|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
A SERVICE-ORIENTED, SCALABLE, SECURE FRAMEWORK FOR GRID-
ENABLING LEGACY SCIENTIFIC APPLICATIONS
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
To my parents
I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to all the
people who helped me achieve this milestone in my life.
I thank Prof. Fortes, Prof. Lam and Prof Figueiredo very much for their advice and
support. Working with them has been a wonderful, pleasant and learning experience. I
also would like to thank all the staff and students of ACIS who have helped me in
numerous ways all along.
I also thank my family members, relatives and friends who helped me personally
and financially to reach my dream.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES .................................................... ....... .. .............. viii
LIST OF FIGURES ......... ............................... ........ ............ ix
ABSTRACT .............. ......................................... xi
1 IN T R O D U C T IO N ............................................................................. .............. ...
2 MOTIVATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ......................................................4
2.1 Service-O oriented A architecture ...................................................... ..... .......... 4
2.2 Application-Specific U ser Interfaces................................... ....................... 5
2 .3 Scalability ........................................... ............................ 6
2 .4 U sab ility ...................................... ................................. ................ 8
2.5 Security ..................................... .................. ............... .......... 9
3 A R C H IT E C T U R E .................................................................................... ........... 10
3.1 G A P Fram ew ork-Services ............................................................................... 12
3.1.1 G A P Service ........................................................... .. ............... 12
3.1.2 G A P Factory Service ..................................................... ................... 13
3.1.3 A application Registry Service................................. ....................... 13
3.2 G A P P ortal ............................................................... ...... .......... 14
3.3 A actors .......................................................................... ........ ...... 14
3.4 Application Provisioning ................................... ......... .... ............... 16
3.5 A application U sage .......................................... .. .. .... .................. 17
4 IM PL E M E N T A T IO N ......................................................................... ..................20
4.1 GAP Framework-Services ........... ............. ....... ................. 20
4.1.1 Generic Application Service (GAP Service) ...........................................20
4.1.2 A application D escription......................................... .......... ............... 23
4.1.3 G A P Factory Service ......... ............... ............................... ............... 27
4.1.3 Application Registry Service................ ...... ...............28
4.1.4 Configuration of the GAP Framework-Services ...................................29
4 .2 G A P P o rtal ............................................................................ 2 9
5 SECURITY ARCHITECTURE ........................................ ........................... 32
5.1 G A P Security A architecture ........................................................ ............... 34
5.1.1 Secure C om m unication ........................................ ......................... 35
5 .1.2 T ru st ................ ....... ............................................................... ..... 36
5 .1.3 Identity P rov ider............ .... .......................................... ........ ..............37
5.1.4 Attribute Authority ............................. ............ ....... ............... 37
5.1.5 A uthentication ...................... ...... .............. ... .. ...... ................. 38
5.1.6 Federation .............. .............................. 38
5.1.7 A authorization .......................... .... .... ............ ................... .. 39
5.2 U se-cases ....................................... ..... .. ... ...................43
5.2.1 A User Executes a Grid-Enabled Application.............................43
5.2.2 Adding/Removing a User........_... ........................................44
5.2.3 Adding/Rem moving a Resource......................................... ............... 44
5.2.4 Changing Authorization Policies..................................... ............... 45
5.3 Advantages of the GAP Security Architecture....................... ..........................45
6 SECURITY IM PLEM ENTATION .................................... ......................................47
6 .1 Secure C om m unication ............................................................... .....................47
6 .2 T ru st ................................................................................................................ 4 9
6.3 Identity Provider ........................................................ .. .......... 49
6.4 A tribute A authority .............................. ......................... ... ........ .... ............50
6 .5 A uth entication ....... .................................................................... ....... ...... .. 50
6 .6 F ed eration ....................................................... 52
6.7 Authorization ................................................................... ... ......... 54
7 EVALU A TION ..................................... ........... .............. .. 55
8 R E L A T E D W O R K ......................................................................... ..................... 59
8.1 Grid-Enabling ........................... ............... 59
8.2 Federation and A access Control ............................................................ ........... 61
9 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS ............................................. 63
A FUNCTIONS OF SECURITY ARCHITECTURE........................................65
A 1 Id en tity P rov id er ........................................................................ ................ .. 6 5
A .2 A authentication ....... .................................................................... ... ....... .... ... 66
A .3 A tribute A authority ..................................................................... ...................66
A .4 Authorization .................................... .. .. ........ .. ............66
A .5 Secure Com m unication................................................ ............................ 67
A .6 Trust .................................. .................. ................ ......... 68
A .7 F ed eratio n ...................................................... ................ 6 9
B APPLICATION DESCRIPTION SCHEMA .................................... ............... 70
C DINERO APPLICATION DESCRIPTION.... ......... ... .........74
L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S .......................................................................... .......... ..........8 1
B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E TCH ...................................................................... ..................84
LIST OF TABLES
4-1. G eneric application service interface ........................................ ...... ............... 22
4-2. D description of applications ....................................................................... 24
4-3. Excerpts from Dinero description ................................................... .................25
4-4. D inero basic m ode .................. ......................................... ... ........ 27
5-1. Some relevant context information for access control ............................................40
6-1. Excerpts of the security descriptor for the GAP service. The security
configuration can be applied per operation basis or commonly for all unspecified
