Rencontrez ForgeRock à SIdO Lyon, les 7 et 8 Avril

Salon Internet des ObjetsJe serai présent avec notre équipe au SIdO, l’événement 100% dédié à l’Internet des Objets qui aura lieu à Lyon les 7 et 8 Avril 2015.

Outre notre présence dans l’espace coworking pendant les 2 jours, Lasse Andresen, CTO de ForgeRock, animera un workshop avec ARM et Schneider sur la place de l’Identité dans l’Internet des Objets, le Mercredi 8 à 13h30.

N’hésitez pas à venir nous rendre visite dans l’espace coworking.


Filed under: General, InFrench Tagged: conference, ForgeRock, france, identity, internet-of-things, iot, Lyon, privacy, security

IoT World Forum Review: Interop, Data & Security

This week saw the 2 day Internet of Things World Forum conference take place in London. There is clearly a general consensus, that the IoT market is a multi-trillion dollar opportunity, through the implementation of items such as consumer wearables, embedded predictive failure components and data collecting sensors.



The rapid rise in connected devices and IoT ecosystems, is seemingly beingdriven by several key factors, includingfalling cost of both connectivity anddata storage. These lowering barriers to entry, coupled with more developer friendly ecosystems and open platforms, is helping to fulfil new revenue generating business opportunities in multiple verticals including manufacturing and healthcare.

Matt Hatton from Machina Research started off discussing the progression from local standalone projects (Intranets of Things), through to more internal or enterprise focused deployments (Subnets of Things).  David Keene from Google, extended this further, to say the progression will reach the concept of Web of Things, where accessibility and 'findability' will be key to managing and accessing data.

It was clear that data aggregation and analytics will be a major component in any successful IoT infrastructure, whether that is focusing on consumer enhancements, such as the Jaguar connected car project as described by Leon Hurst, through to smart health care, either in the form of Fitbits, or more advanced medical instrumentation.

API's and machine processing were certainly referenced more than once.  The new more connected web, will provide interaction touch points that only machines can understand, coupled with better data aggregation, distributed data storage and centralised querying. API's of course need protection too, either via gateways or via token management integration for standards such as OAuth2.

One aspect that was conspicuous in it's absence, was that of data privacy, and identity and access management.  The IoT landscape is creating vast amounts of data at stream like speeds.  The concept of little data (small devices in isolation) to big data (aggregated in cloud services) requires strong levels of authentication and authorization, at both the device, service and end user level.  The ability to share and transparently know where data is being accessed will be a key concern in the consumer and health care spaces.

Dave Wagstaff from BSquare, brought up the interesting concept, that many organisations are now subtly moving away from a product based business model, to a software and services based approach. With the the increased capability of devices, organisations now can perform much more in the way of remote monitoring, predictive failure and so on, where the end user really is just paying an insurance or subscription for their physical thing.

Bernd Heinrichs from Cisco followed a similar pattern, where he described the German view of Industry v4.0 (or 4.1...) where innovative production concepts are helping to reduce energy, increase uptime and generate better component output.

From a new market opportunity perspective, Francois Menuier from Morgan Stanley, observed that 6% of all consumers now own a wearable, with 59% of them using that wearable daily. In addition many wearable owners, argued that this was an additional purchase and not one to replace existing technology, solidifying the view that new market initiatives are available in the IoT world. However many consumer wearables generate huge amounts of deeply personal data that needs to be protected and shared securely.

Jon Carter from Deutsch Telekom went through the 7 steps for a successful IoT implementation, which ended with the two main points of applying a minimum viable product concept to design and also leverage secure and open platform.

Dr Shane Rooney from the GSMA focused his thoughts on security within the mobile network operator network, including the concept of device to device and device to service authentication, as well the the need for greater focus on data privacy.

Overall an interesting couple of days. Whilst most manufacturers and platforms are focused on interoperability and data management, identity and access management has a strong and critical role in allowing 3rd party data sharing and interactions to take place. It will be interesting to see if the 2015 and 2016 start to introduce these concepts by default.





