Missing IGA Features
- Expression Profiles
- Concept of Application
- Entitlement (Application Role) Ownership Management
- Differential Resources
- Relation As Role Parameter
- Relation Display Name In assignmentRelation
- Shadow Marking
- Role Mining
- Risk Modelling / Risk Assessment Automation
- Risk-Based Triggers
- Collaborative Role Engineering
- Role "Refactoring" Tools
- Improved Access Request User Experience
- Improved Case Management (Approvals) User Experience
- Access Request: End-to-End Process
- Manual Provisioning Instructions
- Access Request Recommenders
- Risk-Based Approval Assistance
- New Pre-Defined Objects
This is somehow unstructured, unprioritized and very unofficial list of IGA features that are missing in midPoint. It is more in a form of design notes. There is no promise that any of these features will be developed. That has to be decided yet.
Problem: Expressions are foundation of midPoint flexibility. It is pretty much certain that role engineers will need to use expressions in roles. However, allowing use of expressions in current midPoint means quite literally to give up the keys to the kingdom. In IGA, role engineers will not be almighty system administrator. This task will be delegated. Expressions need to be safe.
Solution: finish expression profiles, apply them consistently to all types and kinds of expressions in the system. Pre-configure reasonable expression profiles to choose from (initial objects).
Thoughts: Expressions can appear in queries in GUI. What do we do about them? Apply the usual expression profiles? Or we need to do anything special?
Concept of Application
Problem: We have concept of identity resource. The resource is a technical mechanism to interact with identity stores. However, one identity store (and hence one resource) may be used to manage many applications. For example, AD or LDAP servers can be used as user databases for many small applications.
Access to the application is usually managed by assignment specific AD/LDAP group(s) to the account.
Solution: Create a concept of application that will represent the many applications built on top of resources. The application can be an archetype of a service. Application roles should refer to the application (probably in a form of inducement to the application).
In a simple case, the application itself can be used as a role. For simple application, the users can request access to the application itself (looking it up in catalog). We would not need any roles at all.
Thoughts: Should resource itself be considered an application? This could simplify management of single-application resources. Also, even AD or LDAP are in fact application on their own, e.g. granting administration rights to the directory itself.
This can be used to manage entitlement/role lifecycle. E.g. if an application is decommissioned, we know which roles and which groups we have to delete.
For nice organizations that are maintaining application catalog, we might be able to automatically synchronize applications from application catalog.
Entitlement (Application Role) Ownership Management
Problem: Who is responsible for AD group
We have too many AD/LDAP groups, with too many members.
IDM admins have to idea what the group does, how it is used in applications or even in which applications it is used.
Solution: There would be probably one application role for each AD group. We can manage ownership of that role. We can assign owner (user or organization) who is responsible for the role. We can add application (service) as in inducement in the role to keep track of application that it is part of.
We can pre-configure policies, such as "all application roles must have an owner". Then we can track policy violations and gradually remediate the situation.
Thoughts: One group may be used by several application (e.g. group such as "all employees"). In such case we can still create an "application" role to represent the group, although the role would refer to several applications. This might be a bit strange, but it can still work.
Problem: Indirect provisioning.
We are provisioning to resource
However, the accounts end up in resources
B in the end, mostly due to complicated legacy stuff.
We have read-write access to
X, we have read-only access to
We want to make sure that all accounts were correctly provisioned to
More importantly, we want to check for orphaned accounts in
We want to make all kinds of reports about differences between
Create "dual-legged" roles. One leg will provision in
X, the other leg will check accounts in
B. We will need to create a completely new comparison mechanism or mode for assignments/inducements.
Should we create "dual resources", resources that are somehow bound together?
Could be use (provisioning) dependencies? We will need to extend the dependencies to support comparison, and extend reporting.
Could we use policy rules? E.g. a rule specifying that if an account exists in
A, then related account should also exist in
X(or vice versa).
Thoughts: There will be a time delay problem.
The account will appear in
B some time aftet it was created in
This may be quite a long delays (hours/days).