6-2. Excerpts from a portlet deployment descriptor .................................. ............... 51
7-1. Various command-line application features that are handled by the GAP
fram ew ork ........................................................................... 57
7-2. Various applications that have been Grid-enabled using the GAP framework..........58
LIST OF FIGURES
2-1. Comparison of a typical Grid-enabling solution and the GAP solution. In a typical
solution a scientist and a developer have to collaborate to code an application
service and an application portal. In the GAP solution only an application
description needs to be created............................................ ........................... 7
3-1. The architecture of the GAP framework. The figure shows the GAP Portal, the
GAP framework-services and In-VIGO middleware. The figure shows the two
processes that are part of Grid-enabling (the application provisioning shown on
the right side and application usage shown on the left side). It also shows the
three different actors (system administrators, users and application specialists)
involved in these processes. ................... ....... .......................................... 11
3-2. Application provisioning process. This process has two steps. In the first step, the
system administrator places the application binary in the application repository
and makes an entry in the application registry. In the second step, the application
specialist provides the application description which then captured as an XML
document and stored in the application description repository.............................16
3-3. Application usage process. This diagram shows the sequence of activities that
takes place and the components involved in the process of executing an
application by a user. Although there are several activities involved, the user
does not see them .....................................................................19
4-1. Interaction of the GAP service with other components of the architecture................22
4-2. GAP service architecture ........................................................................ 23
4-3. Application registry database .......................................................... ...................28
4-4. Dynamically generated interfaces of Dinero for two different modes. The left
hand side shows the interface for a basic mode. The right hand side shows the
interface for an advanced m ode. ........................................ .......................... 31
5-1. Security problem of the GAP framework. As can be seen, each entity is
independent and has its own security domain. Each entity may employ different
security technology to address authentication, authorization and accounting
issues. The communication links between the entities are unsecured....................33
5-2. GAP security architecture. This figure shows how trust, secure communication
and federation are constructed among the entities. Secure communication and
trust are the foundation of federation. The federation is used in the distributed
authentication and authorization functions. .................................. ..................35
5-3. Preconfigured trust relationships in GAP framework. Trust relationships between
the GAP portal and the GAP framework-services and between the GAP
framework-services and the In-VIGO middleware are preconfigured .....................36
5-4. Role based access control. The roles serve as an intermediary to bring users and
perm missions together...... ...... ......................... ............ .. .. .... .. ............ 39
5-5. Extended RBAC. Instead of directly mapping users to roles, the mapping is
dynamically performed indirectly through user attributes. Although this
indirection adds additional layer of complexity, it greatly simplifies security
administration in a multi-domain distributed system....................... ...............41
5-6. The process of a user executing a Grid-enabled application. As can be seen at
each step along the way several security-related tasks have to be performed by
various com ponents........... .................................... ........ ............ 43
5-7. Possible extensions to the GAP architecture. (a) The GAP portal may interact
with many groups of the GAP framework-services. (b) One group of GAP
framework-services may interact with many portals. (c) Combination of (a) and
(b) can also b e supported ............................................................................ ... .... 46
6-1. Three types of assertions used in the GAP framework. The GAP portal provides
authentication and attribute assertions to the GAP factory service. The GAP
factory service returns authorization assertion which is used in the subsequent
communication with the GAP service .................................................. .......... 52
6-2 A n attribute assertion ......................................................................... ...................53
7-1. A command that utilizes the full capability of the Dinero application.....................55
7-2. The user interface generated by the GAP framework to use the full capability of
D inero application .................. ........................................... ...... 56
A-1. Schematic representation of authorization decision process. Various sources of
information are used by the Authorization Server to make authorization
decisions. If the enforcement point is different from the decision point then the
authorization decision is expressed as an authorization assertion............................67
A-2. Various secure communication technologies. As shown in the figure secure
communication technologies may be employed at network, transport or message
la y e r ............................................................................. 6 8
Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science
A SERVICE-ORIENTED, SCALABLE, SECURE FRAMEWORK FOR GRID-
ENABLING LEGACY SCIENTIFIC APPLICATIONS
Chair: Jose A.B. Fortes
Major Department: Electrical and Computer Engineering
This thesis describes a scalable and secure framework for Grid-enabling legacy
scientific applications using a service-oriented architecture. In the context of this thesis
Grid-enabling means turning an existing application, installed on a Grid resource, into a
service and generating the application-specific user interfaces to use that application
through a web portal. Scalability, with respect to Grid-enabling a large number of
different types of applications, is achieved by providing a common abstraction for a
category of applications and providing a "generic" application service to wrap those
applications as services. The focus of this framework is on Grid-enabling "command-
line" scientific applications. The novel aspect of the framework is that the entire
process-from turning an application into a service to the user-interface generation for
that application-is done automatically without requiring coding or Grid-system
downtime. Technical contributions of this thesis are (1) an abstraction that is generic
enough to capture the descriptions of numerous types of applications, (2) an XML
schema that captures the abstraction, (3) a generic application service to interpret the
abstraction and (4) a user-interface generation technique that dynamically generates
application specific user interfaces. Portlet technology is used to dynamically generate
application-specific user-interfaces. Further, the framework makes it possible to
customize the applications for different user groups by simplifying, restricting, extending
or composing the functionalities of applications.
The security architecture of the framework supports multiple, loosely-coupled
security domains using a security federation. This loosely-coupled security federation
makes it possible for the resource owners who belong to a security domain to share the
resources with Grid users who belong to another security domain while providing a
single-sign-on capability to the users and maintaining access control over their resources
without changing the existing security mechanisms. The framework is useful for
organizations to Grid-enable large number of applications, to expose them as services and
to aggregate and provide access to the Grid-enabled applications through portals.
