tachometer
by Salvatore D'Agostino 06 Nov '15

06 Nov '15

https://www.gov.uk/tachographs/overview Salvatore D'Agostino IDmachines LLC 1264 Beacon Street, #5 Brookline, MA 02446 USA http://www.idmachines.com <http://www.idmachines.com/> http://idmachines.blogspot.com <http://idmachines.blogspot.com/> @idmachines +1 617.201.4809 ph +1 617.812.6495 fax

1 0

Fwd: [WG-UMA] NIST Seeks Comments on New Project Aimed at Protecting Privacy Online
by Scott Shorter 06 Nov '15

06 Nov '15

FYI an interesting conversation, and see Eve's link for that paper I mentioned. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Eve Maler <eve(a)xmlgrrl.com> Date: Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:23 AM Subject: Re: [WG-UMA] NIST Seeks Comments on New Project Aimed at Protecting Privacy Online To: Mark Dobrinic <mdobrinic(a)cozmanova.com> Cc: "wg-uma(a)kantarainitiative.org UMA" <wg-uma(a)kantarainitiative.org> Okay, I’ll be the contrarian, just for fun. As I commented to a couple of people regarding the relatively recent academic paper Toward Mending Two Nation-Scale Brokered Identification Systems <http://www0.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/G.Danezis/papers/popets15-brokid.pdf>, everything is tradeoffs. And it’s arguable that the governments in those cases made the operationally and more citizen-acceptable tradeoff for privacy vs. what the researchers recommended. Quoting/paraphrasing myself from previous threads on this topic: I suspected from a brief article <http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/2414194/govuk-verify-identity-managemen…> on the subject that the reporter probably had trouble divining exactly what the problem with the FCCX and UK.Gov <http://uk.gov> Verify systems actually was, since it wasn't explained at all, nor what the proposed solution was... and it's all extremely subtle. And I'm not even seeing a huge outcry or even all that much gov followup/panicked defense after. The researchers found a limitation in the tradeoff choice that the FCCX and UK.Gov <http://uk.gov> Verify system designers made. This tradeoff prizes the ability for the user to use an online service ("relying party") and an identity provider, free from worrying that the two will discover who the other is, over the perfect ability for a pseudonymous identifier and attributes representing the user to pass unseen through the broker in the middle (the broker makes this "service blinding" possible). The researchers propose some clever encryption tricks to guard against the broker seeing things, and go further and propose a new user-chosen "identity integration" service that could handle the tricks. Given that brokered systems, and the "older" protocols such as SAML already in use, and the encryption tricks they suggest, and user interfaces that force users to choose services, are all considered extremely heavyweight and expensive in various ways, I give the researchers' suggestions a nil chance of succeeding in the current environment. And given that users have a variety of incentives to share enough attributes in everyday circumstances to routinely become identifiable (Latanya Sweeney's research in particular is famous for discovering these properties), it's very questionable whether the researchers' preference for tradeoffs vs. the nations' preference is the correct one. On 25 Oct 2015, at 7:49 AM, Mark Dobrinic <mdobrinic(a)cozmanova.com> wrote: Yes, that. Always looking at privacy from linkablility and anonymity perspectives. An Identity Broker with privacy in mind has the responsibility to protect those properties. Through policy, but also some funky cryptography could be applied to assist there. But yeah, in the end they have the potential to only make things worse from a privacy point of view, and not better. Cheers! Mark On 24/10/15 08:24, Justin Richer wrote: My view on this remains “to increase privacy get rid of brokers”. A full mesh SAML or PKI federation is untenable, so that’s why we’ve deployed brokers in the past. But OIDC, with dynamic client registration and server discovery, is built for this. I believe wee need to move towards this model. Is anyone interested in writing up a response to that effect with me? Perhaps we could run a session on it at IIW this week for those of us that will be there (including myself). — Justin On Oct 23, 2015, at 8:29 AM, Andrew Hughes <andrewhughes3000(a)gmail.com <mailto:andrewhughes3000@gmail.com <andrewhughes3000(a)gmail.com>>> wrote: Hi UMAnitarians - not sure if you've seen this notice yet I'm vice-chair of IAWG & we are probably going to assemble comments on this. "Privacy-Enhanced Identity Brokers" Comments to inform a new collaborative project & eventual 1800 series Practice Guide at the NIST NCCoE Due 18 December http://www.nist.gov/itl/acd/ncce/20151022privacy.cfm *Andrew Hughes *CISM CISSP Independent Consultant *In Turn Information Management Consulting* o +1 650.209.7542 <tel:%2B1%20650.209.7542> m +1 250.888.9474 <tel:%2B1%20250.888.9474> 1249 Palmer Road, Victoria, BC V8P 2H8 AndrewHughes3000(a)gmail.com <mailto:AndrewHughes3000@gmail.com> ca.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-hughes/a/58/682/ <http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-hughes/a/58/682/> *Identity Management | IT Governance | Information Security * _______________________________________________ WG-UMA mailing list WG-UMA(a)kantarainitiative.org <mailto:WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma _______________________________________________ WG-UMA mailing list WG-UMA(a)kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma _______________________________________________ WG-UMA mailing list WG-UMA(a)kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma Eve Maler | cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl | Calendar: xmlgrrl(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ WG-UMA mailing list WG-UMA(a)kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma -- ========================================================== *Scott Shorter, Principal Security Engineer* Electrosoft *–* Fueling Customer Success Through Outstanding Value and Trust! *Woman-Owned, Minority-Owned Small Business | ISO 9001 | CMMI Level 2 * sshorter(a)electrosoft-inc.com (Email); http://www.electrosoft-inc.com (Web) ==========================================================