Zero Trust and the Age of Global Connectivity

Global connectivity is omnipresent when it comes to smart phones and tablets.  It's not so much a case of looking for a power adapter when on the road, it's constantly about 3G and 4G signal strength or availability of contract hotspot wifi services.  However, global connectivity has also had a profound impact on enterprises.  There is no longer a rudimentary partitioning of network infrastructure into
public and private areas.  The firewalls of old have been replaced by application firewalls, data loss prevention operations and advanced tracing, tracking and event monitoring.  The internal 'trusted' network no longer exists.  Employees often pose the biggest threat to information assets, even though they are trusted with legitimate accounts on protected internal machines.

Zero Trust as a New Model

Zero Trust is a recent security approach that looks to move away from network segmentation and focus more on data and resources and who can access them, when and from where.  This helps to remove the antiquated approach of being on trusted grounds, which often helps create a singularity point which malware and hackers can focus upon.  By defining more context around individual information assets or services, allows for the opening up of those resources to globally connected devices, whilst securing access based on the who, where and why and not just their network location.  Access is permitted on the traditional 'need to know' basis, whilst being under continual review.  This would require all access to start from a minimal (if none-existent) level, whilst every connection being tracked and monitored.

Internet of Things & Modern Connectivity

I wrote recently of Protection & The Internet of Things and how, with the proliferation of previously 'dumb' devices enriching the Internet, comes a need for increased security context and reliance on the identity of things.  By extending a 'zero trust' model to this brave new world of increased interconnectedness, we can start to see the benefits of things like personalised search results, personalised home and environment settings, dynamic ordering and choice removal.  All devices, services and assets should start from a place of zeroaccess, with trust relations being built between identities and data which the devices can help bridge and create connections.

Zero Trust or Zero Protection?

But should the assumption be of zero trust or zero protection?  Many penetration testing organisations and web security auditors, promote the message that an organisation will be hacked at some point, so it's advisable to put in place recovery plans.  By focusing simply on prevention, an organisation can be opened up to irreversible damage if a breach were to occur.  So, do we take that approach to all services, devices and identities?  Perhaps.  With the increased level of services, API's, identity providers and data being created and consumed, existing models for security relationships are open to many potential failures that could impact the Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability paradigm of traditional security.  Do we follow a zero trust model or simply say, well my phone will be hacked at some point, so I will not rely on it so explicitly?  Time will tell.

By Simon Moffatt







Zero Trust and the Age of Global Connectivity

Global connectivity is omnipresent when it comes to smart phones and tablets.  It's not so much a case of looking for a power adapter when on the road, it's constantly about 3G and 4G signal strength or availability of contract hotspot wifi services.  However, global connectivity has also had a profound impact on enterprises.  There is no longer a rudimentary partitioning of network infrastructure into
public and private areas.  The firewalls of old have been replaced by application firewalls, data loss prevention operations and advanced tracing, tracking and event monitoring.  The internal 'trusted' network no longer exists.  Employees often pose the biggest threat to information assets, even though they are trusted with legitimate accounts on protected internal machines.

Zero Trust as a New Model

Zero Trust is a recent security approach that looks to move away from network segmentation and focus more on data and resources and who can access them, when and from where.  This helps to remove the antiquated approach of being on trusted grounds, which often helps create a singularity point which malware and hackers can focus upon.  By defining more context around individual information assets or services, allows for the opening up of those resources to globally connected devices, whilst securing access based on the who, where and why and not just their network location.  Access is permitted on the traditional 'need to know' basis, whilst being under continual review.  This would require all access to start from a minimal (if none-existent) level, whilst every connection being tracked and monitored.

Internet of Things & Modern Connectivity

I wrote recently of Protection & The Internet of Things and how, with the proliferation of previously 'dumb' devices enriching the Internet, comes a need for increased security context and reliance on the identity of things.  By extending a 'zero trust' model to this brave new world of increased interconnectedness, we can start to see the benefits of things like personalised search results, personalised home and environment settings, dynamic ordering and choice removal.  All devices, services and assets should start from a place of zeroaccess, with trust relations being built between identities and data which the devices can help bridge and create connections.

