U.S. patent application number 12/401540 was filed with the patent office on 2009-07-09 for system and method for maintaining security in a distributed computer network.
This patent application is currently assigned to BEA SYSTEMS, INC.. Invention is credited to Mark Moriconi, Shelly Qian.
Application Number | 20090178111 12/401540 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 26803151 |
Filed Date | 2009-07-09 |
United States Patent
Application |
20090178111 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Moriconi; Mark ; et
al. |
July 9, 2009 |
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MAINTAINING SECURITY IN A DISTRIBUTED
COMPUTER NETWORK
Abstract
A system for maintaining security in a distributed computing
environment comprises a policy manager located on a server to
maintain policy data files and distribute local security policies
to a plurality of clients, and a plurality of application guards,
wherein each application guard is located at one of the plurality
of clients to manage access by individual transactions to at least
one application associated with the application guard, wherein the
application guard controls access to the application based on a
local security policy received from the policy manager.
Inventors: |
Moriconi; Mark; (Atherton,
CA) ; Qian; Shelly; (Cupertino, CA) |
Correspondence
Address: |
Fliesler Meyer LLP
650 California Street, 14th Floor
San Francisco
CA
94108
US
|
Assignee: |
BEA SYSTEMS, INC.
Redwood Shore
CA
|
Family ID: |
26803151 |
Appl. No.: |
12/401540 |
Filed: |
March 10, 2009 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
09721557 |
Nov 22, 2000 |
7506357 |
|
|
12401540 |
|
|
|
|
09248788 |
Feb 12, 1999 |
6158010 |
|
|
09721557 |
|
|
|
|
60105963 |
Oct 28, 1998 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
726/1 ;
707/999.01; 707/999.102; 709/223; 726/4 |
Current CPC
Class: |
H04L 63/1408 20130101;
G06F 2221/2145 20130101; H04L 63/1425 20130101; G06F 21/552
20130101; G06F 2221/2117 20130101; G06F 2221/2151 20130101; H04L
63/0263 20130101; G06F 2221/2141 20130101; G06F 2221/2111 20130101;
G06F 21/604 20130101; H04L 63/102 20130101; G06F 21/6218 20130101;
G06F 2221/2149 20130101; H04L 63/105 20130101; Y10S 707/99939
20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
726/1 ; 709/223;
707/10; 707/102; 726/4 |
International
Class: |
H04L 9/32 20060101
H04L009/32; G06F 15/173 20060101 G06F015/173 |
Claims
1. A system for maintaining security in a distributed computing
environment, comprising: a policy manager located on a server to
maintain policy data files and distribute local security policies
to a plurality of clients; and a plurality of application guards,
wherein each application guard is located at one of the plurality
of clients to manage access by individual transactions to at least
one application associated with the application guard, wherein the
application guard controls access to the application based on a
local security policy received from the policy manager, wherein the
application guard receives an authorization request including a
subject, an object and a privilege and evaluates said request by
matching the rules received from the policy manager to said
subject, said object and said privilege in order to control access
to said application associated with the application guard.
2. The system of claim 1 wherein: the policy manager derives local
security policies from a global security policy, the global
security policy includes a plurality of rules applicable to all
application guards in the system.
3. The system of claim 2 wherein: the policy manager optimizes the
global security policy into an optimized form, wherein the
optimized form only distributes attributes relevant to a specific
application guard.
4. The system of claim 1 wherein: the policy manager computes any
differences caused by a modification on the security policy and
commit only the changed portion of the security policy to an
appropriate application guards.
5. The system of claim 1 wherein: the policy manager supports
concurrent rule development by multiple users.
6. The system of claim 1 wherein: the policy manager tracks and
record authorization requests.
7. The system of claim 1 wherein: the policy manager is associated
with an application guard to allow only authorized administrator to
access and operate the policy manager.
8. The system of claim 1 wherein: the policy manager reviews and
reconstructs policy rules to make sure the policy rules are
syntactically and semantically correct to a predefined policy
language.
9. The system of claim 1 wherein: the policy manager determines
which application guard needs to receive which policy rules.
10. The system of claim 1 wherein: the application guard is
integrated into the application associated with the application
guard.
11. The system of claim 1 wherein: the application guard evaluates
the authorization request against a stored local security
policy.
12. The system of claim 1 wherein: the application guard is
associated with plug-ins to allow for additional capabilities to
process and evaluate the authorization request based on customized
code.
13. The system of claim 1 wherein: the application guard is
implemented as a remote authorization service through a remote
procedure call to another server.
14. The system of claim 1 wherein: the application guard uses
multiple authorization engines to add performance and
reliability.
15. The system of claim 1, further comprising: an enterprise policy
database that allows a user to enter policy rules one at a
time.
16. The system of claim 16, further comprising: a policy loader to
bulk load a existing set of policy rules into the enterprise policy
database.