Grid computing enables "flexible, secure, coordinated resource sharing among
dynamic collections of individuals, institutions and organizations" [1, p.200]. In the
recent past, significant amount of progress has been made in the core areas of Grid
computing middleware. In order to make use of the enormous computing power made
available by Grid computing technologies, applications are required to be written using
Grid APIs. There are several projects focused mainly on making the Grid APIs simpler
and easier to use [2-4]. However many users can benefit significantly from being able to
run a wealth of valuable "legacy" scientific applications that can not be re-factored using
Grid APIs. This thesis describes a scalable and secure framework to Grid-enable such
"legacy" scientific applications using a service-oriented architecture.
Legacy applications are broadly defined as codes developed with technologies that
precede in time the introduction of Grid computing, Web services and other recent
computing approaches and programming best-practices. The proposed approach
concentrates on the Grid-enabling of a large class of such applications, "command-line"
Ideally, these applications should be re-factored using Grid APIs to Grid-enable
them. However, in most cases it is not easy if not impossible. Many legacy applications
do not have the source code available in the public domain. A lack of proper
documentation and the complexity of the applications can make re-factoring difficult
even when the source code is available. The need to re-factor a large number of
applications compounds the problem.
In the context of this thesis, Grid-enabling means turning an existing application,
installed on a Grid resource, into a service and providing access to the application by
generating the application-specific user interfaces to use that application through a web
portal. Given the fact that there is large number of legacy scientific applications that need
to be grid-enabled, scalability, with respect to Grid-enabling a large number of different
types of applications, is an important requirement. Further the user community consists of
a variety of people with varying skills. It is important that the proposed solution
addresses their needs in a user-friendly manner.
Grid-enabling of these applications is very valuable for the following reasons:
* Applications can benefit by being able to choose the best available HPC resources
at the time of execution because the Grid can provide resources otherwise not
* A significant percentage of the large simulations involve executing the same
applications several times over a range of parameters (parameter "sweep"). By
Grid-enabling them, such executions can be performed in parallel.
This thesis describes a service-oriented, scalable and secure framework to Grid-
enable command-line legacy scientific applications without requiring modifications or
recompilations of the original source code. Technical contributions of the thesis are: (1)
an abstraction that is generic enough to capture the descriptions of numerous types of
applications, (2) an XML schema that captures the abstraction, (3) a Generic Application
Service (GAP Service) to interpret the abstraction and (4) a user-interface generation
technique that dynamically generates application specific user interfaces. Since the
foundation of the framework is the GAP service, the framework is called the GAP
framework. Grid-enabling a legacy application requires only the provision of the
necessary application description XML document that will be used dynamically when
that application is used. Dynamic application-specific user interfaces are generated using
Java Portlet and Java Server Pages (JSP) technologies.
Grid computing systems, by definition, are decentralized and autonomous. As such,
the entities of the GAP framework can be autonomous and belong to different security
domain. Each entity will want to retain access control over its resources. Security
architecture of such a system must cope with the above constraints while providing a
single-sign-on capability to the users. This thesis proposes a security architecture that
addresses the above requirements using federation. The proposed federation loosely-
couples the security domains without requiring them to change their existing security
The thesis is organized as follows. Chapter 2 elaborates the motivations and
requirements of Grid-enabling of applications. Chapter 3 and 4 provides detailed
description of the functional architecture and functional implementation respectively.
Chapter 5 and 6 describes the security architecture and security implementation
respectively. Chapter 7 provides an evaluation. Chapter 8 discusses some of the related
work. Chapter 9 concludes the thesis with an outline of the future directions.
MOTIVATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
The motivation for this work is to provide a framework to Grid-enable a large
number of applications securely, so that these application can be run on a computing
Grid, accessed ubiquitously using standard and widely accepted protocols by Grid-
portals and other aggregating systems and used by end users via application specific user
interfaces. This chapter identifies five specific requirements of Grid-enabling and
outlines briefly how these requirements are satisfied in the proposed GAP framework.
Chapters 3-6 provide detailed description of the architecture and implementation of the
2.1 Service-Oriented Architecture
In general, for an application to run on a computing Grid, it has to be interfaced to
the Grid middleware for various reasons such as obtaining a suitable computing resource,
setting-up the execution environment, setting-up data used by the application, scheduling
a job, transferring execution output etc. The GAP framework provides a Generic
Application (GAP) service that is dynamically configured by an application description
to interface a legacy application to the Grid middleware. The GAP service is a stateful
Web Services Resource Framework (WSRF) service. WSRF  is a set of specifications
that was the result of convergence of Web services and Grid computing technologies.
This service is generic because it is capable of handling all command-line applications.
The application description is an XML document that is created from the information
given by the application specialists. This XML document conforms to an XML schema
constructed for this project (listed in Appendix B). A pool of GAP services are managed
by the GAP factory service. The GAP factory service, the GAP services and other related
services are called the GAP framework-services.
The selection of Web services and service-oriented-architecture is influenced by
* Technology Neutral: Service endpoints are platform-independent. Computing Grids
are heterogeneous in nature and technology neutrality is a significant advantage.
* Standards-Based: Protocols are standard-based and hence allow interoperation of
* Abstracted: Service interface are independent from, and hide details of, service
* Publishable and consumable: A service interface, in the form of WSDL and service
endpoint (for the "generic" application service to be described), can be published
in, and discovered from, a UDDI directory.