Zero Trust or Zero Protection?

But should the assumption be of zero trust or zero protection?  Many penetration testing organisations and web security auditors, promote the message that an organisation will be hacked at some point, so it's advisable to put in place recovery plans.  By focusing simply on prevention, an organisation can be opened up to irreversible damage if a breach were to occur.  So, do we take that approach to all services, devices and identities?  Perhaps.  With the increased level of services, API's, identity providers and data being created and consumed, existing models for security relationships are open to many potential failures that could impact the Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability paradigm of traditional security.  Do we follow a zero trust model or simply say, well my phone will be hacked at some point, so I will not rely on it so explicitly?  Time will tell.

By Simon Moffatt







Protection & The Internet of Things

The 'Internet of Things' is one of the technical heatwaves that has genuinely got me excited over the last 24 months or so.  I've been playing with computers since I was 8 and like to think of myself as being pretty tech-savvy.  I can code in a number of languages, understand different architectural approaches easily and pick up new technical trends naturally.  However, the concept of the truly connected world with 'things' interconnected and graphed together, is truly mind blowing.  The exciting thing for me, is that I don't see the outcome.  I don't see the natural technical conclusion of devices and objects being linked to a single unique identity, where information can flow in multiple directions, originating from different sources and being made available in contextual bundles.  There is no limit.



They'll be No 'Connected', Just 'On'

Today we talk about connectivity, wifi hotspots and 4G network coverage.  The powerful difference between being on and off line.  As soon as you're off line, you're invisible.  Lost, unable to get the information you need, to interact with your personal and professional networks. This concept is slowly dying.  The 'Internet' is no longer a separate object that we connect with explicitly.  Very soon, the internet will be so intrinsically tied to us, that without it, basic human interactions and decision making will become stunted.  That is why I refer to objects just being 'on' - or maybe just 'being', but that is a little too sci-fi for me.  Switching an object on, or purchasing it, enabling it, checking in to it, will make that device become 'smart' and tied to us.  It will have an IP address and be able to communicate, send messages, register, interact and contain specific contextual information.  A simple example is the many running shoe companies that now provide GPS, tracking and training support information for a new running shoe.  That information is specific to an individual, centrally correlated and controlled, and then shared socially to allow better route planning and training techniques, to be created and exchanged.


Protection, Identity & Context

But what about protection?  What sort of protection?  Why does this stuff need protecting in the first place? And from what?  The more we tie individual devices to our own unique identity, the more information, services and objects we can consume, purchase and share.  Retailers see the benefit in being able to provide additional services and contextual information to a customer, as it makes them stickier to their brand.  The consumer and potential customer receives a more unique service, requiring less explicit searching and decision making.  Everything becomes personalised, which results in faster and more personalised acquisition of services and products.

However, that information exchange requires protection.  Unique identities need to be created - either for the physical person, or the devices that are being interacted with.  These identities will also need owners, custodians and access policies that govern the who, what and when, with regards to interactions.  The running shoe example may seem unimportant, but apply that logic to your fridge - seems great to be able to manage and monitor the contents of your refrigerator.  Automatic ordering and so on, seems like a dream.  But how might that affect your health insurance policy?  What about when you go on holiday and don't order any food for 3 weeks?  Ideal fodder for a burglar.  The more we connect to our own digitalpersona, the more those interactions need authentication, authorization and identity management.

Context plays an important part here too.  Objects - like people in our own social graphs - have many touch points and information flows.  A car is a simple example.  It will have a manufacturer (who is interested in safety, performance and so on), a retailer (who is interested in usage, ownership years), the owner (perhaps interested in servicing, crash history) and then other parties such as governments and police.  Not to mention potential future owners and insurance companies.  The context to which an interacting party comes from, will obviously determine what information they can consume and contribute to.  That will also need managing from an authorization perspective.


