-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 161
Capabilities_Governance_Infrastructure_Prompt
While capabilities based access control might be better, enterprise IT practices don't have a way to govern capabilities. At the same time, they have a long history of using identity to govern, and IGA tools like Sailpoint and Savyint are encumbents and want to see little change.
In order for TBAC adoption, what kind of new governance tools will be needed by enterprise IT departments?
1. Capability Registry & Catalog
- Central repository for defining, versioning, and discovering capabilities
- Semantic mapping between business functions and technical capabilities
- Dependency tracking between capabilities and resources
2. Capability Composition Engine
- Tools to bundle granular capabilities into meaningful business roles
- Policy templates for common capability patterns
- Automated capability inheritance and delegation rules
3. Token Lifecycle Management
- Automated JWT/credential issuance, renewal, and revocation
- Multi-issuer token orchestration
- Evidence chain validation and audit trails
4. Trust Framework Administration
- Certificate authority integration and management
- Verifiable credential schema governance
- Cross-domain trust relationship configuration
5. Cedar Policy Development Environment
- Visual policy builders for non-technical stakeholders
- Policy simulation and testing frameworks
- Formal verification integration for policy correctness
6. Policy Lifecycle Management
- Version control and change management for Cedar policies
- Impact analysis tools (what changes when a policy updates)
- Automated policy compliance checking against regulatory frameworks
7. IAM-to-TBAC Bridge
- Role-to-capability mapping utilities
- Gradual migration pathways from RBAC to TBAC
- Integration adapters for existing IGA tools (SailPoint, Saviynt)
8. Governance Workflow Engines
- Approval workflows for capability grants
- Automated compliance reporting
- Risk assessment integration for capability combinations
9. Capability Usage Analytics
- Real-time capability utilization monitoring
- Anomaly detection for unusual capability patterns
- Business impact analysis of capability changes
10. Audit & Compliance Dashboards
- Regulatory compliance reporting (SOX, GDPR, etc.)
- Capability sprawl detection and cleanup recommendations
- Evidence validation status monitoring
Token Based Access Control ("TBAC") specifies that the domain authorize a capability if supported by evidence. A capability is an action or set of actions on a resource or set of resources.
- Signed JWT Tokens
- X.509 Certificates
- HTTP Message + signature
- Verifiable Credentials (JSON-LD proof…)
Cedar is a policy express language and engine with positive properties:
- Formal verification capabilities
- Fast evaluation engine – embeddable
- Human-readable policy syntax
- CNCF candidate project
- Used by Amazon Verified Permission ("AVP")
Looking at this TBAC Registry and Catalog spec as an enterprise customer, I'd have several concerns about implementing this at scale:
Positive Aspects Strong Foundation: The formal verification approach using Cedar Analysis tools is compelling - having mathematical proofs of policy correctness would be a game-changer for compliance audits.
Comprehensive Governance: The risk-based approval workflows and automatic security classification address real enterprise needs. The ability to configure CISO review preferences for specific security requirements is practical.
Token Management: First-class support for different token types (JWT, X.509, Verifiable Credentials) and cross-domain trust relationships shows understanding of enterprise federation needs.
Major Implementation Concerns Complexity and Learning Curve Issue: This system introduces significant complexity - developers need to understand Cedar policies, security teams need to configure universal security statements, and business analysts need to maintain function mappings.
Enterprise Reality: Most organizations struggle with simpler RBAC systems. The cognitive load here could be overwhelming, especially during migration from existing systems.
Migration Path Unclear Issue: The spec doesn't address how to migrate from existing RBAC/ABAC systems with thousands of roles and policies.
Enterprise Need: We'd need clear migration tooling, parallel operation capabilities, and gradual rollout strategies. The "big bang" approach implied here is too risky.
Performance at Scale Issue: Real-time Cedar Analysis and SMT solver integration for every policy submission could become a bottleneck.
Enterprise Reality: With hundreds of developers submitting policies daily, the formal verification step could slow development velocity significantly. Need clear SLAs and fallback mechanisms.
Operational Overhead Issue: The system requires maintaining business function taxonomies, security classifications, universal statements, and token issuer registries.
Enterprise Concern: This creates new operational burdens. Who maintains the business function hierarchy as the organization evolves? How do we keep security classifications current?
Critical Missing Elements Integration Strategy No mention of integration with existing IAM systems (Active Directory, Okta, etc.) Unclear how this works with current CI/CD pipelines and deployment processes Missing integration with existing governance tools (SailPoint, Saviynt mentioned but not integrated) Change Management No rollback mechanisms if approved capabilities cause issues in production Unclear how to handle emergency access scenarios Missing break-glass procedures for critical system access Monitoring and Observability No real-time monitoring of capability usage and abuse Missing alerting for suspicious access patterns No performance monitoring for the formal verification processes Feasibility Assessment High-Risk Areas SMT Solver Dependency: Relying on external SMT solvers for compliance verification introduces a critical dependency that could fail Cedar Analysis Performance: Real-time policy analysis may not scale to enterprise volumes Organizational Change: The shift from roles to capabilities requires significant cultural change Medium-Risk Areas Token Issuer Management: Cross-domain trust relationships can become complex quickly Business Function Mapping: Maintaining accurate business-to-technical mappings requires ongoing effort Approval Workflow Complexity: Risk-based routing could create approval bottlenecks Recommendations for Enterprise Adoption Phase 1: Pilot Implementation Start with a single application domain Focus on capability extraction and basic approval workflows Defer formal verification until proven at smaller scale Phase 2: Gradual Expansion Add token management and cross-domain trust Implement business function mapping for pilot domains Begin formal verification for high-risk capabilities only Phase 3: Enterprise Scale Full formal verification and compliance automation Complete migration from legacy RBAC systems Advanced analytics and AI-driven governance Must-Have Additions Hybrid Operation Mode: Support running alongside existing RBAC during transition Performance Guarantees: Clear SLAs for policy analysis and approval workflows Emergency Procedures: Break-glass access and rapid rollback capabilities Integration Adapters: Pre-built connectors for common enterprise systems Bottom Line This is an ambitious and technically sound approach that could revolutionize enterprise access control. However, the implementation complexity and organizational change required make it a 3-5 year journey rather than a quick deployment.
I'd want to see a more pragmatic migration strategy, clearer performance guarantees, and better integration with existing enterprise infrastructure before committing to full-scale implementation. The formal verification capabilities are compelling enough to justify a pilot program, but enterprise rollout would need significant additional planning and tooling.