Assurance

[Mark John Rank <>]

Ann et al.:

I am kinda jumping in late.  Did the features/options 
of this thread get captured somewhere in the assurance
wiki or is the best place to point folks who might 
want to attend the call Nick's blog post?

Just curious?

Mark


------------------------------------------
Mark Rank - IAM Program Manager
Middleware and Identity Management Group
University Information Technology Services 
UW-Milwaukee                       
Email: 

            
Phn:  414-229-3706     
------------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ann West" 
<>
To: 

Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:01:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Assurance] Remote proofing?

Ok. Thanks all! 

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

Ann 

----- Original Message -----

> 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.
> 
> > >>
> 
> > >>
> 
> > >>
> 
> > >
>