Re: [egov] Missing Securty: Update Working Draft for Workflow Standards

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

Anders Rundgren wrote:

>Monica & List.
>I have some input regarding security standards which seems to be lacking.
>
>You could add WS-Security for example.  However, it is also
>important to note that many pieces still are entirely absent and are
>not even known targets for standardization.  The most obvious deficit
>is the lack of a method for a user to sign a document/transaction in
>a browser environment.  The only thing I have heard of is XAML that
>MSFT is putting in Longhorn that unfortunately requires that
>we all convert to Longhorn.  All e-govs are currently investing in
>proprietary signature solutions making inter-agency workflow a local
>matter and definitely not cross-border.
>
>For those who are interested in security it may be interesting to
>know that the PKI pioneered by the US federal agencies is
>largely incompatible with any kind of workflow system server
>as a concept that is based on using encryption certificates of employees
>will disable any intermediary service like a purchasing system
>from reading outgoing messages.  The governments in northern
>Europe have therefore defined an entirely different PKI architecture
>that is compatible with any kind of workflow process.
>
>So maybe you should extend your paper with "missing standards"
>as well?
>  
>
mm1: Anders, not all process specifications have implicit support. For 
example, ebXML BPSS specifies QoS attributes that provide business 
guidance that could/likely will impact the technical infrastructure - 
isTamperDetectable, isAuthenticated, and isConfidential. There are also 
persistent requirements inherent in the non-repudiation capabilities 
defined. [1] WS-BPEL recommends use of WS-Security (non-normative). [2] 
WS-Choreography may consider a QoS proposal before their current last 
call Dec 2004.  WfMC, in earlier documents, specified use of OMG 
Security Services (CORBA legacy); however, the references I see are 
implementation based and in support of conformance requirements.

You have provided some valuable input. Are you suggesting that we cite 
impacts to adoption of particular process specifications such as (and 
the list could be quite large): transactions, security, messaging 
infrastructure, context, authentication, etc.? Should we cite these as 
constraints and important conditions to consider? Any thoughts from the 
eGov team would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

[1] Implementation is not specified.
[2] Appear to be impacted by your references above.