17. A system for maintaining security in a distributed computing
environment, comprising: a policy manager located on a server to
maintain policy data files and distribute local security policies
to a plurality of clients, wherein the policy manager operates to
derive local security policies from a global security policy, the
global security policy includes a plurality of rules applicable to
one or more of the plurality of clients; organize the global
security policy into an optimized form, wherein the optimized form
only distributes attributes relevant to a specific client; compute
any differences caused by a modification on the global security
policy and commit only the changed portion of the global security
policy to a specific client;
18. A system for maintaining security in a distributed computing
environment, comprising: a plurality of application guards, wherein
each application guard is located at one of a plurality of clients
to manage access by individual transactions to at least one
application associated with the application guard, wherein the
application guard controls access to the application based on a
local security policy received from a policy manager, wherein the
application guard receives an authorization request including a
subject, an object and a privilege and evaluates said request by
matching the rules received from the policy manager to said
subject, said object and said privilege in order to control access
to said application associated with the application guard.
Description
CLAIM OF PRIORITY
[0001] This application is a continuation of U.S. patent
application Ser. No. 09/721,557, filed Nov. 22, 2000, entitled
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MAINTAINING SECURITY IN A DISTRIBUTED
COMPUTER NETWORK, which is a continuation of U.S. patent
application Ser. No. 09/248,788, filed Feb. 21, 1999, now U.S. Pat.
No. 6,158,010, issued Dec. 5, 2000, entitled SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR
MAINTAINING SECURITY IN A DISTRIBUTED COMPUTER NETWORK which claims
the benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No.
60/105,963, filed Oct. 28, 1998, entitled SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR
MAINTAINING SECURITY IN A DISTRIBUTED COMPUTER NETWORK, each of
which applications are herein incorporated by reference.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
[0002] A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains
material which is subject to copyright protection. The copyright
owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of
the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the
Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwise
reserves all copyright rights whatsoever.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0003] 1. Field of the Invention
[0004] This invention relates generally to computer security
systems, and relates more particularly to a system and method for
managing and enforcing complex security requirements in a
distributed computer network.
[0005] 2. Description of the Background Art
[0006] Computer security issues have become more complex with the
continual evolution of contemporary computer systems. As
corporations utilize increasingly distributed and open computing
environments, the security requirements of an enterprise typically
grow accordingly. The complexity of employee, customer and partner
access to critical information assets, while assuring proper
security, has proven to be a major hurdle. For example, many
organizations deploy applications that allow their external
business partners, as well as their own internal employees, to
access sensitive information resources within the enterprise. In
the absence of adequate security measures, an enterprise may thus
be subject to the risk of decreased security and
confidentiality.
[0007] While most organizations focus their security concerns on
protecting the internal network from the outside world, it is
estimated that 80-90% of all corporate security breaches come from
within an organization (source: Aberdeen Group, September 1997).
This further underscores the need to specify and enforce an access
control security policy within the enterprise network.
[0008] In today's complex business environment, specifying,
stating, implementing and managing an enterprise access control
policy may be both difficult and inefficient. When corporate data
and applications revolved around a mainframe model, the problem of
defining and managing access to corporate applications was
relatively straightforward. Today, the complexity of business
methods, as well as the complexity of distributed application
architectures, may force companies to resort to manual, ineffective
or highly custom approaches to access control in their attempts to
implement the business process.
[0009] To secure a complex and distributed computer system, the
system may typically employ a combination of encryption,
authentication, and authorization technologies. Encryption is a
means of sending information between participants in a manner that
prevents other parties from reading the information. Authentication
is a process of verifying a party's identity. Authorization is a
technique for determining what actions a participant is allowed to
perform.
[0010] Encryption and authentication are well-understood and have
led to effective network security products, whereas authorization
technology is not as well developed, and is often inadequate for
many enterprises. The security approach of most companies today is
to focus on the authentication of users to ensure that those users
are part of the organization or a member of a select group.
Authentication can be accomplished with a number of different
approaches, from simple password or challenge response mechanisms
to smart cards and biometric devices such as a fingerprint reader.
Once users are authenticated, however, there is still a significant
problem in managing and enforcing their set of privileges, which
may be unique and vary widely between users. The same
authentication mechanism can be used for every user, but different
authorization mechanisms must be developed for most applications.
Therefore, reliable and efficient access control is a much more
difficult problem facing enterprises today.
[0011] Authentication mechanisms often work together with some sort
of access control facility that can protect information resources
from unauthorized users. Examples of network security products
include firewalls, digital certificates, virtual private networks,
and single sign-on systems. Some of these products provide limited
support for resource-level authorization. For example, a firewall
can screen access requests to an application or a database, but
does not provide object-level authorization within an application
or database. Single Sign-On (SSO) products, for example, maintain a
list of resources an authenticated user can access by managing the
login process to many different applications. However, firewalls,
SSO and other related products are very limited in their ability to
implement a sophisticated security policy characteristic of many of
today's enterprises. They are limited to attempting to manage
access at a login, or "launch level", which is an all or nothing
approach that inherently cannot implement a business-level
policy.
[0012] A real-world security policy within a large enterprise is a
detailed and dynamic knowledge base specific to that organization.
The authorization privileges are specific to the constantly
evolving set of users, applications, partners, and global policies
that the enterprise puts in place to protect its key information
resources. A security policy within a large enterprise can consist
of tens or hundreds of thousands of individual rules that cover
which users are authorized to access particular applications,
perform various operations, or manage the delegation and transfer
of tasks. Many of these policy rules that implement the business
practice of the organization have to be hard coded within
custom-built applications or stored in the database.
