The Evolving Landscape of Permissions: From Granularity to Governance

Abstract

The concept of ‘permissions’ in computing has evolved from simple access controls to a complex and multifaceted field encompassing identity management, policy enforcement, and compliance. This research report delves into the modern landscape of permissions, moving beyond the granular permissions and Identity and Access Management (IAM) often associated with cloud storage, to explore broader considerations across distributed systems, edge computing, and emerging technologies. We examine various IAM models, including role-based access control (RBAC), attribute-based access control (ABAC), and their limitations in dynamic environments. We also discuss the critical role of access control lists (ACLs), privilege escalation prevention mechanisms, and the imperative of implementing the principle of least privilege (PoLP). Furthermore, this report analyzes the challenges of managing permissions in complex ecosystems, focusing on topics like delegated authorization, consent management, and the emerging standards for federated identity. We conclude by proposing future research directions that address the scalability, security, and usability challenges of permission management in an increasingly interconnected world, whilst also discussing the impact of new technologies like decentralized identity and how the permission landscape may change.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

1. Introduction: Permissions Beyond Cloud Storage

Permissions, at their core, represent the fundamental control mechanism for managing access to resources. While the article that motivated this research rightly highlights the importance of granular permissions and IAM in cloud storage, the subject of permissions extends far beyond this specific context. Modern distributed systems, spanning cloud, edge, and on-premise environments, present unprecedented challenges in managing access control. The rise of microservices, containerization, and serverless computing architectures demands more flexible and dynamic permission models than traditional RBAC systems can often provide. The increasing complexity of data governance regulations, such as GDPR, CCPA, and HIPAA, further necessitates a more holistic approach to permissions management.

This report aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the evolving landscape of permissions, exploring the theoretical foundations, practical implementations, and emerging trends that shape this critical field. We will examine different IAM models, analyze access control mechanisms, and discuss the challenges of privilege escalation prevention. Moreover, we will delve into the importance of adhering to the principle of least privilege and addressing compliance requirements related to data access control and auditing.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

2. IAM Models: RBAC, ABAC, and Beyond

IAM models provide the framework for defining and enforcing permissions within a system. The two most widely adopted models are RBAC and ABAC, each with its strengths and weaknesses.

2.1 Role-Based Access Control (RBAC)

RBAC assigns permissions to roles, which are then assigned to users. This model is relatively simple to implement and manage, making it suitable for many organizations. However, RBAC can become cumbersome in complex environments with fine-grained access control requirements. The static nature of roles can make it difficult to adapt to changing business needs and user responsibilities. Furthermore, RBAC often leads to role proliferation, where the number of roles increases dramatically to accommodate specific permission requirements, making the system difficult to manage and audit.

2.2 Attribute-Based Access Control (ABAC)

ABAC offers a more flexible and granular approach to permission management. Instead of relying on predefined roles, ABAC uses attributes of the user, the resource, and the environment to determine access rights. For example, a user’s department, job title, and location can be used in combination with the resource’s sensitivity level and the time of day to grant or deny access. This approach allows for highly customized and dynamic access control policies. However, ABAC is more complex to implement and manage than RBAC. It requires a robust policy engine and a well-defined attribute schema. Developing and maintaining ABAC policies can also be challenging, requiring specialized expertise and careful consideration of potential policy conflicts.

2.3 Beyond RBAC and ABAC: Policy-Based Access Control (PBAC) and Relationship-Based Access Control (ReBAC)

While RBAC and ABAC are dominant, other IAM models offer unique advantages in specific scenarios. Policy-Based Access Control (PBAC) is similar to ABAC but emphasizes the use of formal policies, often expressed in a declarative language, to define access rules. This can improve policy consistency and auditability. Relationship-Based Access Control (ReBAC) focuses on the relationships between users and resources. It is particularly useful in collaborative environments where access rights are determined by the relationships between individuals, for example, access to a document may be granted based on the relationship between the document owner and the user requesting access. The access is granted not on who the user is, but what relationship they have with the document. ReBAC is gaining traction with the wider adoption of graph databases.

2.4 Opinion: The need for hybrid approaches

In practice, many organizations adopt hybrid IAM models that combine elements of RBAC, ABAC, and other models to meet their specific needs. For example, an organization might use RBAC for high-level access control, such as granting access to an entire application, and ABAC for fine-grained control over specific resources within the application. Selecting the appropriate IAM model, or a combination of models, depends on the organization’s specific requirements, the complexity of its environment, and its risk tolerance.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

3. Access Control Lists (ACLs): A Fundamental Mechanism

Access Control Lists (ACLs) are a fundamental mechanism for implementing access control. An ACL is a list of permissions associated with a specific resource, specifying which users or groups have what type of access. ACLs are widely used in file systems, databases, and network devices. While ACLs provide a simple and direct way to control access, they can become difficult to manage in large and complex systems. Managing ACLs across a distributed system can be particularly challenging, as it requires synchronizing permissions across multiple resources and ensuring consistency.