* Stateful: By modeling services as WSRF services, it is possible to maintain and
interact with state in a standard way.
2.2 Application-Specific User Interfaces
The second requirement of Grid-enabling is to provide access to the applications,
via a Grid portal, using application specific user interfaces. Grid portals are increasingly
becoming the access points for Grid resources. There are two general models of Grid
* Portals that provide ubiquitous access to High Performance Computing (HPC)
resources. For this type of Grid portals, users are expected to have accounts with
HPC resources and are responsible for installing the necessary applications and
configuring the execution environment to run those applications. Hence users are
expected to have sufficient knowledge about the underlying Grid computing
middleware. Although it provides flexibility to the technically savvy users, this
model is not well suited to a larger community of users who are not necessarily
familiar with Grid computing technologies and middleware. OGCE  and
HotPage  are two examples of this type of portals.
* Portals in which administrators take the responsibility of installing the applications,
configuring the execution environment, interfacing the applications and
middleware and providing a user friendly interface to the applications. For this type
of portals, users can transparently get their job done without the need to know the
underlying middleware. These are also known as application portals. In-VIGO 
and PUNCH  are two examples that follow this model.
Although the second model makes the life of portal users easier, portal
administration becomes much more difficult. In this model, portal administrators, who
are not necessarily experts in different scientific application domains, need to study and
understand applications from many application domains in order to Grid-enable them.
Additional coding overhead is incurred because of the need to interface middleware and
applications. Consequently, this approach does not scale well when a large number of
applications need to be made available through a Grid portal.
This thesis describes an approach that generates application specific user interfaces,
similar to one provided by application portals, automatically with the help of the GAP
service. Portlet and JSP technologies are used to construct the user interfaces. A set of
portlets and JSP pages that perform the task of generating application specific user
interfaces automatically and dynamically is hosted on a Portal server. This portal is called
the GAP portal.
Grid-enabling is not a problem if only a few applications need to be Grid-enabled.
However, scalability becomes an important requirement if a large number of applications
need to be Grid-enabled. The left hand side of Figure 2-1 shows the typical Grid-enabling
process. In this process, scientists (application specialists) and developers work together
to create an application service to encapsulate the application and then develop a portal to
provide access to the application service. Application specialists come from many
different disciplines like physics, chemistry, biology etc. They can not be expected to
know Grid technologies. On the other hand, developers are not familiar with various
application disciplines. This makes the process of Grid-enabling an application very
cumbersome. The need to Grid-enable large number of applications compounds the
Application Portal GAP Portlets
Developer GAP Framework
Typical Solution GAP Solution
Figure 2-1. Comparison of a typical Grid-enabling solution and the GAP solution. In a
typical solution a scientist and a developer have to collaborate to code an
application service and an application portal. In the GAP solution only an
application description needs to be created.
In the GAP framework (shown on the right hand side of Figure 2-1), only a
description of the application needs to be created. Once the description is created the rest
is performed automatically. The GAP framework clearly separates the roles of user,
administrators and application specialists, without requiring one to know the others'
skills. Scalability of this approach is achieved by providing a common abstraction for the
class of command-line applications and delivering the applications through a dynamically
reconfigurable GAP Service. The distinguishing feature of this approach compared to
other approaches is that no coding, code generation, compilation or service/web
application deployment is involved every time a new application is Grid-enabled. Hence
system downtime is not required when a new application is Grid-enabled.
One important non functional requirement often not well recognized is the usability
of a proposed approach for Grid-enabling. The success of a solution ultimately depends
on how comfortable the users feel in using it. The proposed approach incorporates
features to enhance user experience.
One such feature is application customization. Users of the applications vary from
students to researchers with varying needs and skills. Beginners like students would like
to have a simplified application. Administrator would like to restrict the application
capabilities given to certain user groups, for example guests, so that the compute
resources are not overloaded with several long running jobs. Researcher would like to do
parameter sweep (executing the same application over and over again while changing a
small set of parameters systematically) in one go. The proposed approach provides a
simple mechanism whereby applications can be customized to various user groups to
satisfy their needs. Customization may involve simplifying, restricting or extending the
Another usability feature is user input validation. When an application is executed
in a computing Grid, many tasks, such as obtaining resource, setting-up data, setting-up
execution environment etc., are performed before actually executing the application.
Sometimes, after doing all these things, applications fail because some user inputs are in
error. The proposed approach avoids such frustrating failures by validating user inputs
before submitting jobs to compute resources.
Grid systems, by nature, consist of autonomous entities. In the context of the GAP
framework, a GAP portal, provided by one organization, will want to have the ability to
use the GAP services provided by another organization. The GAP services, in turn, will
want to have the ability to use compute resources provided by a different organization.
As can be seen, the GAP framework may consist of autonomous entities that belong to
different security domains. The primary security requirements of the GAP framework are
* The users should be able to single-sign-on.
* The entities must be able to retain access control over their resources.