[0013] The key problem is that these policy rules are localized,
scattered throughout the organization, and embedded in applications
and databases. Such embedding is expensive and error-prone, and
mitigates against efficient policy updates. An organization cannot
effectively implement and manage the resulting policy.
Inconsistencies arise and updates can quickly become unmanageable.
Policy queries and analysis from a global perspective are nearly
impossible. The resulting policy begins to diverge from the
intended business practices of the organization. Compromises are
made in the policy implementation at the department level, and
auditors can quickly become frustrated.
[0014] The increasing security risks associated with the
proliferation of distributed computing, including Intranet and
Extranet applications, are prompting many organizations to explore
a broad range of security solutions for controlling access to their
important information assets. Although organizations have a number
of solutions to choose from for authenticating users (determining
and verifying who is attempting to gain access to the network or
individual applications), there is little choice when it comes to
controlling what users can do and when they can do it to the extent
necessary to implement the kinds of complex security policies
required by modern organizations. Organizations have been forced to
choose between custom authorization solutions that are costly,
error-prone, and difficult to manage, or third-party solutions that
are very limited in their ability to control access to information
across applications and databases.
[0015] A real-world security policy within a large organization is
a detailed and dynamic knowledge base that determines which users
are authorized to access particular applications, perform various
operations or manage the delegation and transfer of tasks, as well
as when and under what circumstances they are permitted to do so.
Authorization privileges depend upon a constantly evolving set of
users, applications, partners, and business polices that comprise
the enterprise security policy. A typical enterprise environment
consists of several thousand users, hundreds of applications, and a
myriad of network resources, resulting in a security policy that
can consist of tens or hundreds of thousands of interrelated policy
rules.
[0016] Typically, organizations attempt to control access to the
internals of in-house applications through policy rules that are
hard-coded in the application or through stored procedure
statements in the database. But as the number of applications and
databases grows, this patchwork approach to authorization quickly
gets out of hand. First, organizations must incur the costly and
time-consuming overhead of developing customized security code for
each application. But more importantly, once the code is developed
and embedded in an application, the embedded policy rules become
impossible to track, difficult to update, and nearly impossible to
manage because they are scattered throughout the organization.
[0017] With an estimated 80 percent of all security breaches coming
from authorized users (source: Forrester Research), advanced policy
features and enforcement mechanisms are needed to control access to
sensitive information assets. To implement an enterprise policy,
organizations need a centralized policy and a powerful way to
specify policy rules to give them adequate access control security.
At the same time, they need a distributed authorization
infrastructure to provide authorization services to all
applications with performance and scalability for modern
distributed network environments.
[0018] Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, an improved system and
method are needed to protect the distributed networks of
enterprises against unauthorized access to their valuable
information assets by managing and enforcing the complex security
policy requirements of the organization.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0019] In accordance with the present invention, a system and
method are disclosed to manage and enforce complex security
requirements for a computer system in a distributed computer
network.
[0020] It is therefore an object of the present invention to
provide an access control system that can manage individual
transactions by users around well-defined, detailed objects within
an application. It is also an object of the present invention to
provide a policy manager that enables the creation, modification,
querying, and analysis of an enterprise access-control policy, as
well as the configuration and monitoring of integrated audit logs,
while delivering the performance and scalability required to meet
the demands of any enterprise. It is a further object of the
present invention to provide a system that combines a centrally
managed policy database with distributed authorization (access
control) services that enforce the policy for all applications
across the organization.
[0021] It is also an object of this invention to provide a system
that works in conjunction with any authentication system, including
digital certificates and smartcards, and obviates the need for
single sign-on systems by letting organizations set detailed,
dynamic rules for exactly who can access which applications,
databases, and other network objects. It is a still further object
of this invention to provide a robust security policy and
authorization service that can be implemented in very heterogeneous
environments, across all applications and databases within the
organization, thereby completely eliminating the need for embedded,
custom security code within applications, and making it possible to
centrally manage and administer a consistent, robust security
policy for all applications, databases, and network resources.
Furthermore, organizations would no longer have to rely on
authorization mechanisms provided by packaged or web application
vendors that do not integrate with in-house or other third-party
products.
[0022] In the preferred embodiment, the system comprises a policy
manager located on a server for managing and distributing a local
client policy based on a global security policy, and an application
guard located on a client or server associated with one or more
clients for managing access to securable components as specified by
the local client policy. The global policy specifies access
privileges of the user to securable components. The policy manager
may then distribute a local client policy based on the global
policy to the client or server. An application guard located on the
client or server then manages authorization requests to the
securable components as specified by the local client policy. Each
authorization request may be recorded in an audit log to keep track
of the authorization requests, whether they were granted or denied,
and other useful information.
[0023] The system and method of the present invention supports
centralized management and distributed authorization. A central
policy server stores and manages the policy rules in a centrally
administered database. A powerful graphical user interface is used
to create, manage, and customize the elements of a policy. Security
rules can be specified by both novice and expert users. A dedicated
authorization service is associated with one or more applications.
The central policy server automatically distributes (over the
network) only the relevant portion of the enterprise policy to each
remote service. This distributed architecture ensures that
authorization requests are not bottlenecked at a central service
point and provides unlimited scalability and maximum performance,
regardless of the number of applications or policy rules
involved.