3.1 POSIX ACLs

POSIX ACLs extend the traditional Unix file permission model to provide more granular control over file and directory access. They allow granting specific permissions to individual users or groups, beyond the owner, group, and others categories of the standard Unix permission model. POSIX ACLs can be a powerful tool for managing access to files and directories, but they also introduce complexity. Understanding and managing POSIX ACLs requires familiarity with the underlying concepts and the command-line tools for manipulating them.

3.2 Discretionary vs. Mandatory Access Control

ACLs are typically associated with discretionary access control (DAC), where the owner of a resource has the authority to grant or deny access to others. In contrast, mandatory access control (MAC) is a more restrictive model where access is determined by a central authority based on predefined policies. MAC is often used in high-security environments where strict control over information flow is required. While ACLs offer flexibility, MAC provides stronger security guarantees.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

4. Privilege Escalation Prevention: A Critical Security Imperative

Privilege escalation, the act of gaining unauthorized access to elevated privileges, is a serious security threat. Preventing privilege escalation requires a multi-layered approach, including secure coding practices, robust authentication and authorization mechanisms, and proactive monitoring and auditing.

4.1 Least Privilege Principle

The principle of least privilege (PoLP) is a fundamental security principle that dictates that users and applications should only have the minimum level of access required to perform their intended functions. Implementing PoLP can significantly reduce the risk of privilege escalation by limiting the potential damage that can be caused by a compromised account or application. However, implementing PoLP can be challenging in practice, as it requires a thorough understanding of user roles, application requirements, and data sensitivity levels. A key issue with PoLP is maintaining the principle. Users move roles within an organization and often the original permissions assigned to the original role are retained and accumulate over time. Good governance is required to ensure that users permissions are only appropriate for their current role.

4.2 Role Mining and Analysis

Role mining and analysis techniques can help organizations identify and optimize their role structure, ensuring that users have the appropriate level of access. These techniques involve analyzing user access patterns and identifying common permission sets that can be grouped into roles. Role mining can also help identify redundant or unused roles, reducing the complexity of the IAM system and improving security.

4.3 Just-in-Time (JIT) Access

Just-in-Time (JIT) access is a technique that grants users temporary access to elevated privileges only when needed. JIT access can be used to perform specific tasks that require elevated privileges, such as troubleshooting a production issue or deploying a new application. Once the task is completed, the temporary access is revoked, reducing the risk of privilege escalation. JIT access can be implemented using various mechanisms, such as privileged access management (PAM) systems or custom-built solutions.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

5. Compliance and Auditing: Meeting Regulatory Requirements

Data governance regulations, such as GDPR, CCPA, and HIPAA, impose strict requirements on data access control and auditing. Organizations must implement appropriate security measures to protect sensitive data and ensure that access is only granted to authorized individuals. Regular auditing is essential to verify compliance with these regulations and identify potential security vulnerabilities.

5.1 Data Masking and Encryption

Data masking and encryption are important techniques for protecting sensitive data. Data masking involves replacing sensitive data with fictitious but realistic data, while encryption involves converting data into an unreadable format that can only be decrypted with a specific key. Both techniques can help organizations comply with data governance regulations by protecting sensitive data from unauthorized access.

5.2 Audit Logging and Monitoring

Audit logging and monitoring are essential for detecting and responding to security incidents. Audit logs record user activity and system events, providing a valuable source of information for investigating security breaches. Monitoring tools can analyze audit logs and other data sources to detect suspicious activity and alert security personnel.

5.3 Compliance Frameworks

Several compliance frameworks, such as ISO 27001 and NIST Cybersecurity Framework, provide guidance on implementing security controls and meeting regulatory requirements. These frameworks can help organizations establish a comprehensive security program and demonstrate compliance to customers, partners, and regulators. It should be noted that compliance does not automatically equal security, a organisation can be compliant with all regulations and still have a security breach.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

6. Emerging Trends: Delegated Authorization, Consent Management, and Federated Identity

The landscape of permissions is constantly evolving, driven by new technologies and changing business needs. Several emerging trends are shaping the future of permissions management, including delegated authorization, consent management, and federated identity.

6.1 Delegated Authorization (OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect)

Delegated authorization allows users to grant limited access to their data to third-party applications without sharing their credentials. OAuth 2.0 is a widely used protocol for delegated authorization, while OpenID Connect builds on top of OAuth 2.0 to provide identity verification. These protocols enable users to control which applications have access to their data and what type of access they have.