1 0

FW: [WG-UMA] NIST Seeks Comments on New Project Aimed at Protecting Privacy Online
by Salvatore D'Agostino 06 Nov '15

06 Nov '15

What Scott mentioned.. Good point. From: wg-uma-bounces(a)kantarainitiative.org [mailto:wg-uma-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Eve Maler Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 2:24 AM To: Mark Dobrinic Cc: wg-uma(a)kantarainitiative.org UMA Subject: Re: [WG-UMA] NIST Seeks Comments on New Project Aimed at Protecting Privacy Online Okay, I'll be the contrarian, just for fun. As I commented to a couple of people regarding the relatively recent academic paper Toward Mending Two Nation-Scale Brokered Identification Systems <http://www0.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/G.Danezis/papers/popets15-brokid.pdf> , everything is tradeoffs. And it's arguable that the governments in those cases made the operationally and more citizen-acceptable tradeoff for privacy vs. what the researchers recommended. Quoting/paraphrasing myself from previous threads on this topic: I suspected from a brief article <http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/2414194/govuk-verify-identity-managemen t-system-riddled-with-severe-privacy-and-security-problems-warn-ucl-academic s> on the subject that the reporter probably had trouble divining exactly what the problem with the FCCX and UK.Gov Verify systems actually was, since it wasn't explained at all, nor what the proposed solution was... and it's all extremely subtle. And I'm not even seeing a huge outcry or even all that much gov followup/panicked defense after. The researchers found a limitation in the tradeoff choice that the FCCX and UK.Gov Verify system designers made. This tradeoff prizes the ability for the user to use an online service ("relying party") and an identity provider, free from worrying that the two will discover who the other is, over the perfect ability for a pseudonymous identifier and attributes representing the user to pass unseen through the broker in the middle (the broker makes this "service blinding" possible). The researchers propose some clever encryption tricks to guard against the broker seeing things, and go further and propose a new user-chosen "identity integration" service that could handle the tricks. Given that brokered systems, and the "older" protocols such as SAML already in use, and the encryption tricks they suggest, and user interfaces that force users to choose services, are all considered extremely heavyweight and expensive in various ways, I give the researchers' suggestions a nil chance of succeeding in the current environment. And given that users have a variety of incentives to share enough attributes in everyday circumstances to routinely become identifiable (Latanya Sweeney's research in particular is famous for discovering these properties), it's very questionable whether the researchers' preference for tradeoffs vs. the nations' preference is the correct one. On 25 Oct 2015, at 7:49 AM, Mark Dobrinic <mdobrinic(a)cozmanova.com> wrote: Yes, that. Always looking at privacy from linkablility and anonymity perspectives. An Identity Broker with privacy in mind has the responsibility to protect those properties. Through policy, but also some funky cryptography could be applied to assist there. But yeah, in the end they have the potential to only make things worse from a privacy point of view, and not better. Cheers! Mark On 24/10/15 08:24, Justin Richer wrote: My view on this remains "to increase privacy get rid of brokers". A full mesh SAML or PKI federation is untenable, so that's why we've deployed brokers in the past. But OIDC, with dynamic client registration and server discovery, is built for this. I believe wee need to move towards this model. Is anyone interested in writing up a response to that effect with me? Perhaps we could run a session on it at IIW this week for those of us that will be there (including myself). - Justin On Oct 23, 2015, at 8:29 AM, Andrew Hughes <andrewhughes3000(a)gmail.com <mailto:andrewhughes3000@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi UMAnitarians - not sure if you've seen this notice yet I'm vice-chair of IAWG & we are probably going to assemble comments on this. "Privacy-Enhanced Identity Brokers" Comments to inform a new collaborative project & eventual 1800 series Practice Guide at the NIST NCCoE Due 18 December http://www.nist.gov/itl/acd/ncce/20151022privacy.cfm *Andrew Hughes *CISM CISSP Independent Consultant *In Turn Information Management Consulting* o +1 650.209.7542 <tel:%2B1%20650.209.7542> m +1 250.888.9474 <tel:%2B1%20250.888.9474> 1249 Palmer Road, Victoria, BC V8P 2H8 AndrewHughes3000(a)gmail.com <mailto:AndrewHughes3000@gmail.com> ca.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-hughes/a/58/682/ <http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-hughes/a/58/682/> *Identity Management | IT Governance | Information Security * _______________________________________________ WG-UMA mailing list WG-UMA(a)kantarainitiative.org <mailto:WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma _______________________________________________ WG-UMA mailing list WG-UMA(a)kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma _______________________________________________ WG-UMA mailing list WG-UMA(a)kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma Eve Maler | cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl | Calendar: xmlgrrl(a)gmail.com

