As such, my previous post about entitlement management was intended to stir the pot a little bit (which is why I posted the "equation" as a hypothesis) and also bring to the surface one of my pet peeves with how some vendors position entitlement management.
I wanted to achieve 2 things:
- Point out what you're actually getting if you buy an entitlement management product from an access management vendor.
- If we MUST use the term "entitlement management", we should at least have a good reason for doing so instead of using it to sell more products by re-branding an old concept.
The second point required discussion so I conveniently ignored everything else that I've heard people refer to as "entitlement management". The most common example is in relation to IT Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC), specifically identity compliance and attestation-type activities. I don't typically refer to this as "entitlement management", but others do.
These are the 2 obvious sides to the entitlement management coin, but there are others that could conceivably pop-up. For example, Eve Maler brings up the possibility that
It's clear that the term "entitlement management" means different things to different people. It's a bit like the spinning lady illusion (where depending on how you focus, you see it spinning in one direction while others see it spinning the opposite way). In our case, some might not think we're even looking at a lady's silhouette. I don't like things to be complex (which makes people wonder why I chose this line of work). But it's also for this reason that I don't like the term "entitlement management". It confuses the heck out of everyone!
I received a few email responses. There were also a couple of opinions on Twitter, a few more in the comments to my post (which I responded to there) and a handful of blog responses (Nishant, Ian Glazer and Dave Kearns). Some agreed, others partially and some not at all.
Before I move on, I should clear something up. Paul Toal (from Oracle) comments:
"I think you are making a huge assumption that entitlements management is only related to the web access layer".
I'm not. And that is part of the problem with calling all these access management products "web access management" products. It makes everyone assume that's all these products do. And that was part of my point; that they can do so much more. Simply calling them "web access management" products does their capabilities an injustice (although some have less fine-grained access management capabilities than others). I should be able to add a little more context when I write about my first Identity and Access Management project (as promised in my previous post) but I won't talk about this "web access management" generalisation today because we'll lose focus.
In reading through the opinions of others, I noticed one thing in general; most toed the company line, which was not unexpected:
- People from Sun more or less agreed (probably because I said I liked how they are approaching it with OpenSSO).
- People from Oracle tended to use fine-grained access management as a baseline and expanded on it to include centralisation across all platforms with a common enterprise services view on everything.
- Consultants didn't like having a new term to define something they've been doing for a long time and find it difficult to explain it to customers without confusing them.
- Those who have been around and know security but don't have as much of a vested interest in "entitlement management" like to take a more pragmatic approach in trying to segment the definitions into manageable portions that make sense while not discounting the term altogether.
- Some of the more sales-oriented folk who don't have to sell a so-called "entitlement management" product didn't like having to explain the term because it distracts customers. Either that or they worry about the need to "shoe-horn" their product/s into the "entitlement management" hype if that's all they hear about when doing sales calls.
Ian Glazer has 4 problems with my hypothesis/definition. I'll address each here:
- "Definitions that include a protocol are worrisome as they can overly restrict the definition" - He has a point. I should probably have said "an authorisation/access management policy standard". But in reality, my view is that it'll be XACML or some evolution of it. So if we wanted to make an academic definition, then we should probably not say "XACML". I'm not a fan of academic definitions though, otherwise I would have accepted the PhD offer from my university professor instead of joining IBM.
- "I fear this definition is a reflection of products in the market today and not a statement on what “entitlement management” is meant to do" - Bingo! Ian Glazer's just summed up a lot of what I'm getting at. I DID define it as per what the access management vendors think it should mean. Whether this is what it should mean is up for debate.
- "There is something missing from the definition – the policy enforcement point" - True, if you think the definition should include the terms: policy administration point (PAP), policy decision point (PDP) and policy enforcement point (PEP). Then again, I didn't have PAP or PDP in the hypothesis either. It comes down to whether one thinks that access management products as they exists today have PAPs, PDPs and PEPs. Even so, I personally think they should be in the finer details and not the definition. As an aside, access management products with fine-grained authorisation capabilities do have some PEPs. But PEPs are a little bit like connectors in provisioning products; one size does not fit all. There's usually some work that needs to be done to build a PEP that works for whatever system you are hooking into the access management product. The obvious exception here is the web reverse proxy component in access management products because they can assume a standard protocol is in place for web-based interactions. Of course, the web reverse proxy does coarse-grained access management (aka "web access management") by many common definitions. But now I'm just confusing the matter so I'll stop :-)
- "I have a problem with the phrase “entitlement management”...enterprises do not use the phrase “entitlement management” the same way we do" - It's because the vendors have managed to confuse customers. On one hand, we have the "entitlement management" that vendors use to describe run-time authorisation (which I've been referring to as access management). On the other hand, we have vendors that talk about certain aspects of IT GRC as being "entitlement management". Based on what Ian Glazer is saying, the companies he's talked to see it more from an IT GRC (or operational) perspective.
Ian Glazer goes on to say:
"Using a single term (“entitlement management”) to span both the run-time authorization decisions as well as the necessary legwork of gathering, interpreting, and cleansing entitlements can lead to confusion."
Yeah, tell me about it. Unfortunately, this is what we have today. It's an overloaded term which has already lead to confusion. At this point however, I'm unsure what Ian Glazer's position on the whole matter is. On one hand, he's helping round out the entitlement management definition from an access management (or run-time authorisation as he puts it) standpoint but on the other hand alluding to the fact that including this aspect in the overall definition can lead to confusion.
Dave Kearns doesn't agree with the hypothesis either. He also says he doesn't quite agree with Ian Glazer but I think he's actually disagreeing with Burton Group's perception of how enterprises define entitlement management. As I said, I'm not quite sure how Burton Group wants to define it. No matter. At least it prompted an opinion from Dave. But he goes on to say that he thinks entitlements should be tied to roles, not individuals:
"Differentiate entitlement management from access management, also (else, why use both terms?). Individuals get access, roles/groups get entitlements. Access is granted to resources (hardware, applications, services, etc.) while entitlements specify what a particular role/group can do with or within that resource."
If I were to simplify this, I would interpret it as saying access and entitlements are more or less the same thing but with intricate, important differences in terms of how you look at it. You use one term for individuals and the other term for roles. I do agree with Dave from a conceptual point of view, but I don't see the need to differentiate individuals and roles here because we're getting very close to implementation specifics if we do and are in danger of adding to the confusion.
Neil Readshaw, an ex-colleague of mine from IBM and a worldwide authority on Tivoli Security products says (via a comment in response to my previous post):
"I try to talk about authorization when taking a resource centric view (e.g. who can do something), and entitlements for a user centric view (e.g. what can this user do). In the end, it may be the same data making both of those determinations."
Neil and Dave are talking about pretty much the same thing but I prefer Neil's version because it takes a higher-level approach and avoids specifics like mappings between individuals, roles and resources. Neil's statement about "the same data making both of those determinations" however, begs the question: why do we need a separate product to do entitlement management?
I did find this statement by Ian Glazer interesting though:
"A bit of history – three or so years ago Burton Group, at a Catalyst, introduced the phrase “entitlement management” to include the run-time authorization decision process that most of the industry referred to as “fine-grained authorization.” At the time, this seemed about right. Flash forward to this year and our latest research and we have learned that our definition was too narrow."
The automatic assumption would be to blame Burton Group for this mess. But if you think about it, it's not really their fault. It's the fault of all the vendors for jumping on the bandwagon and hyping it to the point it's now out of control and we find ourselves having to come to terms with some sort of definition so we can see through the entitlement fog.
Burton Group's views seem to have evolved and the vendors are stuck with a definition a couple of years old. My objection all along has been to vendors jumping on the bandwagon and trying to convince everyone that it's such a "must have", new concept to the point where customers need to buy their new "entitlement management" product before understanding what it really means. Worse still, a few went out and built brand new products and slapped the name "entitlement manager" (or a variant) on it. Would it not have made more sense to allow their access management products to evolve naturally with business needs and keep calling them "access management solutions"? Why did they have to go and confuse the matter and in the process force customers to support separate data and policy stores for products with a lot of overlapping capabilities?
If we must have the term "entitlement management" hanging around in the lingo, we need to re-adjust our understanding of what it means. Once this is done, perhaps the vendors will rename/re-think their "entitlement management" products or roll them into their access management offerings like they should have done in the first place. Analysts like Ian Glazer should be able to help the market define this because they talk to companies about what they are actually doing. My objection isn't with the industry as a whole for talking about entitlement management. It's out in the wild now and nothing any of us can do will put the entitlement genie back in the bottle. But we shouldn't be re-branding an old concept just to sell more products.
If this discussion doesn't get us closer to a good definition, I'd like at least one thing to happen. If you are looking at an entitlement management product, please take a step back to understand what it is you actually want. You might already have the tools to do it. If not, make sure you're buying the right tool for the right reason. Not just because the vendor tells you it's their "entitlement management" product and you MUST have it because you are looking at user entitlements in your environment.
Hi Ian-- Great (series of) post(s), and thanks for the link to my post about EIC. (I agree with your tweet about blog posts becoming longer and appearing with less frequency due to Twitter; the same is happening to me!)
Just as your equation was intended to provoke thought, so was my "Enterprise 2.0 entitlement management" formulation. :-) Some comments back at you:
- Your history of the phrase seems exactly right to me: "entitlement management" indeed has, perhaps weirdly, come to mean all the tasks associated with fine-grained authorization. Where web resources are managed at a fine grain, the phrase can apply to WAM as a subspecies. (I've heard "entitlement enforcement" used to mean just the run-time portion, and I kind of like that.)
- I was intending to suggest that my ProtectServe/"relationship management" proposal (which has a protocol component but is much more than that), rather than the VRM movement as a whole, could provide hints as to "Enterprise 2.0 entitlement management" because of its particular design center. Note that it has both a run-time and a config-time aspect. It also happens to separate the PAP/PDP (our "authorization manger") and the PEP (our "service provider", from the OAuth term) based on our use cases, but there are other related use cases that can colocate them.
Thanks for the clarification Eve. Duly noted and updated.
I'm all for thought provocation :-)
Post a Comment