The Entitlement Management component of WSO2 Carbon facilitates the management and control of policies defined in XACML. The key functions of this component are listed below.
- Creating a XACML Policy
- Editing a XACML Policy
- Managing the Version of a XACML Policy
- Viewing the Status of a XACML Policy
- Publishing a XACML Policy
- Enabling and Disabling a XACML Policy
- Clearing a Cache
For more general information on XACML, please see the following:
XACML (eXtensible Access Control Markup Language) is an XML-based language for access control that has been standardized by the Technical Committee of the OASIS consortium. XACML is popular as a fine grain authorization method among the community. However, there are aspects of XACML which surpass it being just a fine grain authorization mechanism.
Although XACML was introduced as a standard by OASIS in 2003, not many organisations that have been adapted it yet. This is because most of the organizations have not shown interest in moving towards a XACML solution for authorization. The following may be some reasons for this:
- Many software designer and developers do not have a clear understanding on the importance and advantages of XACML.
- It is a bit hard to implement a XACML solution rather than a typical JDBC or hard coded authorization system.
- Performances of XACML-based authorization system may be less than adequate.
- Complexity of defining and managing XACML policies.
However, current market trends indicate that there are some motivation for XACML-based authorization systems. This section includes some architectural and implementation details on XACML with an existing XACML engine.
If you are interested in going into the depth in XACML, You can find XACML specifications and other information here.
To summarize, XACML describes both an access control policy language, request/response language and reference architecture. The policy language is used to express access control policies (who can do what when). The request/response language expresses queries about whether a particular access should be allowed (requests) and describes answers to those queries(responses). The reference architecture proposes a standard for deployment of necessary software modules within an infrastructure to allow efficient enforcement of policies.
Most of the organizations still use legacy systems with inbuilt authorization logic. Sometimes, one organization contains a large number of information systems and applications that each system or application uses for their own process of authorization. Today, authorization has become more complex because users within organizations as well as outside the organization need access to shared data and have the need to collaborate efficiently. Therefore It has been very hard to manage those legacy, custom authorization systems. However, XACML offers a solution to this problem.
When we think about a traditional authorization system, it would mostly look like as follows:
- Authorization logics are hard coded into the programming source code
- Authorization logics are stored in a databases that could be only readable and understandable by the underlying application
The following are the some goals that current organizations are looking at from an authorization system.
- Can business managers (who should determine how access controls would be implemented) define and modify authorization logics?
- Can we find new IT technicians to manage these legacy systems? Especially when people who developed the system, left the organization
- Can authorization logics be modified without any source code changes in an dynamic way?
- Is authorization system capable for evaluating following rule? “X resource can be accessed by the Users who are from example.com domain and whose age is greater than 21 years old”
- If we are going to implement a new information system with the organization, can we re-use the authorization logics of a legacy system?
- Can achieve find-grant authorization without defining large number of static combinations?
- Is authorization systems capable of answering following questions: “Can a user, Bob, transfer X amount from Y current account at 1.00pm?“
As we can understand, the above goals can not be achieved from a traditional authorization system. However XACML (eXtensible Access Control Markup Language) based authorization solution can provide all of these goals. This is because XACML:
- is a standard which is ratified by OASIS standards organization.
- is a policy language implemented using XML.
- supports Attribute Based Access Control (ABAC) and evaluation can be done with the additional data retrieved from Policy Information Point (PIP) which is defined by the XACML reference architecture.
- contains reference architecture which is provided to externalize the authorization system. The Policy Decision Point (PDP) offers authorization as a service in your infrastructure. Authorization algorithms can be removed from the application logic and applications can query the PDP via their own Policy Enforcement Points (PEP).
- provides fine-grained authorization with higher level of abstraction by means of policies and rules.
- supports dynamic evaluation of policies by using the Policy Information Point (PIP).
Improvements in XACML 3.0
The XACML 3.0 core specification highlights the following main changes in comparison with XACML 2.0.