[0024] A more sophisticated security policy is possible because the
application has the ability to evaluate access privileges upon
every access to the information, during every transaction, and at
every data request.
[0025] Therefore, the present invention more efficiently and
effectively manages and protects computer applications, databases,
and network resources against unauthorized access in a distributed
computer network.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0026] FIG. 1 is a block diagram of one embodiment for one system,
in accordance with the present invention;
[0027] FIG. 2 is a block diagram of one embodiment of the
non-volatile memory located within the server in FIG. 1, according
to the present invention;
[0028] FIG. 3 is a block diagram of one embodiment of the
non-volatile memory located within the client in FIG. 1, according
to the present invention;
[0029] FIG. 4 is a block diagram of one embodiment of the policy
manager located within the non-volatile memory in FIG. 2, in
accordance with the present invention;
[0030] FIG. 5 is a block diagram of one embodiment of the
application guard located within the non-volatile memory in FIG. 3,
according to the present invention;
[0031] FIG. 6 is a block diagram of one embodiment of a policy
loader, in accordance with the present invention;
[0032] FIG. 7 is a flowchart of one embodiment of method steps to
configure a system, in accordance with the present invention;
[0033] FIG. 8 is a flowchart of one embodiment to manage policy in
the management station, according to the present invention;
[0034] FIG. 9 is a flowchart of one embodiment to navigate tree in
the management station, according to the present invention;
[0035] FIG. 10 is a flowchart of one embodiment to analyze policy
in the management station, in accordance with the present
invention;
[0036] FIG. 11 is a flowchart of one embodiment to edit policy in
the management station, in accordance with the present
invention;
[0037] FIG. 12 is a flowchart of method steps to distribute policy,
according to one embodiment of the present invention;
[0038] FIG. 13 is a flowchart of method steps for client access
authorization, in accordance with one embodiment of the present
invention; and
[0039] FIG. 14 is a flowchart of method steps to evaluate
authorization request, according to one embodiment of the present
invention.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT
[0040] The present invention relates to an improvement in security
techniques to protect computer systems against unauthorized access.
The following description is presented to enable one of ordinary
skill in the art to make and use the invention and is provided in
the context of a patent application and its requirements. Various
modifications to the preferred embodiment will be readily apparent
to those skilled in the art and the generic principles herein may
be applied to other embodiments. Thus, the present invention is not
intended to be limited to the embodiment shown but is to be
accorded the widest scope consistent with the principles and
features described herein.
[0041] The present invention includes a system and method for
managing and enforcing complex security requirements in a
distributed computer network, and comprises a policy manager
located on a server for managing and distributing a policy to a
client, and an application guard located on the client, the
application guard acting to grant or deny access to various
components of the client, as specified by the policy.
[0042] Referring now to FIG. 1, a block diagram of one embodiment
of a distributed computer network system 110 is shown, including a
server 112 connected via a network 114 to a client 116, in
accordance with the present invention. One client 116 is shown, but
server 112 is typically connected to many clients 116. In the FIG.
1 embodiment, server 112 may preferably include a central
processing unit (CPU) 118, a read-only memory (ROM) 120, a
random-access memory (RAM) 122, a non-volatile memory 124, an input
device 126, and a display 128 all connected via a bus 130.
[0043] Similarly client 116 may preferably include a central
processing unit (CPU) 132, a read-only memory (ROM) 134, a
random-access memory (RAM) 136, a non-volatile memory 138, an input
device 140, and a display 142 all connected via a bus 144.
[0044] Server 112 preferably contains a program stored in
non-volatile memory 124 for managing a policy or a set of rules and
then distributing the policy to client 116 via link 114. Client 116
preferably contains a program stored in non-volatile memory 138 for
granting or denying access to various components or resources of
client 116, as specified by the policy distributed from server 112.
For example, various components or resources of client 116 can
include applications, functions or procedures within an
application, data structures within an application, and database or
file system objects referenced by an application.
[0045] Referring now to FIG. 2, a block diagram of one embodiment
for non-volatile memory 124, located within server 112 of FIG. 1,
is shown. In the FIG. 2 embodiment, non-volatile memory 124
includes a policy manager 210 that manages and distributes a
policy. A policy is intended to specify the security requirements
for applications and database objects. A policy may contain
thousands of "security rules" that describe several constraints,
including what applications a particular user can access, what
objects (operations) within an application a user can access, and
how those privileges are constrained by time, geography, or
external events. In general, a policy or authorization policy
should constrain access to both applications and the operations
within them. The policy may be generalized to groups and
hierarchies, not just specified for individual users. This would
greatly improve manageability and lead to more comprehensible,
business-level policies.
[0046] An authorization policy preferably consists of four
components, including objects, subjects, privileges, and
conditions. Objects may be applications, or the operations within
an application. Examples of objects include applications or
methods, web pages, database tables or files, and menu items in a
graphical user interface. The granularity of objects has a direct
impact on the level of security achieved. The less information an
object contains, it is less likely that a user has access to
information not needed to perform his job function. On the other
hand, the granularity of objects should be balanced against the
ease of security management. The more information an object
contains, the fewer objects that have to be protected, and the
smaller the policy is.
[0047] Objects are preferably organized into an object hierarchy.