* The security administration within and between the security domains must be
The security architecture of the GAP framework addresses these requirements
using a federation. The foundations of the federation are built using standard and widely
accepted Web services security technologies. Security Assertion Markup Language
(SAML)  is used to build the federation. The use of standard and widely accepted
technologies enhances the interoperability of the GAP framework with other Grid
The GAP framework provides a scalable and secure Grid-enabling mechanism for
command-line legacy applications by providing a common abstraction to all command-
line applications. The novel aspect of the GAP Framework is that the process of Grid-
enabling (from turning an application into a service to creating application-specific user
interface to use that application) is done automatically. Its scalability, with respect to
Grid-enabling a large number of different types of applications, is achieved by providing
a common abstraction to all command-line applications and supporting the use of them
using a generic application service. Figure 3-1 shows the high-level system architecture
underlying the GAP framework. It consists of the GAP portal, the GAP framework-
services and the Grid middleware (in this case, the middleware is In-VIGO). There are
two processes involved in Grid-enabling legacy applications. In the application
provisioning process, an application is made available to the GAP framework. This
process is performed by application specialists. In the application usage process, the
applications are made available to the users for execution through a portal using
application specific user interfaces. The system administrators manage the GAP portal,
the GAP framework-services and the Grid middleware.
Although the work has been done in the context of In-VIGO, the GAP architecture
is not specific to In-VIGO Grid computing middleware. Any Grid computing middleware
that provides job and file system services can be used with the GAP architecture. Further
the GAP architecture treats the GAP portal, GAP framework-services and the Grid
computing middleware as three independent and autonomous components. The only
requirement is the existence of trust relationships between the portal and the services and
between the services and the Grid middleware. The detailed description of the security
architecture of the GAP framework is given in Chapter 5.
Portlel Portlet Poret Portlet
GAPP Portal '
,-GAP Framework Services
System Application GAP Factory GAP Services Application
System Registry Servce service Descrption
Application App Desc
Authentication Resource Job Virtual File
& Authorization Management Submission System
Service Service Service Service
SComputers Data Networks Applications
Application Usage Application Provisioning
Figure 3-1. The architecture of the GAP framework. The figure shows the GAP Portal,
the GAP framework-services and In-VIGO middleware. The figure shows the
two processes that are part of Grid-enabling (the application provisioning
shown on the right side and application usage shown on the left side). It also
shows the three different actors (system administrators, users and application
specialists) involved in these processes.
3.1 GAP Framework-Services
The GAP framework is built using a service-oriented architecture. The set of
services that are the foundation of the GAP framework are called the GAP framework-
services, the most important being the GAP service. The services are designed so that
they perform distinct tasks. The clear separation of the functions of the services allows
them to have cleaner and simpler interfaces. The GAP framework-services are Web
services resource framework (WSRF) compliant and hosted in a WSRF container. WSRF
is a set of specifications that provides means to construct stateful Web services and
provides means to interact and manage state in a standard way. The current version of the
GAP framework consists of three services as described in the next sections. In the future,
additional services can be added to provide more value added services to the users.
3.1.1 GAP Service
The GAP service encapsulates an application and provides a service interface to
that application. The service and the service interface are generic so that it can
encapsulate any command-line applications. This generic abstraction provides scalability
in the application provisioning process. This service is responsible for gluing an
application to the Grid middleware to make it run on a Grid. It is also responsible for
creating a user interface specification that is used by the portal to create dynamic user
interfaces. It uses Grid middleware services to submit jobs and to maintain input and
output files related to applications.
A single GAP service is capable of supporting many simultaneous application
sessions. Each session state is encapsulated and isolated in a resource. However a single
GAP service is not capable enough to support a large number of simultaneous sessions.
This can be an application usage scalability bottleneck. In order to avoid this scalability
bottleneck, the GAP framework instantiates a pool of the GAP services. This pool of the
GAP services is managed by the GAP factory service.
3.1.2 GAP Factory Service
The GAP factory service is the gateway to a pool of GAP services. This is a
stateless service which only participates in setting up an application sessions. This service
is responsible for managing the pool of the GAP services. All the application session
requests first come to the GAP factory service which then selects a GAP service using the
load balancing policies and sets up a session between the client and the selected GAP
service. Before setting up the session, the GAP factory service authenticates and
authorizes the session, assigns session IDs and stores session information to persistent
storage. The architecture permits to have a number of the GAP factory services acting as
gateway for different groups of clients. Further each GAP factory service could
independently be configured with different policies related to load balancing and session
3.1.3 Application Registry Service
The GAP framework exposes applications as WSRF services to clients. As such,
there is a need to expose the available applications so that clients can discover and choose
applications. Since the GAP service interface is generic, it does not contain application-
specific information. The application registry service acts as the custom application
registry where clients can obtain information about the Grid-enabled applications. The
application registry service provides information about the applications. The information
may include a description, licensing information, cost if applicable etc. The application
registry has been designed to categorize applications using a hierarchical structure. An
application may belong to a category which in turn may be a sub category of another
category. The depth can be arbitrarily long as needed.
3.2 GAP Portal
The GAP portal is the front-end for the users. In addition to being the user interface
to the GAP framework-services, the GAP portal may provide additional services to the
users. The GAP portal is a portlet-based system. It consists of set of portlets hosted in a
portal server. There are four portlets that are part of the GAP portal interface providing
user interfaces to the GAP framework-services. These four portlets are layered on a
single page. One of the guiding philosophies in designing the user interface has been
usability and simplicity. Care has been taken to avoid unnecessary mouse clicks.
* Application portlet: This is the main portlet of the GAP portal interface. The portal
interface is built around this portlet. The logic to construct the application specific
user interfaces is contained in here.
* Progress portlet: The execution flow has four steps initializationn, mode selection,
arguments and results). This portlet is used to show the steps involved in executing
a job and to shows the current state.
