Fact Qualifiers in Security Scenarios

• US 20080066169A1
• Filed: 09/08/2006
• Published: 03/13/2008
• Est. Priority Date: 09/08/2006
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC (Microsoft Corporation)
• Original Assignee: Microsoft Corporation
• Inventors: Dillaway, Blair B., Becker, Moritz Y., Gordon, Andrew D.
• Application Number:
  US11/530,433
• Publication Number:
  US 20080066169A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 726/9
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 63/10 for controlling access to devices or network resources
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 63/20 for managing network security; network security policies in general filtering policies H04L63/0227

Abstract

One or more fact qualifiers may be associated with an assertion in security scenarios. In an example implementation, each respective assertion may be associated with a respective fact qualifier in a security token having multiple assertions. In another example implementation, a fact qualifier of a first assertion may be checked or disregarded based on whether a corresponding second assertion includes a fact qualifier check constraint. In yet another example implementation, an assertion made by an assertor may be associated with multiple fact qualifiers.

Claims

1. One or more processor-accessible media comprising processor-executable instructions that include a security token, the security token comprising multiple respective assertions that are associated with multiple respective assertion fact qualifiers;

wherein each individual assertion of the multiple respective assertions may be independently checked for conformance with a current environmental state using a particular assertion fact qualifier that is associated with the individual assertion.

2. The one or more processor-accessible media as recited in claim 1, wherein at least one assertion of the multiple assertions is associated with more than one assertion fact qualifier.

3. The one or more processor-accessible media as recited in claim 1, wherein the security token flier comprises a digital signature that signs the multiple assertions.

5. The one or more processor-accessible media as recited in claim 1, wherein the individual assertion is a security assertion having a logical form comprising:

Assertor says fact, fact qualifier_{1 . . . f},

where “

f”

represents some integer greater than zero.

6. The one or more processor-accessible media as recited in claim 1, wherein the individual assertion comprises at least a fact portion and an antecedent portion;

and wherein the particular assertion fact qualifier is part of the fact portion but not part of the antecedent portion.

7. A method for determining if a fact qualifier of a first assertion is to be checked based on a corresponding second assertion, the method comprising:

determining if the second assertion includes a fact qualifier check constraint;

if the second assertion is not determined to include a fact qualifier check constraint, disregarding the fact qualifier of the first assertion; and

if the second assertion is determined to include a fact qualifier check constraint, checking the fact qualifier of the first assertion.

8. The method as recited in claim 7, wherein the first assertion comprises a token assertion that is part of a security token;

and wherein the second assertion comprises a policy assertion that is part of a trust and authorization policy.

9. The method as recited in claim 7, wherein the disregarding the fact qualifier of the first assertion comprises processing the first assertion as if the fact qualifier holds.

10. The method as recited in claim 7, wherein the checking the fact qualifier of the first assertion comprises determining if the fact qualifier of the first assertion conforms to a current environmental state.

11. The method as recited in claim 10, further comprising:

if the fact qualifier of the first assertion is determined to conform to the current environmental state, continuing to process the first assertion; and

if the fact qualifier of the first assertion is not determined to conform to the current environmental state, assigning an invalid status to the first assertion.

12. The method as recited in claim 7, wherein the second assertion is a security assertion having a logical form comprising:

principal says fact if fact₁, . . . , fact_n, constraint₁, . . . , constraint_m,

where “

n” and

“

m”

represent integers greater than or equal to zero; and

wherein the determining determines if a fact qualifier check constraint exists as part of the constraint_{1 . . . m} portion of the second assertion.

13. A system comprising a security scheme that enables an assertion made by an assertor to be associated with multiple fact qualifiers, wherein each fact qualifier indicates at least one environmental parameter that the assertor believes should hold for the associated assertion to be considered valid.

4. The one or more processor-accessible media as recited in claim 15 wherein the particular assertion fact qualifier includes an environmental parameter pertaining to at least one of time, location, connectivity mechanism, or a revocation freshness check.

14. The system as recited in claim 13, wherein the security scheme permits general environmental parameters in addition to time to be specified by each fact qualifier.

15. The system as recited in claim 14, wherein the general environmental parameters in addition to time that may be specified include location of a using principal connectivity mechanism of the using principal, and freshness of a most recent revocation check by a potential relying party.

16. The system as recited in claim 13, wherein the security scheme further enables creation of a security token having multiple assertions that are each individually associated wit at least one respective fact qualifier, the security token having a digital signature that signs the multiple assertions.

17. The system as recited in claim 13, wherein the system comprises a first device and a second device, the second device associated with a resource;

and wherein the security scheme implements a security assertion language that enables a first user of the first device to access the resource of the second device based on, at least in part, the assertion that is associated with multiple fact qualifiers.

18. The system as recited in claim 17, wherein a second user of the second device is empowered by the security assertion language to selectively check each fact qualifier of the multiple fact qualifiers for conformance with a current environmental state and to decide to process the assertion regardless of whether any particular fact qualifier is checked.

19. The system as recited in claim 18, wherein the second user is empowered by the security assertion language because the security assertion language enables policy assertions to include constraints that stipulate whether or not a fact qualifier check in to be performed.

20. The system as recited in claim 13, wherein the security scheme enables a party that may rely on the assertion to affirmatively constrain which fact qualifiers of the multiple fact qualifiers, if any, are to be checked before potentially considering the assertion valid.