If an object represents an application, then its children objects
might represent the methods with the application. Similarly, if an
object represents a database, then its children objects might
represent the tables and views within the database.
[0048] If a user is granted a certain privilege on a parent object,
then he is automatically granted the privilege on all the children
objects. Similarly, if a user is denied a certain privilege on a
parent object, then he is automatically denied the privilege on all
the children objects. In other words, privileges are inherited from
parent to children objects. Privilege inheritance through the
object hierarchy eases security management because rather than
granting the same privilege to every child object, the privilege is
granted once to the parent object, and if the privileges of an
object change, the policy on all the children objects automatically
reflect the changes made to the object.
[0049] Subjects may be users, or roles containing users, who access
protected objects. Subjects correspond to users that have access to
information in a system. Users can either be internal or external
to a system. Users are authorized to access information in order to
perform their job functions. Such access may be controlled so that
a user gets access only to the information needed to perform his
job function.
[0050] An object, such as an application or a database, typically
has its own list of users. These are users who can log on to the
object and be authenticated by the objects, sometimes through an
external authentication server. In a large system, users are
preferably maintained separately by one or more directory servers.
Users are preferably extracted from objects or directory servers,
and are maintained up-to-date by synchronizing with these objects
and directory servers.
[0051] Alias users may also be supported. An alias of a user is
another user who inherits all the privileges of the user under
certain conditions. Alias facilitates authorization management by
providing fine granularity of control on the propagation of
privileges. For example, an alias of a user can be created to
perform his job function while he is absent. The inheritance of
privileges takes effect only when the user is absent. An alias
implements the business requirements of delegation, where the
privileges of a user can be delegated to another user under certain
conditions. Conditional inheritance of privileges through an alias
reduces the burden of security management, because it restricts
privilege propagation to situations when certain conditions are
satisfied.
[0052] Users of an object may be defined as being local to that
object. In a typical system, the same user is often represented by
different login identifications in different objects. This system
may support the notion of a "global" user to capture this
situation. Every global user is mapped to a set of local users, one
per object. Global users facilitate the centralized management of
users throughout the system, even if they are identified by
different names in different objects.
[0053] A privilege defines the kinds of access that may be allowed
on objects. In the preferred embodiment, a privilege is the right
to perform a particular action on a specific object. The kinds of
privileges that apply to an object depend on the type of the
object. Examples of privileges include the right to execute an
application, the right to download a web page, the right to query a
database table, or the right to view a menu item.
[0054] Privileges are granted to users so they can accomplish tasks
required for their job. A privilege should be granted to a user
only when it is absolutely required for the user to accomplish a
task. Excessive granting of unnecessary privileges may lead to
compromised security. A user may receive a privilege in two
different ways, privileges can be granted to users explicitly (for
example, user SMITH can be granted the privilege to execute the
payroll application), or privileges can be granted to a role (a
named group of privileges), which is then granted to one or more
users (for example, a role named "clerk" can be granted the
privilege to execute the payroll application, and user SMITH can be
granted the clerk role).
[0055] Roles are named groups of privileges that are granted to
users or other roles. Users granted to a role are the members of
that role. A role is often used to represent the set of privileges
needed to perform a job function.
[0056] The members of a role automatically inherit all the
privileges granted or denied to the role. In addition, roles may be
organized into a role hierarchy, where parent roles are granted to
children roles. If a parent role is granted a privilege, then the
children roles are automatically granted the privilege. Similarly,
if a role is denied a privilege, then the children roles are
automatically denied the privilege.
[0057] Roles of an object may be defined as being local to that
object. In a typical system, the same role is often represented by
different names in different objects. This system may support the
notion of a "global" role to capture this situation. Every global
role is mapped to a set of local roles, one per object. Global
roles facilitate the centralized management of roles throughout the
system, even if they are identified by different names in different
objects.
[0058] Role membership may be further constrained by the notion of
mutual exclusion. Two roles are mutually exclusive if no single
user can be granted to both roles simultaneously. Role mutual
exclusion implements a business requirement of separation of duty.
For example, a submit.sub.--budget role and an approve.sub.--budget
role should be mutually exclusive, because no user should be
simultaneously authorized to perform both actions.
[0059] In a typical policy, there are preferably two types of
access rules, a grant rule, and a deny rule. A grant rule states
that a privilege on an object is granted to a subject under an
optional constraint. A deny rule states that a privilege on an
object is denied to a subject under an optional constraint.
Additionally, a wild card "any" may be used as a privilege, object,
or subject, meaning that any legitimate value could be substituted
in its place.
[0060] An access request preferably consists of a privilege, an
object, and a subject, representing the fact that the subject
request authorization of the privilege on the object. An access
request matches a grant rule if the privilege, object, and subject
math those in the rule, and the constraint in the rule evaluates to
"true." An access request matches a deny rule if the privilege,
object, and subject match those in the rule, and the constraint in
the rule does not evaluate to "false."
[0061] An access request is denied if there is a deny rule matching
the request, or there are no access rules matching the request. An
access request is granted if there are no deny rules matching the
request, and there is a grant rule matching the request.
[0062] Conditions define the constraints on when objects and
subjects can be accessed. The constraints in an access rule
specifies further requirements on when the access rule is
applicable. These requirements could be conditioned on properties
of the object or the subject.
[0063] Constraints are preferably expressions formed from
conditions and Boolean operators NOT, AND, and OR. Three kinds of
built-in conditions may be used: 1) relational operations =, <
>, <, <=, >, >= on integers; 2) relational
operations =, < >, LIKE, NOTLIKE on strings (the operator
LIKE takes a string and a pattern and evaluates to true if the
string matches the pattern, the operator NOTLIKE is the negation of
LIKE); and 3) set operations IN, NOTIN (the operator IN on integers
takes an integer and a set of integers and evaluates to "true" if
the integer is in the set, the operator IN on strings is similarly
defined, and the operator NOTIN is the negation of IN).
[0064] In addition to built-in conditions, users of system 110 may
declare custom evaluation functions, which are customer-defined
conditions. System 110 may provide an Application Programming
Interface (API) for invoking customer-supplied code to evaluate
custom evaluation functions. For example, an evaluation function
could access a remote database to validate certain properties of
the object. Another evaluation function could invoke an external
server to authenticate the subject.
[0065] Now referring to the FIG. 2 embodiment, policy manager 210
preferably includes a management station program 212 to operate
policy manager 210, a distributor program 214 to distribute local
client policies to clients, a logger program 216 to track
authorization requests, and a database management system (DBMS) 218
to maintain policy data files. Policy manager 210 also includes an
audit log data file 220 to record authorization requests, an
optimized policy data file 222, an enterprise policy data file 224,
an administrative policy data file 226, and a local administrative
policy data file 228. The contents and operation of policy manager
210 are further discussed below in conjunction with FIGS. 4, 8, 9,
10, 11, and 12.
[0066] Referring now to FIG. 3, a block diagram of one embodiment
for non-volatile memory 138, located within client 116 of FIG. 1,
is shown. In the FIG. 3 embodiment, non-volatile memory 138
preferably includes an application guard 310 that grants or denies
access to various components of client 116, as specified by a
pre-determined policy. For example, various components of client
116 can include applications, data, and/or objects. In the FIG. 3
embodiment, application guard 310 preferably includes at least one
application 312, an authorization library program 314, an
authorization engine program 316, and a local client policy 318.
The contents and operation of application guard 310 are further
discussed below in conjunction with FIGS. 5, 13, and 14.
[0067] Referring now to FIG. 4, a block diagram of one embodiment
for policy manager 210, located within non-volatile memory 124 in
FIG. 2, is shown. In the preferred embodiment, policy manager 210
allows system users to implement, analyze, edit and update a
centrally-managed security policy or enterprise policy 224. In the
FIG. 4 embodiment, policy manager 210 preferably includes a
management console or management station 212, a database management
system 218, an audit facility or logger 216, and a distributor
214.
[0068] In the FIG. 4 embodiment, management station 212 preferably
includes a graphical user interface (GUI) 410 for creating or
customizing rules by system users. Management station 212 supports
concurrent rule development by multiple users. Each policy rule
preferably includes four basic components: 1) an object that is to
be protected; 2) an access right or privilege; 3) a global or local
user to which the privilege applies; and 4) conditions under which
the privilege is granted or denied, including built-in access
criteria such as time of day or location, as well as custom-defined
access criteria.
[0069] Graphical user interface (GUI) 410 provides a user-friendly
set of menu options or management services 412 to fully operate the
policy manager. Programs controlled by the menu options may include
navigation 414, search 416, distribution 418, edit 420, query 422,
and log viewer 424. The operation of these programs are further
discussed below in conjunction with FIGS. 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. As
an alternative to the GUI, the management services can be operated
from an application through an API that allows programs to perform
the same functions as a human operator. In the preferred
embodiment, management station also includes an application guard
426 to allow only authorized administrators to operate management
station 212. Local administrative policy 228 provides a set of
policy rules specifying which users are authorized to access
management station 212.
[0070] After the policy rules are created or modified using
management station 212, they may then be distributed to appropriate
clients 116. Management station 212 includes a communication
interface 434 in order to pass information between various other
components in system 110.
[0071] Prior to when the policy rules are distributed, a
parser/type checker 428 preferably reviews and reconstructs the
policy rules to make sure that they are syntactically and
semantically correct according to a predefined policy language. The
policy rules pass through a database layer (DB layer) 430 and an
open database connectivity layer (ODBC) 432 before being stored as
enterprise policy 224. DB layer 430 formats the policy rules into
standard database storage tables, and ODBC 432 provides a common
interface to various vendor-specific databases.
[0072] Enterprise policy 224 is then passed to distributor 214. An
optimizer program 436 within distributor 214 determines which
application guard 310 needs to receive which policy rules. A differ
program 438 determines what type of changes were made to optimized
policy 222, and then distributes only the changed policy rules or
local client policy 318 to the appropriate application guards 310
through an ODBC layer 440 and a communication interface 442, which
enforce access control to local applications and data.
[0073] Since the application guards 310 can be distributed among
various clients 116, and each application guard 310 has its own
specific local client policy 318, the system provides
scalability.
[0074] Distributor 214 may also be used to optimize administrative
policy 226 into an optimized administrative policy or local
administrative policy 228 for use with application guard 426 in
management station 212.