Custom attribute categories
Custom attribute categories can be defined with XACML 3.0. However, in XACML 2.0, attributes have been organized into subject, resource, environment or action. For example, consider that you want to create an attribute category called “foo” in your policy and request. You can do it with XACML 3.0 without any issue. According to the XACML 3.0 policy schema, the category of XACML element is identified by a XML attribute called “
In XACML 2.0 Policy, you can define the attribute designator element as follows, However, it must be a pre-defined category such as subject, resource, environment or action.
In a XACML 3.0 Policy, you can define it as follows.
Category can be any thing as it is defined as an attribute of the
There are several improvements with Obligation in XACML 3.0 when compared to 2.0.
One of the main improvements is the introduction of Obligation Expressions. This adds dynamic expressions into the obligation statements. For a more indepth understanding, see the following example:
Let assume that you want to do following with the Obligation: “On deny, inform the PEP to send an email to the user”.
In XACML 2.0, you need to define the obligation element with the user email statically.
However, the user would not be same for each XACML request that is evaluated. Therefore it is not possible to configure the email statically in the
Obligation element. Obligation can only inform PEP to send an email to user (it lets the PEP figure out the value of user’s email).
However, in XACML 3.0, the email of each user can be retrieved using PIP in a dynamic manner as we can define an expression element inside the
ObligationExpression. Therefore, obligation can inform PEP to send an email to [email protected] address.
In XACML 2.0, obligations can only be added to policies and policy sets. However, with XACML 3.0, rules can also contain obligations.
Advice is a newly introduced feature with XACML 3.0 which is similar to obligations. PEPs do not have to comply with advice statements; PEPs can consider or discard the statement. A common scenario is to explain why something was denied: “User bob is denied because he does not have a valid email”.
Since it is possible to define custom attribute categories, there are improvements in some related elements in the XACML 3.0 policy, when compared to 2.0. With XACML 3.0, the
Target element can be used to define more complex authorization logic within itself when compared with 2.0.
In XACML 2.0, the
Target element contains the OR and AND relationship between the same category. However, in XACML 3.0,
AnyOf elements have been introduced to
Target element. That clearly helps to define the OR and AND relationship between different categories.
As an example, let look at a
Target element. In XACML 2.0, we have an
AND relationship between foo1 and foo2 resources and an
OR relationship between bar1 and bar2 actions. However, we cannot create an
OR relationship between a foo1 resource and bar1 action. so we cannot define something such as “Target would be matched when Bob can access the foo resource or do a bar action” by using the
XACML 3.0 has an
AND relationship between “foo” resource and “bar1″ role and an
OR relationship between “bar2″ action. So we cannot define something as “Target would be matched, when Bob can access foo resource and do bar1 action or do bar2 action”.
More Functions and Algorithms
XACML3 has introduced new String functions such as:
Some improvements to other functions such as
Also improvements to existing combine algorithms (deny-overrides, permit-overrides, ordered-deny-overrides and ordered-permit-overrides) and new two combine algorithms for policy and rule combining.
Improvements in XPath
New XPath data type is introduced with XACML 3.0. In XACML 2.0, XPath is defined as a String and cannot define the context that the namespace prefix is going to resolve. Also XPath based multiple decisions scheme is introduced with XACML 3.0.
Improvement in XACML Request and Response
As it is possible to define custom attribute categories, many types of attribute categories can be in the XACML 3.0 request. XACML 2.0 request can contain only subject, resource, environment or action categories.
The XACML Response can contain additional data such as:
- Request attributes that are defined in the XACML response.
- Applicable policy ids for a given XACML request are defined in the XACML response.
Multiple Decision Profile
This is new profile which comes with XACML 3.0 and is not included in the XACML3 core specification. However, this is very useful for performance improvement between PEP and PDP. This is especially the case since PEP can request decisions for multiple requests in one XACML request.
Administrative Delegation Profile
This is also a new profile which comes with XACML 3.0. This allows you to define policies about who can write policies about what. For example, “Bob may issue a policy but only about resources in department X”.