[AG-TECH] AG security and multicast ?

[Derek Piper]

	Well, that's just it - there's a difference in how you are viewing the 
users. If people are participating in a conference it would be nice to 
just be able to simply say 'no more can join' with a click of a button. 
In most meetings I hold, the participants are 'trusted', i.e. they are 
meant to be there. Someone who is not meant to be there is easily 
identified. You allow people that know about the meeting in there BEFORE 
it starts. Then, it's in progress and they can't get in. Then, when all 
particpants have left or the room is explicitly 'unlocked', it becomes 
available again.
	For truely 'secure' meetings, an attendee list is nicer/better, but for 
the sake of widespread use and not having to administrate EVERYONE's use 
of the tool for every single meeting, a simpler security method would be 
very useful. Personal AG nodes are going to start appearing on people 
desks soon, and if they have to contact a central 'group' (or person, in 
some cases) to add them into this specified list (so they can just have 
a simple meeting without people 'jumping in') then it's just not going 
to be used effectively. There are different uses for the AccessGrid 
software than large scale nodes/meetings.
	Also, since shared applications were mentioned, if no more can join, 
then other people can't get to the instances of the shared applications 
that are in the venue. Then it becomes a matter of protecting the 
network traffic, which is a different problem.
	For the most part from what I've gathered, the sort of security people 
want on a set of virtual 'conference rooms' is like that of a conference 
room. You're talking about you either have an open-door policy or you 
'hire a bouncer to only let people in who's names are on a list'. Try 
and think about where I'm coming from on this.

	Derek

Gavin W. Burris aka 86 wrote:
> I think allowing anyone into a secure meeting until you "lock the
> door" is a poor security model.  No need to lock the door and be
> worried about who you have already let in, because it is really not
> that user unfriendly to have an attendee list and add them to a secure
> room with the GUI server administration tool.  If you don't do
> security properly, it is just another hoop someone has to jump through
> to get what you don't want them to have.
> 
> Derek Piper wrote (on Mon, 11 Apr 2005 at 08:28):
> 
>>	Something I've been asked about that's security related is about having 
>>the ability to 'lock' a room from within the venue client, akin to 
>>having a closed and locked door for a real conference room. Then, if the 
>>room were set up to encrypt the traffic and people couldn't just 
>>'jump-in' it might make private meetings more attractive to those that 
>>have a need for it. Sure you can set up a room with allowing certain 
>>certificates, but that's cumbersome to have to do on a per-meeting basis 
>>if all you want is something like a bunch of 'conference rooms'. Having 
>>to have an operator tailor a room to a particular meeting isn't a very 
>>user-friendly way of doing it.
>>	I asked a while ago on the list of a good way to do that and the 
>>response was it'd be something I'd have to do myself. If enough people 
>>think it's a feature they want, maybe we can convince the AG software 
>>writers/maintainers to add functionality?
>>
>>	Derek
>>
>>
>>Gavin W. Burris aka 86 wrote:
>>
>>>Here are two good resources:
>>>http://multicasttech.com/
>>>http://multicast.internet2.edu/
>>>
>>>I get asked about security more and more now.  People are concerned that
>>>their research will be broadcast to anyone with a multicast-enabled
>>>network.  VIC and RAT do offer encryption keys, and that is an option
>>>to enable with AGTk venue servers.  Rooms can have access based on
>>>your globus certificates, too.  And AGTK uses SSL for its
>>>client/server connections.
>>>
>>>
>>>Would it be feasible to route multicast though a VPN for very secure
>>>meetings?  Say, run a VPN server on the same machine that the venue
>>>server is on, have clients connect their VPN client to it, and then
>>>fire up AG over the encrypted tunnel?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Dioselin Gonzalez wrote (on Wed, 6 Apr 2005 at 09:05):
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hello everybody,
>>>>
>>>>As part of our distance learning project, we need in-depth technical 
>>>>information about security mechanisms and multicast allocation in the 
>>>>AG.  Are there any documents or papers about this?
>>>>
>>>>The team will be doing low-level implementation, so we need  hard-core 
>>>>documentation for techies :o)
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>Dio.-
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>-- 
>>Derek Piper - dcpiper at indiana.edu - (812) 856 0111
>>IRI 323, School of Informatics
>>Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana
> 
> 

-- 
Derek Piper - dcpiper at indiana.edu - (812) 856 0111
IRI 323, School of Informatics
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana