clair054

I have been pulled into many discussions that are not taking 'all' of ATNA . They are either just taking the audit logging, or just taking the Secure Communications. Then there are the discussions that are taking the Secure Communications but don't want to take the Client authentication. All of these discussions are missing the point of ATNA , and/or are missing the configurability that is built into ATNA . Let me explain: 1. ATNA is a grouping of three functions: Security Audit , Secure Communications, and local Access Controls . It is only when you are assured that ALL of these functions exist that you should administratively accept the node/application, and provision a certificate. When I see groups picking and choosing parts, I worry that they might not be understanding the overall. I don’t mind treating them independent as long as this overall design is understood. 2. ATNA Secure Communications (actually Authenticate Node) . is not just mutual-authentica...

I received a question about where to put the 'reason' that an ATNA auditable event has happened. The short answer is that Security is not interested in the reason; but Provenance is. Hello John, I have a question around ATNA logging. We are currently implementing the Metadata Update profile; ITI-57 "Update Document Set". [Specifically for deprecating a document without replacement.] However, we cannot find a place to store a reason (free text), which the user can enter when deprecating the document. It does not really make sense to allow the user to enter a reason, but not log it as part of the audit trail. The ATNA log is for Security purposes. It therefore is not interested in why. it is just interested in the fact that it happened. Security is interested in making sure that those that are not authorized to do things, are prevented from doing them. So the Security audit log is there to prove that only authorized acts are happening. If non-authorized acts are happen...