Assurance

[Ann West <>]

Ok. Thanks all!

Those that are interested should join the Assurance call on Wednesday June 6, and we'll talk about next steps. 

Ann

---

I'm in.


David

"Michael R. Gettes" <> wrote:

me 3

/mrg

On May 30, 2012, at 15:32, Roy, Nicholas S wrote:

> Me as well.
> 
> Nick
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:  [mailto:] On Behalf Of Lovaas,Steven
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:30 PM
> To: 
> Subject: RE: [Assurance] Remote proofing?
> 
> I'd also be interested in helping with this.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> ========================
> Steven Lovaas
> IT Security Manager
> Colorado State University
> 
> 970-297-3707
> ========================
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Bradner, Scott
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 1:18 PM
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: [Assurance] Remote proofing?
> 
> I'm interested
> 
> Scott
> 
> Scott Bradner
> 
> Harvard University Information Technology Innovation & Architecture
> +1 617 495 3864
> 29 Oxford St., Room 407
> Cambridge, MA 02138
> www.harvard.edu/huit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On May 30, 2012, at 3:10 PM, Ann West wrote:
> 
>> If there's interest in convening a collaboration group to develop some recommendations on this topic, just let me know. Happy to help with the phone bridge, wiki page, doodle polls, etc.
>> 
>> A good meaty thing to tackle, if you ask me.
>> 
>>
 ;
Ann
>> 
>> Not saying dealing with people in other countries is not a problem, 
>> but I found this while trying to educate myself:  
>> http://travel.state.gov/law/judicial/judicial_2086.html
>> 
>> 
>> From:  
>> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Michael R. Gettes
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 1:58 PM
>> To: <>
>> Subject: Re: [Assurance] Remote proofing?
>> 
>> aren't we all assuming a perfect world where the world we need is "good enough"?  and, have you tried to present an ID via video conf?  Frankly, it looks pretty good.  Additionally, I have the problem of dealing with people from other countries so Notary is problematic there.
>> 
>> /mrg
>> 
>> On May 30, 2012, at 14:54, Roy, Nicholas S wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> This is a good point, Jacob- the validity of the documents would be harder to determine via video link.  I think this might be a benefit to having a notary look at the documents, if that's something they are trained to do.
>> 
>> Nick
>> 
>> From:  
>> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Farmer, Jacob
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 10:58 AM
>> To: 
>> Subject: RE: [Assurance] Remote proofing?
>> 
>> When it has come up at IU, one of the major concerns has been our ability to tell if the ID has been altered over the video link.  Granted, we are not likely to catch a good fake ID even if it's presented in person, but it seems like we could very well miss a poorly altered ID over the video conferen
 ce
link.
>> 
>> Jacob
>> 
>> From:  
>> [mailto:] On Behalf Of David Walker
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 11:53 AM
>> To: 
>> Subject: Re: [Assurance] Remote proofing?
>> 
>> I like this general approach.  It also raises the question of whether a video conference link should be considered remote or local.  Clearly, it's geographically remote, but the risks and the proofing process are much more like local proofing.
>> 
>> Has anyone implemented identity proofing based on video conferencing?  I've heard it discussed before, but I'm not aware of actual implementations.
>> 
>> David
>> 
>> On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 19:11 +0000, Michael R. Gettes wrote:
>> 
>> I've been mulling this over for some time.
&
 gt;>

>> Here are my thoughts on a Remote Proofing process we are now mulling over at CMU.
>> 
>> There are parts in here to address some CMU problems of issuing 2nd-factor tokens - but you could take that out of the flow and it still is viable.
>> 
>> The IDProof App has yet to be written.
>> 
>> /mrg
>> 
>> Version 1.0
>> 
>> Actor = Person to be Identity-Proofed
>> Proofer = Doh!  Could be any full-time CMU staff person appropriately authorized?  Could be Help Center staff?
>> 
>> It is assumed the Actor has already been issued an Andrew ID - or must we define this process too?
>> 
>> 0. Actor and Proofer agree upon method of Video Conference (FaceTime, 
>> Google Voice Video, Skype, others?)
>> 
>> 1. Actor independently obtains physical FOB or downloads soft FOB
>
 ;>

>> 2. Proofer independently accesses ID-Proof Web App in a "Proofer" role
>> 
>> 3. Proofer establishes VC with Actor.
>> a.  It is most optimal if someone the Proofer knows is with the Actor as a "chain of custody".
>> 
>> 4. Actor presents to Proofer Official Photo ID - holding it up to the camera.
>> a.  Proofer verifies photo matches actor's face b.  Proofer records ID 
>> Type, Issuer, ID number into ID-Proof Web App c.  Actor provides 
>> AndrewID - Proofer validates AndrewID matches Actor d.  Possibility of 
>> obtaining digital photo capture of Actor in VC e.  If a "custodian" 
>> (see 3a) is present, record custodian AndrewID.
>> 
>> 5. Process FOB
>> a.  Proofer records Actor's FOB # and AndrewID into ID-Proof Web App 
>> b.  Proofer enables Actor's FOB
>> 
>> 6. Actor verifies
authentication and access a. Actor accesses ID-Proof 
>> Web App and login as normal user Actor authenticates using Shib SSO 
>> and then uses FOB authN on ID-Proof page.
>> b. Actor is presented with a 6 character KEY c. Actor reads KEY to 
>> Proofer d. Proofer validates the Actor's KEY with KEY on Proofer's 
>> ID-Proof page.
>> e. repeat a-d until success
>> 
>> 7. Proofer approves Actor in ID-Proof Web App
>> 
>> 8. End Video Conference
>> 
>> 9. Proofer authorization
>> a.  If Proofer has privilege to authorize then modify accordingly.
>> b.  If not (9a) then Proofer notifies official authorizers ID-Proof steps completed and provides AndrewID and Name to Authorizers.  Authorizers modify accordingly.
>> 
>> Done.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>