6.2 Consent Management

Consent management is the process of obtaining and managing user consent for data collection and processing. GDPR and other privacy regulations require organizations to obtain explicit consent from users before collecting or processing their personal data. Consent management platforms (CMPs) help organizations manage user consent and ensure compliance with privacy regulations. Consent management requires organizations to consider the entire lifecycle of data, and how the data is handled. Consent is often obtained at the point of data collection but this is not sufficient to ensure privacy is maintained.

6.3 Federated Identity

Federated identity allows users to use the same credentials to access multiple applications and services. This simplifies the user experience and reduces the burden on organizations to manage multiple user accounts. Federated identity is often implemented using protocols such as SAML and OpenID Connect. A key issue with federated identity is the responsibility of the IdP (Identity Provider). It is critical to establish contracts with the IdP to ensure the service is available and that the data provided is accurate.

6.4 Decentralized Identity and Blockchain

Decentralized identity (DID) is an emerging approach to identity management that aims to give users more control over their personal data. DIDs are unique identifiers that are not controlled by any central authority. Users can use DIDs to verify their identity and grant access to their data without relying on traditional identity providers. Blockchain technology can be used to store and manage DIDs, providing a secure and transparent platform for identity management. Decentralized identity is a relatively new field but one which could drastically alter the landscape of permissions management.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

7. Conclusion and Future Research Directions

The management of permissions is a complex and ever-evolving challenge. As systems become more distributed and data governance regulations become more stringent, organizations must adopt more sophisticated and flexible permission models. While RBAC remains a widely used approach, ABAC, PBAC and ReBAC offer more granular and dynamic control over access. Privilege escalation prevention is a critical security imperative, requiring a multi-layered approach that includes the principle of least privilege, role mining and analysis, and just-in-time access. Compliance with data governance regulations requires organizations to implement appropriate security measures, such as data masking, encryption, and audit logging.

Future research should focus on addressing the scalability, security, and usability challenges of permission management in increasingly complex ecosystems. Specific areas of interest include:

• Developing more efficient and scalable ABAC policy engines.
• Creating automated tools for role mining and analysis.
• Exploring the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) for detecting and preventing privilege escalation.
• Developing standardized APIs and protocols for delegated authorization and consent management.
• Investigating the potential of blockchain technology for decentralized identity management.
• Developing more user-friendly interfaces for managing permissions.
• Establishing best practices for implementing the principle of least privilege in cloud and edge environments.
• The impact of quantum computing on permissions management and the development of quantum-resistant IAM solutions.
• The role of formal methods in verifying the correctness and security of access control policies.

By addressing these challenges, we can create more secure, efficient, and user-friendly permission management systems that enable organizations to thrive in the digital age.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

References

• Sandhu, R. S., Ferraiolo, D. F., & Kuhn, D. R. (2000). The NIST model for role-based access control: towards a unified standard. Proceedings of the fifth ACM workshop on Role-based access control, 47-63.
• Yee, K. P. (2011). Attribute-based access control. IEEE Security & Privacy, 9(4), 60-65.
• Barth, A., Mitchell, J. C., Rosenblum, N., & Inkster, J. (2006). Botnet mitigation using distributed, collaborative authorization. Proceedings of the 13th ACM conference on Computer and communications security, 285-295.
• Hardt, D. (2012). The OAuth 2.0 authorization framework. RFC 6749.
• Richer, J., Jones, M., Bradley, D., Angiolillo, P., & Lodderstedt, T. (2014). OpenID Connect Core 1.0.
• Allen, J. H., East, J. R., Frantz, W. D., Hoffberg, A. K., Peterson, R. A., Place, P. S., … & Trzeciak, R. F. (2008). CERT secure coding standards. Addison-Wesley Professional.
• European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation).
• NIST. (2018). Framework for improving critical infrastructure cybersecurity. National Institute of Standards and Technology.
• Sakimura, N., Bradley, J., Jones, M., de Medeiros, B., & Uehara, T. (2015). JSON Web Token (JWT). RFC 7519.
• Lodderstedt, T., McGloin, M., & Hunt, P. (2012). OAuth 2.0: a new paradigm for Web API security. IEEE Internet Computing, 16(5), 66-73.
• Sahlin, B., Keefe, T. F., Epstein, S., & Gray III, J. W. (2002). Role mining using structural graph analysis. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 4(2), 96-102.
• IBM. (2018). What is Federated Identity Management?. https://www.ibm.com/topics/federated-identity-management (Accessed October 26, 2023).
• Reed, D., Hileman, G., & McCaleb, J. (2016). Decentralized digital identity and its role in blockchain technology. Ledger, 1, 1-14.
• Pretschner, A., Slankas, J., & Brost, G. (2007). Model-based security engineering with UML. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), 16(1), 1-63.