[0075] Referring now to FIG. 5, a block diagram of one embodiment
of application guard 310, located within non-volatile memory 138 in
FIG. 3, is shown. Application guard 310 may be distributed on
clients 116 throughout an enterprise, and is designed to reside
along with each of the protected applications having an associated
application guard 310.
[0076] Application guard 310 supports transactional access control
by allowing an application to be aware of the authorization service
and to make authorization requests at each and every user
interaction, data request, or business-level transaction. In
addition, the design and integration of application guard 310 is
fundamental to providing access control to business-level objects
within an application since the authorization services have
visibility to those named policy objects within the
application.
[0077] In the FIG. 5 embodiment, application guard 310 is
preferably integrated into application 312 through a high-level
application programming interface (API) or authorization library
314 that allows application 312 to request authorization services
as needed through an application guard interface 512. Typically,
this can be done very quickly by including authorization requests
at key points in application 312 for control user interaction or
database access so that each interaction is protected with a
minimum of development.
[0078] In the FIG. 5 embodiment, an authorization request is
processed by authorization engine 316. A parser/type checker 514
parses local client policy 318 and stores the parsed local client
policy in RAM 136. An evaluator 516 then determines whether the
authorization request should be granted or denied by evaluating the
authorization request with the parsed local client policy in RAM
136. Plug-ins 522 in authorization engine 316 allow for additional
capabilities to process and evaluate authorization requests based
on customized code. Each authorization request is then recorded in
an audit log 518 and transmitted to logger 216 via a communication
interface 520.
[0079] Users have the option of implementing application guard 310
locally to application 312, as a service running on the same system
as application 312, or as a remote authorization service through a
remote procedure call to another server. The advantage of the
latter design would be to offload the application server from
handling authorization services or allowing a single authorization
server to handle a multiple number of applications. A local
implementation would provide maximum performance and minimize any
network traffic overhead.
[0080] As seen in FIG. 5, application guard 310 includes an
application guard interface 512 coupled to an application 312 for
requesting access to securable components. Application guard 310
also includes at least one authorization engine 316 for evaluating
requests from application guard interface 512 as specified by local
client policy 318. Multiple authorization engines 316 can be used
for added performance and reliability. Furthermore, application
guard interface 512 can be located on a client computer, while
authorization engine 316 and local client policy 318 can be located
on a client server.
[0081] The application guard authorization service of the present
invention introduces virtually no performance overhead to an
existing application 312. The policy rules developed at policy
manager 210 are compiled into an optimized form before being
distributed to the target application guards 310. This optimized
form only distributes attributes relevant to that application guard
310, so that access requests may be evaluated by reviewing only a
few rules rather than frequently analyzing the potentially large
policy rule base.
[0082] Referring back to FIG. 4, logger 216 may then advantageously
receive a client audit log 450 through a communication interface
452 and an ODBC 454 from authorization engine 316 (FIG. 5). Client
audit log 450 is then formatted by message processing 456 before
being stored in audit log 220. Audit log 220 may then be monitored
via log viewer 424 in management station 212.
[0083] Referring now to FIG. 6, a block diagram of one embodiment
of a policy loader 610 is shown. In the FIG. 6 embodiment, policy
rules may be entered one at a time into enterprise policy database
224 via management station 212 (FIG. 4), or the policy rules may
alternatively be loaded as a batch process via policy loader 610.
Policy loader 610 is an additional utility that bulk loads an
existing set of policy rules into enterprise policy database 224.
An existing set of policy rules may be entered into policy loader
610 via input 612. A parser/type checker 614 then preferably
reviews and reconstructs the policy rules to make sure that they
are syntactically and semantically correct according to a
predefined policy language. The policy rules may then be passed
through a DB layer 616 and an ODBC 618 before being stored in
enterprise policy database 224.
[0084] Referring now to FIG. 7, a flowchart of method steps to
configure a system in accordance with one embodiment of the present
invention is shown. Initially, in step 710, a system administrator
installs policy manager 210 on a server 112. The installation may
include management station 212, distributor 214, logger 216, and
DBMS 218. After all the components of policy manager 210 have been
installed, the system administrator then enters a set of policy
rules. In step 712, the administrator can decide whether to use
policy loader 610, or to use management station 212 to enter policy
rules. If the system administrator decides to use management
station 212, then at step 714, policy rules are entered using edit
function 420. However, if policy loader 610 is used, then at step
716, policy rules are entered into a file, and at step 718, the
file of policy rules passes to policy loader 610.
[0085] Next, in step 720, the system administrator installs
application guards 310 onto client systems 116, as well as
installing local client policies 318 onto client systems 116. Then
at step 722, the system administrator registers plug-ins 522 into
application guards 318 to allow for additional capabilities in
order to process authorization requests based on customized
code.
[0086] Referring now to FIG. 8, a flowchart of one embodiment to
manage policy under management services 412 in management station
212 is shown. In order to allow for a complex set of policy rules,
a number of different functionality features are incorporated into
system 110 to facilitate implementation and management.