* Message portlet: This portlet is used to show error, warning and informational
messages produced by the GAP service.
* Utility portlet: This portlet lets users to upload files to be used by an application.
The architecture identifies three different actors participating in two different
processes. The first one is the application provisioning process in which an application is
made available to the GAP framework. The second process is the application usage
process where a user uses the application. The distinct feature of the GAP framework is
that it clearly separates roles of the system administrators, users and application provides
without requiring one to know the others' skills.
Application specialists perform the application provisioning process, shown on the
right hand side of Figure 3-1. They are expected to be very knowledgeable about the
application to be Grid-enabled. However, they are not expected to know the technical
details of the underlying Grid computing middleware. The application provisioning is a
one-time process for each legacy application. In this process, an application specialist
provides a description about an application. This application description includes general
information, the description of inputs/outputs, the available "execution" modes for the
application and information about execution environment required by the application.
The application description is captured in an XML document and stored in the
"Application Description" repository.
Users are clients who use of the legacy scientific applications. Users are expected
to have a working knowledge of how to use the application they are invoking, but not the
installation requirements of the application. Also, they are not expected to know about
the underlying Grid computing middleware. Application usage (shown on the left hand
side of Figure 3-1) is a recurrent process and is invoked every time a user requests an
System administrators are responsible for managing the Grid resources and
portals. They have an in-depth knowledge of the Grid computing middleware and portal
system. They are not expected to have in-depth knowledge of the applications that the
Grid-computing portal provides. The architecture does not mandate a single
administration of the portal, services and middleware. In fact, each of them can be
managed by different autonomous administrators.
The following sections describes the processes (application provisioning and
application usage) identified by the architecture.
3.4 Application Provisioning
In order to Grid-enable an application, the application first needs to be provisioned.
The application provisioning process involves the following two steps illustrated in
S Provide app
Application Specialist Systel
Figure 3-2. Application provisioning process. This process has two steps. In the first step,
the system administrator places the application binary in the application
repository and makes an entry in the application registry. In the second step,
the application specialist provides the application description which then
captured as an XML document and stored in the application description
1. An application specialist requests the system administrator permission to Grid-
enable an application. If approved, he/she then provides the application, the
required libraries and samples in the form of binaries and/or source code. The
system administrator then compiles the source code if necessary, tests them and
stores the executable application in the application repository. Also he/she registers
the application in the application registry. Compiling an application is a generic
process and hence this step does not require any application specific knowledge
from the system administrator.
2. The application specialist interacts with the provisioning service to provide the
application description. The provisioning service captures the application
description in an XML document. This document conforms to the application
description schema defined by this project (listed in Appendix B). This XML
document then gets stored in the application description repository. In order to
perform this step comprehensive knowledge about the application is required.
However any knowledge about the Grid is not required. The system administrator
does not get involved in this step. Once the application specialist tests the
application, he/she requests the administrator to make the application available to
Once these two steps are performed, the application is ready to be used through the
portal. All the rest of the tasks required to bind the application with the Grid middleware
and to create application-specific user interfaces are performed automatically by the GAP
framework when the application is used.
3.5 Application Usage
A user who wants to use one of the Grid-enabled applications accesses the
application through the GAP portal. Figure 3-3 shows the series of activities involved in
the process of executing an application using the GAP framework. As can be seen a
number of activities takes place when an application is executed on a computing Grid.
However, the user does not see any of these Grid-related complexities. Hiding the
complexities from the users enhances the usability of the GAP framework. The following
are the activities that take place when an application is used.
1. User login: A user that wants to use an application first has to login to the GAP
portal where he/she will be authenticated using the provided credentials (in this
case a username/password pair).
2. Discover applications: Once a user logs in, the portal discovers the list of available
applications for that user from application registry service.
3. Retrieve application information: The application registry service in turn obtains
the application information from the application registry database.
4. Select an application: User the selects the application that he/she wants to execute.
5. Send selection: The portal then sends the user's selection to the GAP factory
service. The GAP factory service first makes sure that the user is authorized to use
the application. If the user is authorized, then the GAP factory service selects one
of the GAP services for this application session. The selection of the GAP service
can be controlled by appropriate policies.
6. Initialize the GAP service: The GAP factory service initializes the selected GAP
service for the selected application.
7. Retrieve application description: As part of the initialization process, the GAP
service obtains the application description from the repository. This description is
the output of the application provisioning process. In addition, the GAP service
creates a WSRF-resource to hold the session state. This WSRF-resource will be
active till the end of the session.
8. Obtain interface specification: After the GAP service initialization, the end point
address of the GAP service and the WSRF resource created to hold session context
is send to the portal. Portal contacts the GAP service using the end point address to
obtain the user interface specification for a customized version of the application.
Using this user interface specification, the portal dynamically constructs the
application user interface.
9. Provide application inputs: The user provides the inputs to the application using the
user interface created by the portal.
10. Send application inputs: The user provided inputs are sent to the GAP service. The
GAP service validates the user inputs, merges with default values as necessary and
constructs the command to be submitted to the Grid middleware to execute the
11. Submit job: The GAP service contacts In-VIGO resource manager to submit the
12. Obtain results: Once the job is complete, the GAP service uses In-VIGO virtual file
system to obtain the results of the job. This result is send to the portal to be
displayed to the user.
In order to make the explanation easier, the above process ignores the existence of
many customized versions of the application. When there are more than one customized
versions of the application available to the user, there are some additional steps after the
selection of application and before the interface generation. The user will be required to
select one of the available customized modes of the application. Then a user interface for
that customized mode will be generated for the user to provide application inputs.