1 0

FW: Gartner Report: Why DNS is mission-critical
by Ingo.Friese＠telekom.de 06 Nov '15

06 Nov '15

Hi all, Find attached a gartner report summary about “Why is DNS mission critical”? That fits perfect to our discovery thoughts in IDoT. Best Ingo From: Mildner, Frank Sent: Freitag, 6. November 2015 12:45 To: Friese, Ingo Subject: WG: Gartner Report: Why DNS is mission-critical FYI – passt doch in 5G ID und für unserer Kantara Kannste mal verteilen, wir haben hier in Da Netzprobleme Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Viele Grüße / Best Regards Frank Mildner DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG T-Labs (Research & Innovation) Dipl.-Ing. Frank Mildner Deutsche-Telekom-Allee 7, 64295 Darmstadt +4961515834747 (Tel.) +496151899838 (Fax) E-Mail: frank.mildner(a)telekom.de<mailto:frank.mildner@telekom.de> www.telekom.com<http://www.telekom.com/> Erleben, was verbindet. Die gesetzlichen Pflichtangaben finden Sie unter: www.telekom.com/pflichtangaben<http://www.telekom.com/pflichtangaben> Grosse Veränderungen fangen klein an – Ressourcen schonen und nicht jede E-Mail drucken. Von: Brittany Haddad [mailto:hello@dyn.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. November 2015 15:36 An: Mildner, Frank Betreff: Gartner Report: Why DNS is mission-critical [cid:image001.jpg@01D11890.EE7EA710]<http://info.dyn.com/K005TAS10uB34n70205A0W0> INTERNET PERFORMANCE. DELIVERED. [cid:image002.jpg@01D11890.EE7EA710]<http://info.dyn.com/y5BA052A070uWS40To00140> If External DNS Fails, So Does Your Digital Business We've got some hot new information to share on DNS. Read the Gartner Report<http://info.dyn.com/y5BA052A070uWS40To00140> to find out why DNS is mission-critical to all organizations that connect to the Internet. Discover the challenges businesses face maintaining visibility and availability of key resources and the advantages of an externally sourced, managed, and focused DNS as a service on cost, resilience, reliability, and performance. Already have DNS? Watch the video<http://info.dyn.com/AB1p0TAS40A752500u0500W> on our brand new product, Internet Intelligence<http://info.dyn.com/AB1p0TAS40A752500u0500W> and get ready to see the Internet like never before! Manage DNS More Reliably<http://info.dyn.com/y5BA052A070uWS40To00140> [cid:~WRD000.jpg] Dyn Global HQ 150 Dow Street - Tower Two Manchester, NH 03101 unsubscribe from this list<http://pages.dyn.com/UnsubscribePage.html?mkt_unsubscribe=1&mkt_tok=3RkMMJW…> [cid:image003.jpg@01D11890.EE7EA710]<http://info.dyn.com/s06B1u500SAq0A05T24070W> [cid:image003.jpg@01D11890.EE7EA710] <http://info.dyn.com/JS4uA5075W0ArB0072001T0> [cid:image003.jpg@01D11890.EE7EA710] <http://info.dyn.com/V0Ss1007B50W400AuT528A0> [cid:image003.jpg@01D11890.EE7EA710] <http://info.dyn.com/wS0WAT7Au000025t105490B>