[0087] In the FIG. 8 embodiment, at step 810, an authorized
administrator logs in to policy manager 210. Next, in step 812, the
authorized administrator chooses between administrative mode or
enterprise mode. The administrative mode allows the system
administrator to manage administrative policy 226, and the
enterprise mode allows the system administrator to manage
enterprise policy 224. The system administrator is then presented
with six menu options including navigate tree 814, analyze policy
816, edit policy 818, distribute policy 820, view audit log 822,
and exit 824. The features of navigate tree 814, analyze policy
816, edit policy 818, and distribute policy 820 are described in
more detail through FIGS. 9, 10, 11, and 12, respectively. View
audit log 822 is a security feature that allows an administrator to
view and track all authorization requests that have occurred at any
application guards 310 connected to system 110. The system
administrator can choose any of the menu options, or at step 824
the system administrator may then exit the system.
[0088] Referring now to FIG. 9, a flowchart of one embodiment of
menu option navigate tree 814 in management station 212 is shown.
Navigate tree 814 provides a set of options for an administrator to
add, delete, and/or modify features on server 112 or client 116.
The features that an administrator may add, delete, and/or modify
include global users 910, global roles 912, directories 914, local
roles 916, local users 918, applications 920, application guards
922, and declarations 924. At step 926, the system administrator
may then exit from navigate tree 814.
[0089] Referring now to FIG. 10, a flowchart of one embodiment of
menu option analyze policy 816 in management station 212 is shown.
Analyze policy 816 preferably allows an authorized user to analyze
and view rules and policies within enterprise policy 224. At step
1010, the user has an option to search rules, or at step 1012 to
query policy. When search rules is selected, a search can be made
for all the grant rules or all the deny rules pertaining to a
particular user. When query policy is selected, a search can be
made on who is granted or denied what privilege on which objects
under what conditions.
[0090] After analyzing and viewing rules or policies, at step 1014
the system administrator may exit from analyze policy 816.
[0091] Referring now to FIG. 11, a flowchart of one embodiment of
menu option edit policy 818 in management station 212 is shown.
Edit policy 818 allows an authorized user to add, delete, and/or
modify enterprise policy 224 features. The features that may be
edited include rule sets 1110, access 1112, privilege 1114, objects
1116, user/role 1118, and attributes 1120. At step 1122, the system
administrator may then exit edit policy 818.
[0092] Referring now to FIG. 12, a flowchart of one embodiment of
method steps of menu option distribute policy 820 is shown. After
enterprise policy 224 has been initially entered or modified in any
way, the modified features of enterprise policy 224 may then be
distributed to appropriate application guards 310. At step 1210,
upon selecting the distribute policy option, distributor 214
optimizes enterprise policy 224. Then at step 1212, differ 438
preferably computes any difference between the newly optimized
policy and optimized policy 222. At step 1214, the newly optimized
policy is then published as optimized policy 222 in DBMS 218. Next,
at step 1216, only the changed portions of optimized policy 222 are
committed to appropriate application guards 310. At step 1218,
application guards 310 receive the changed policy, and then at step
1220, application guards 310 merge the changed policy into local
client policy 318. Next at step 1222, new local client policy 318
is activated to work with application guard 310.
[0093] Referring now to FIG. 13, a flowchart of one embodiment of
method steps for client access authorization is shown. The FIG. 13
example for using a standard application guard 310 by a user begins
with a user requesting access to a securable component protected by
an application guard 310. In step 1310, application guard 310
constructs and issues an authorization request. At step 1312, the
authorization request is evaluated by application guard 310
according to its local client policy 318 to determine whether to
allow or deny the authorization request. At step 1314, audit 518
then records the authorization request in audit log 450. Next, at
step 1316, if there is an error in the authorization request, or if
the request is not valid, then at step 1318 the user is denied
access. However, if the authorization request is valid, then at
step 1320 it is determined whether access should be granted. If the
evaluated authorization request does not deny access for the user,
then at step 1322 access is allowed. If the evaluated authorization
request denies access for the user, then at step 1324 access is
denied.
[0094] Referring now to FIG. 14, a flowchart of one embodiment of
method steps to evaluate an authorization request from an
application guard 310 is shown. In order to evaluate an
authorization request at application guard 310, in step 1420,
evaluator 516 first searches any deny rules in local policy 318. At
step 1412, if evaluator 516 finds any deny rules, then at step
1414, an evaluation is performed on any constraints on the deny
rules. If, at step 1416, the evaluation finds presently valid
constraints on the deny rules, then at step 1418 access is denied.
However, if at step 1416, the evaluation finds that the constraints
on the deny rules are not presently valid, or if no deny rules are
found in foregoing step 1412, then at step 1420, a search of grant
rules is performed. If no grant rules are found at step 1422 that
would allow access for the user, then at step 1418, access is
denied. If in step 1422 grant rules are found, then at step 1424 an
evaluation is performed on any constraints in the grant rules. If
the evaluated constraint is presently valid, then at step 1426, a
true value is passed, and at step 1428 access is allowed. However,
if the evaluated constraint is not presently valid, then at step
1426, a false value is passed, and at step 1418 access is
denied.
[0095] The invention has been explained above with reference to a
preferred embodiment. Other embodiments will be apparent to those
skilled in the art in light of this disclosure. For example, the
present invention may readily be implemented using configurations
other than those described in the preferred embodiment above.
Additionally, the present invention may effectively be used in
conjunction with systems other than the one described above as the
preferred embodiment. Therefore, these and other variations upon
the preferred embodiments are intended to be covered by the present
invention, which is limited only by the appended claims.
* * * * *