I5 GAP Factory
GAP Portal o,
1. User login
2. Obtain application list
3. Retrieve application information
4. Select an application
5. Send selection
6. Initialize GAP service
7. Retrieve application description
8. Obtain interface specification
9. Provide application inputs
10. Send application inputs
11. Submit a job
12. Obtain results
Figure 3-3. Application usage process. This diagram shows the sequence of activities that
takes place and the components involved in the process of executing an
application by a user. Although there are several activities involved, the user
does not see them.
. 4 r9
Chapter 3 describes the architecture of the GAP framework from the functional
point-of-view. This chapter provides the implementation details of a prototype system.
As in Chapter 3, this chapter will focus on the functional part of the implementation. The
security architecture and implementation is described in Chapters 5 and 6 respectively.
The following sections provide implementation details of the GAP framework-services
and the GAP portal.
4.1 GAP Framework-Services
4.1.1 Generic Application Service (GAP Service)
As described in Chapter 3, a legacy application is invoked through the Generic
Application Service (GAP Service). The GAP Service is generic because the same
service is used for all command-line applications. When it is invoked for a particular
application, it retrieves the corresponding application description from the repository (in
the form of an XML document). The GAP Service is configured dynamically by the
application description. Table 4-1 describes the GAP Service interface.
The sequence diagram shown in Figure 4-1 shows the interaction of the GAP
service with other components of the architecture. When a client, in this case an
application Portlet, wants to execute an application, it contacts the GAP factory service to
obtain an end point of a GAP service. The GAP factory service selects and initializes a
GAP Service (by calling the createVA method). GAPService.createVA method locates
and parses the corresponding application description XML document for the selected
application. It also creates WSRF resource to encapsulate the session state. At this point
the end point address of the GAP service combined with the resource is sent back to the
The application portlet then interacts with the GAP service directly. From the
description, the service obtains defined application modes and provides the modes to the
client through a getModes call. The user, through the client, then selects one mode and
the client asks for the arguments for that mode (getArguments). The service looks up the
mode definition and selects relevant arguments and sends them to the client. The
arguments contain interface specification for the selected mode of the application. This
interface specification is used by the application portlet to construct a user interface.
The user provides appropriate values for the arguments and invokes the application
by calling the execute method. The execute method validates the arguments and, if valid,
creates appropriate directory structure in the virtual file system (VFS), constructs a
command and schedules the job to be run using In-VIGO Resource Manager.
As soon as the execution is scheduled, the execute method will return. At this point,
the user could continue to do other things. Once execution is complete, the client will be
notified and it may get the results by invoking the getResults method. When getResults
method is invoked, the GAP service obtains the stdout, produced by the execution of the
application, using VFS.
At this point the user may terminate the session. When the session is terminated,
the WSRF resource created to encapsulate the session is destroyed. If the user does not
choose to terminate the session, the session can be destroyed when there are no activities
for a predefined period of time.
------ fc -
GAP Factory GAP Service Resource Manager
I~eE I ~V
cuslom applicallon modes
--- .....-.. -----------.
Figure 4-1. Interaction of the GAP service with other components of the architecture
Table 4-1. Generic application service interface
createVA( Initializes the GAP Service with a specified application. It
involves creating a WSRF resource to encapsulate the session
state and obtaining and parsing appropriate application
getModes) Returns all the defined modes for the application
getArgumentso Returns the argument description of all arguments of the
selected mode. This is the interface specification for the
execute( Creates appropriate directory structure in the user's VFS
account and executing the job through the resource manager.
getResults( Provides the results of the execution. The result in this case
means the stdout. If the application generates additional files,
that can be accessed via the file manager.
01 1 1
The GAP service is implemented as a WSRF service. It is capable of handling
multiple application session simultaneously. For each application session it creates a
resource to encapsulate the session state. Figure 4-2 shows the component architecture of
the GAP service. The application description parser module is an XML parser. In
addition to parsing the application description XML document, it performs translation of
keywords. These keywords are used to mask Grid specific information such as paths from
the application description. The validation module validates user inputs using Java
regular expressions. The job module interacts with In-VIGO Resource Manager to submit
a job to a remote compute resource. The file system module interacts with In-VIGO
virtual file system service to provide input files for applications and to read output files.
App. Desc l
Validation Job System
Module Module Module Module
Figure 4-2. GAP service architecture
4.1.2 Application Description
The GAP Service is driven by an application description. The application
description is an XML document conforming to an XML schema described in more detail
in this section. The complete schema is listed in Appendix B.
The application description is categorized into three categories, as shown in Table
4-2: general information, input/output description and execution environment-related
information. The general information includes name, description, application version etc.
The input/output description is the main part of application description. This is organized
as a set of arguments, each of which is a collection of parts that are logically related and
hence have to appear together when executing the application. A part is a description of a
piece of user input and associated flag if there is one. Arguments and the corresponding
parts are used to construct the command that is issued to execute the application. They
also include information to validate user inputs and provide default values. The execution
environment information describes the requirement on the execution environment. This
information is used to select or construct the execution environment at run time.