1 0

future of farming
by Salvatore D'Agostino 23 Oct '15

23 Oct '15

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/03/the-internet-of-things-and-the-futu re-of-farming/?_r=0

2 1

Searching for authors/editors
by Ingo.Friese＠telekom.de 20 Oct '15

20 Oct '15

Dear group, We intend to have a liaison with IEEE P2413 IoT Architecture working group. In this case we not just want exchange information we also were asked to support the P2413 work. In a first step we want to write/work on a "Guideline/privacy model for IoT". I'm looking for authors/volunteers to start with this paper. Who is interested? Best, Ingo

1 0

Identifier Survey
by Ingo.Friese＠telekom.de 28 Sep '15

28 Sep '15

Hi All, Ross started to compile a great overview of different identifier and their characteristics. http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/IDoT/Identifier+Survey?src=… Please have a look at it and add identifier from your experience. It's great starting point for a really useful and informative piece of work. Thanks! Ingo

1 0

OTA IoT Trust Framework and rationale to add Apps to IoT topology
by j stollman 22 Aug '15

22 Aug '15

Good day all. I recently reviewd OTA's IoT Trust Framework. It prompted me to recognize the need to elevate Applications to the top level of our device hierarchy - along with Sensors, Processor, and Actuators. The apps do most of the work managing the three hardware components. As such, they are the real intelligence that will often be the discriminator of who has access and who doesn't. and what rights the accessing entity has. You can review the OTA's framework at the forwarded link below. I have attached my comments to OTA for your review and consideration. Thank you. Jeff --------------------------------- Jeff Stollman stollman.j(a)gmail.com 1 202.683.8699 Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out. Science advances one funeral at a time. Max Planck ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Eve Maler <eve(a)xmlgrrl.com> Date: Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 8:29 PM Subject: [WG-UMA] Fwd: [KI-LC] Of Possible Interest - OTA IoT Trust Framework Public Review To: "wg-uma(a)kantarainitiative.org WG" <wg-uma(a)kantarainitiative.org> Here’s something called a “trust framework” that looks a bit different from what identity federation (or, possibly, access federation) folks might have in mind, but is very interesting. OTA does good work. If anyone is interested to reach out to them in a more formal fashion around UMA synergies, or would like to coordinate on comment collection, let me know. Eve Begin forwarded message: *From: *Joni Brennan <joni(a)kantarainitiative.org> *Subject: **[KI-LC] Of Possible Interest - OTA IoT Trust Framework Public Review* *Date: *21 August 2015 at 12:26:51 PM PDT *To: *"LC(a)kantarainitiative.org" <LC(a)kantarainitiative.org> Dear LC - the Online Trust Alliance has put out a IOT Trust Framework for public review. I believe the paper is 5 pages (for a send of the scope of review). OTA has invited Kantara to comment on the paper. https://otalliance.org/iot-trust-framework-submission The deadline is Sept 14th. OTA would be happy to provide your members a briefing or webinar. If WGs / DGs have particular interest we are happy to review organizational liaison opportunities as well. Best Regards, Joni Brennan Kantara Initiative | Executive Director email: joni @ kantarainitiative.org Connecting Identity for a more trustworthy Internet - Overview <http://www.slideshare.net/kantarainitiative/kantara-overview2014-37969351> _______________________________________________ LC mailing list LC(a)kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc Eve Maler | cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl | Calendar: xmlgrrl(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ WG-UMA mailing list WG-UMA(a)kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma

1 0

IDoT con call
by Ingo.Friese＠telekom.de 11 Aug '15

11 Aug '15

Dear all, I’d like to invite you to our biweekly IDoT call. Date and Time Date: Friday Time: 07:00 PT | 10:00 ET | 16:00 CEST * Dial-in Details Skype: +99051000000481 US Dial-In: +1-805-309-2350 Alternate Toll +1 (714) 551-9842 International Numbers: http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/x/KYC_/ Conference ID: 613-2898 The following commands may be used participants during the conference call:+ *0 Plays menu of Keypad Commands *3 Promote to Host (if non-host) *5 Raise your hand *6 Mute yourself (toggle on/off) *# Private roll call of participants *\* Mute music-on-hold (toggle on/off) TurboPhone (beta): https://www.turbobridge.com/join.html Works with Internet Explorer on Windows only SIP Access (using IP phone or soft phone) sip:bridge@turbobridge.com SIP URL details: https://www.turbobridge.com/help/Index.html?context=180

1 0