IP Library Granted Patent US 9,288,232
Granted Patent B2
US 9,288,232 · App. 13/970,174 · Granted Mar 15, 2016

Techniques for reconciling permission usage with security policy for policy optimization and monitoring continuous compliance

Inventors: Suresh N. Chari (Tarrytown, NY); Ian M. Molloy (Chappaqua, NY); Youngja Park (Princeton, NJ); Wilfried Teiken (Ossining, NY)
Assignee: International Business Machines Corporation
H04L63/20G06F21/31G06F21/604G06F2221/2101
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 9,288,232
App. No.
13/970,174
Granted
Mar 15, 2016
Kind
B2
Abstract

In one aspect, a method for managing a security policy having multiple policy items includes the steps of: (a) mapping permissions to the policy items which apply to usage of the permissions so as to determine which of the permissions are granted to groups of users by each of the policy items; (b) identifying at least one of the policy items mapped in step (a) that is in violation of least privilege based on a comparison of an actual permission usage with the security policy; (c) identifying at least one of the policy items mapped in step (a) that increases operational risk; (d) verifying that policy constructs in the security policy are consistent with policy constructs inferred from the actual permission usage; and (e) identifying optimizations of the security policy based on output from one or more of steps (a)-(d).

Claims (26)

1. An apparatus for managing a security policy having multiple policy items, the apparatus comprising:

a memory; and

at least one processor device, coupled to the memory, operative to:

(a) map permissions to the policy items which apply to usage of the permissions so as to determine which of the permissions are granted to groups of users by each of the policy items;

(b) identify at least one of the policy items mapped in step (a) that is in violation of least privilege based on a comparison of an actual permission usage with the security policy, wherein least privilege specifies that the users are only given privileges that are needed to execute their functions;

(c) identify at least one of the policy items mapped in step (a) that increases operational risk;

(d) verify that policy constructs in the security policy are consistent with constructs that are inferred from the actual permission usage; and

(e) identify optimizations of the security policy based on output from one or more of steps (a)-(d).

2. The apparatus of claim 1 , wherein the at least one processor device when performing step (b) to identify at least one of the policy items that is in violation of least privilege is operative to:

identify at least one of the policy items as being redundant, wherein a redundant policy item is a given one of the policy items which specifies an action regarding one or more of the permissions that is also specified by one or more other of the policy items but which have higher priority than the given policy item in an access control decision, and thereby violates least privilege.

3. The apparatus of claim 1 , wherein the at least one processor device when performing the step (b) to identify at least one of the policy items that is in violation of least privilege is operative to:

identify which of the policy items were used to authorize access requests during a given time period and therefore are relevant policy items, and which of the policy items were not used to authorize access requests during the time period, but which do permit access to some resources and are non-relevant policy items in violation of least privilege.

4. The apparatus of claim 1 , wherein the at least one processor device when performing the step (b) to identify at least one of the policy items that is in violation of least privilege is operative to:

identify users who have more than a pre-determined threshold fraction of the permissions which the users either i) do not use, or ii) use less than a pre-determined threshold number of times during a given time period and thus are over-provisioned users in violation of least privilege.

5. The apparatus of claim 1 , wherein the at least one processor device when performing the step (b) to identify at least one of the policy items that is in violation of least privilege is operative to:

identify a given one of the policy items which is overly permissive in the number of resources to which the given policy item grants access, and thus in violation of least privilege, by determining if more than a first pre-determined threshold fraction of users who are granted access to one or more of the permissions through the given policy item use less than a second pre-determined threshold fraction of the permissions granted by the given policy item within a given period of time.

6. The apparatus of claim 1 , wherein the at least one processor device when performing the step (c) to identify at least one of the policy items that increases operational risk is operative to:

track changes to the security policy based on logs of the usage of the permissions and the security policy to determine an impact the changes to the security policy have on the usage of the permissions.

7. The apparatus of claim 1 , wherein the at least one processor device when performing the step (d) to verify that the policy constructs in the security policy are consistent with the constructs that are inferred from the actual permission usage is operative to:

compare groups and roles in the policy constructs in the security policy with roles inferred from the actual permission usage to determine an amount by which the groups and roles in the security policy and the roles inferred from the actual permission usage differ.

8. An article of manufacture for managing a security policy having multiple policy items, comprising a non-transitory machine-readable medium containing one or more programs which when executed implement the steps of:

(a) mapping permissions to the policy items which apply to usage of the permissions so as to determine which of the permissions are granted to groups of users by each of the policy items;

(b) identifying at least one of the policy items mapped in step (a) that is in violation of least privilege based on a comparison of an actual permission usage with the security policy, wherein least privilege specifies that the users are only given privileges that are needed to execute their functions;

(c) identifying at least one of the policy items mapped in step (a) that increases operational risk;

(d) verifying that policy constructs in the security policy are consistent with constructs that are inferred from the actual permission usage; and

(e) identifying optimizations of the security policy based on output from one or more of steps (a)-(d).

Assignments (6)
RELEASE OF SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Jun 27, 2025
From: GOLUB CAPITAL MARKETS LLC
To: SAILPOINT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SAILPOINT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, INC.
Reel/Frame 071776/0411 →
SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Aug 17, 2022
From: SAILPOINT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, INC.
To: GOLUB CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
Reel/Frame 060829/0253 →
RELEASE OF SECURITY INTEREST RECORDED AT REEL/FRAME 048581/0689 Recorded Aug 16, 2022
From: CITIBANK, N.A.
To: SAILPOINT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Reel/Frame 061200/0795 →
GRANT OF SECURITY INTEREST IN PATENTS Recorded Mar 13, 2019
From: SAILPOINT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SAILPOINT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, INC.
To: CITIBANK, N.A., AS ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT
Reel/Frame 048581/0689 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Feb 12, 2019
From: INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
To: SAILPOINT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, INC.
Reel/Frame 048313/0726 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Oct 31, 2013
From: CHARI, SURESH N.; MOLLOY, IAN M.; PARK, YOUNGJA; TEIKEN, WILFRIED
To: INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
Reel/Frame 031523/0156 →
Continuity (2)
Continuation 13904350 · May 29, 2013
Related Publication 20140359695A1 · Dec 4, 2014