Could we re-use the mechanism that we have developed for semi-manual resources?
Relation As Role Parameter
Relation Display Name In assignmentRelation
Problem: The term relation is very generic, it does not tell people much about its meaning.
Solution: We can specify "display name" for the relation in
assignmentRelation part of archetype definition.
E.g. we can change "relation" to "membership class" for project orgs.
We can change "relation" to "access level" for parametric access to application resources (see Application Resources - Parametric Access).
This would be step towards midPoint speaking more business-like language.
Thoughts: Do we need also to change display names of relation values?
E.g. do we want to display something else than "Owner" for
Marks for protected, decomissioning, remediation, etc.
Problem: We have imported thousands of application roles, representing AD groups, wiki spaces, application entitlements and whatnot. We have automatically made assignments of the application roles to users, representing current group membership. Now we have more roles than users, each user having tens or even hundreds of assignments. This is a nightmare to manage. We have to make order. We want to group meaningful combination of application roles to business roles. Then we want to assign business roles to users, instead of application roles. But, how do we do it? How do we find what combinations of application roles are useful?
Solution: Develop a super artificial intelligent gizmo, and problem solved. Just kidding. We need a mechanism that will detect combinations of application roles that are often used. E.g. combinations that are used by more than 5 users. We can make a recommendation to IDM administrator to use that combination to create a business role. The admin has to review the roles, decide whether it makes sense, add name and description and "enact" the role. This has to be semi-manual semi-automatic process.
This can (and must be) parametrized. It will probably be an iterative process, that involves manual tuning the parameters to get reasonable results. It will probably start with "monster" roles, created from assignments that huge number of users share. Then the process will be tuned to go for finer and finer roles, until we get to level of detail where the mining no longer makes sense.
Thoughts: This may be helped if we could use information on organizational structure. E.g. if we know that people that work in the same department have very similar combination of application roles, we can be almost certain that this will make a good candidate for business role.
The mining does not ever stop. There should be a continuous process that scans for frequent role combinations, and notifies administrators when such combination appears. As people will be requesting privileges themselves, it is almost certain that there will be some "entropy" to sort out.
Risk Modelling / Risk Assessment Automation
TODO: Assign risk level to roles/services, midpoint will compute risk per user, overall risk, risk per org unit, with charts and trends.
Collaborative Role Engineering
Role "Refactoring" Tools
TODO: e.g. a tool to create business role from application roles, replacing existing assignments of application roles to assignment of business role.
Improved Access Request User Experience
Improved Case Management (Approvals) User Experience
Access Request: End-to-End Process
TODO: manage/track/record the process from selection of access, through approvals, clockwork, provisioning, all the way to the last manual ticket being closed.
Manual Provisioning Instructions
TODO: There should be way to specify additional instructions for manual provisioning, such as reference to a process, guide, exact sequence of steps, etc. Such instructions should be added to the ticket for manual provisioning in ITSM.
objectType definition in resource seems to be the right place to place the instructions.
Do we need instructions in role definition?
There may be additional manual steps to be done for each role (e.g. manually assign to a specific group, or add a privilege).
Maybe we need "virtual" entitlements for manual resource, that the role engineer can choose from when constructing roles?
Access Request Recommenders
Recommend better roles that the user has selected.
E.g. user has selected application roles
The recmmender should (very strongly) suggest to request business role
X is an exact combination of
The recommended could also suggest role
Y, even though it contains
D - as long as the additional risk introduced by
D is low.
We need this to "motivate" (read: more-or-less force) users to select business roles instead of application roles.
Risk-Based Approval Assistance
Approver should see the risk introduced by the roles that he is approving. Also, there should be a warning in case that the overall risk posed by the user after approval is above reasonable level.
Also, there should be an option to add additional approval step based on risk (in case of new roles are too risky, or cummulative risk of the user is too high).
New Pre-Defined Objects
We need to add following new pre-defined objects (initial objects):
Reasonable set of expression profiles to choose from. We do not want IDM admin to manually list all safe Groovy packages to use. We have to do it.