Whilst the 'Internet of Things' may seem like buzz, it has a profound impact on how we interact with physical, previously inanimate objects.  As soon as digitize and contextualize them, we can reap significant benefits when it comes to implicit information searching and tailor made services.  But, for that to work effectively, a correct balance with identity and access control needs to be found.

By Simon Moffatt

Image courtesy of http://www.sxc.hu/photo/472281



Protection & The Internet of Things

The 'Internet of Things' is one of the technical heatwaves that has genuinely got me excited over the last 24 months or so.  I've been playing with computers since I was 8 and like to think of myself as being pretty tech-savvy.  I can code in a number of languages, understand different architectural approaches easily and pick up new technical trends naturally.  However, the concept of the truly connected world with 'things' interconnected and graphed together, is truly mind blowing.  The exciting thing for me, is that I don't see the outcome.  I don't see the natural technical conclusion of devices and objects being linked to a single unique identity, where information can flow in multiple directions, originating from different sources and being made available in contextual bundles.  There is no limit.



They'll be No 'Connected', Just 'On'

Today we talk about connectivity, wifi hotspots and 4G network coverage.  The powerful difference between being on and off line.  As soon as you're off line, you're invisible.  Lost, unable to get the information you need, to interact with your personal and professional networks. This concept is slowly dying.  The 'Internet' is no longer a separate object that we connect with explicitly.  Very soon, the internet will be so intrinsically tied to us, that without it, basic human interactions and decision making will become stunted.  That is why I refer to objects just being 'on' - or maybe just 'being', but that is a little too sci-fi for me.  Switching an object on, or purchasing it, enabling it, checking in to it, will make that device become 'smart' and tied to us.  It will have an IP address and be able to communicate, send messages, register, interact and contain specific contextual information.  A simple example is the many running shoe companies that now provide GPS, tracking and training support information for a new running shoe.  That information is specific to an individual, centrally correlated and controlled, and then shared socially to allow better route planning and training techniques, to be created and exchanged.


Protection, Identity & Context

But what about protection?  What sort of protection?  Why does this stuff need protecting in the first place? And from what?  The more we tie individual devices to our own unique identity, the more information, services and objects we can consume, purchase and share.  Retailers see the benefit in being able to provide additional services and contextual information to a customer, as it makes them stickier to their brand.  The consumer and potential customer receives a more unique service, requiring less explicit searching and decision making.  Everything becomes personalised, which results in faster and more personalised acquisition of services and products.

However, that information exchange requires protection.  Unique identities need to be created - either for the physical person, or the devices that are being interacted with.  These identities will also need owners, custodians and access policies that govern the who, what and when, with regards to interactions.  The running shoe example may seem unimportant, but apply that logic to your fridge - seems great to be able to manage and monitor the contents of your refrigerator.  Automatic ordering and so on, seems like a dream.  But how might that affect your health insurance policy?  What about when you go on holiday and don't order any food for 3 weeks?  Ideal fodder for a burglar.  The more we connect to our own digitalpersona, the more those interactions need authentication, authorization and identity management.

Context plays an important part here too.  Objects - like people in our own social graphs - have many touch points and information flows.  A car is a simple example.  It will have a manufacturer (who is interested in safety, performance and so on), a retailer (who is interested in usage, ownership years), the owner (perhaps interested in servicing, crash history) and then other parties such as governments and police.  Not to mention potential future owners and insurance companies.  The context to which an interacting party comes from, will obviously determine what information they can consume and contribute to.  That will also need managing from an authorization perspective.


Whilst the 'Internet of Things' may seem like buzz, it has a profound impact on how we interact with physical, previously inanimate objects.  As soon as digitize and contextualize them, we can reap significant benefits when it comes to implicit information searching and tailor made services.  But, for that to work effectively, a correct balance with identity and access control needs to be found.

By Simon Moffatt

Image courtesy of http://www.sxc.hu/photo/472281