Table 4-2. Description of applications
General information about the Application Name
Description of inputs and outputs, Flags
organized as set of arguments, each Input data types
of which contains one or more parts Cardinality
Execution Environment Operating System
An XML schema (listed in Appendix B) has been defined to accommodate the
above-mentioned application description. Each application is specified by one XML
document conforming to the schema definition. The schema is constructed in such a way
that it is easy to define simple applications and, at the same time, powerful enough to
specify complex applications. Note that the application description does not contain any
Grid-specific information. Where they are needed (for example paths), key words are
used to mask such information. These keywords are mapped to actual values by the GAP
service when an application is used.
Using the application description, the GAP service is able to perform the following
* Validation of input values before an execution starts to increase the probability of
successful completion of the execution. This is important for long-running
applications or for applications that form a part of a workflow. A method based on
regular expressions is used to validate the input values.
* Validation of the input dependencies by grouping them together in an appropriate
Table 4-3. Excerpts from Dinero description
Application Input/output description
Table 4-3 shows excerpts from the application description for Dinero (complete
document is listed in Appendix C). The executable information section shows the usage
of keywords. In this case, path where the application is installed is masked by the
keyword "$APPHOME$". This will be translated to actual path by the GAP service
when the application is executed. The application input/output description section shows
an example definition of an input. As can be seen, it is a multi-part argument ("kind")
containing three different parts, namely level, type and size of the cache. Without
specifying level and type, the size specification is incomplete. Dependencies among
inputs are enforced by grouping inputs together in the appropriate sequence.
A feature called "Execution Mode" has been defined in the application description.
An execution mode of an application is a customized version of that application. Some
complex applications have numerous input parameters. A user performing some
simulations may not be interested in all of them. For example, suppose it is desired to
Grid-enable Dinero for use by both researchers and students. A researcher would like to
have the full capabilities. On the other hand, a student who is new to the application
would like to have a simpler interface to make the learning process easier and faster.
From the administrator's point of view, it is necessary to limit the capabilities of the
application given to the students in order to avoid a large number of simultaneous
compute-intensive jobs. Each user group can be given a customized version of Dinero by
defining different modes. Table 4-4 shows an example mode definition for Dinero.
As can be seen in Table 4-4, a mode is a collection of arguments. These arguments
are already defined in the application input/output description. Hence only the name of an
argument needs to be specified in the mode definition. However, one can modify the
argument definition to a limited extent in the mode definition. For example, the "kind"
definition in table 3 allows up to 5 cache levels (maxOccurs = 5). But the basic mode
definition in table 4 limits the "kind" to only 1 level (maxOccurs=1). Also, it is possible
to include an argument for which a user does not need to provide values. This can be
done by setting the useDefaultValue to true. An argument with this setting will assume
the default value. Other arguments will assume the user provided values.
Table 4-4. Dinero basic mode
The application description documents are stored in an application repository. In
the current implementation, the application repository is directory in the VFS. The path
of the application description repository is provided to the GAP service through its JNDI
configuration file. In the future implementation, the repository can be an XML database.
4.1.3 GAP Factory Service
The GAP factory service is the gateway to the pool of GAP services. It is a stateless
service. It only gets involved in setting up the application session. Once the application
session is setup, it no longer participates in the session. Having a limited involvement in
an application session makes it capable of handling a large number of sessions. Further
failure of the GAP factory services does not interrupt existing sessions. Only disruption is
that no new session can be created. Those characteristics are very necessary given the
GAP factory's role as gateway to the GAP services. Its primary functions are session
management, load balancing and access control. For each session, the GAP service
assigns session number and records the session information in a database. This
information can be used in the accounting function. The GAP factory service manages a
pool of GAP services. It is responsible for managing the load among the GAP services.
Current implementation only supports round-robin method of load balancing. Future
implementations can add other methods of load balancing. The implementation of the
access control function of the GAP factory service is described in the Chapter 6. The
GAP factory service interface exposes only one operation called createVA.
4.1.3 Application Registry Service
The application registry service is a service-oriented front-end to the application
registry. The application registry of the GAP framework is implemented as a relational
database. It classifies and organizes the application in a multi-level hierarchical structure.
In the current implementation, the application registry is defined by a simple database
schema. Future versions may extend the schema as required.
ApplicationCategory Application GAPSession
PK id; PK id PK sessionlD
name name userlD
description description FK1 application
FK1 parentCategory FK1 category endpoint
Figure 4-3. Application registry database
Figure 4-3 shows the E-R diagram of the database. ApplicationCategory table
defines various application categories. As can be seen, an application category can be a
sub category of another category. (e.g. Cache Simulators can be a sub category of
Computer Architecture). Further, this structure can be used to define suite of applications
(e.g. sim-fast application belongs to Simple Scalar suite which in turn belongs to
Computer Architecture category). Application table defines the applications. The
GAPSession table defines session information.
The application registry service is also stateless and exposes only one operation
called getApplicationlnfo. This operation returns application information organized as a
4.1.4 Configuration of the GAP Framework-Services
The configuration parameters for the GAP framework-services are provided
through JNDI configuration file. Each service has its own JNDI configuration file. In
addition, global configuration parameters can also be defined through the container's
4.2 GAP Portal
Portlet technology is used to automatically and dynamically generate user
interfaces for Grid-enabled applications. Portlets are Java-based web components,
managed by a Portlet container that process requests and generate dynamic content.
Portlets are used by portals as pluggable user-interface components that provide a
presentation layer to information systems [11, p. 13].
The choice of Portlet technology for this project is influenced by many factors.
Portlet specification is an open standard supported by most of the portal server vendors.
Portal API attempts to create a well-defined interface and hence ensures interoperability
between different portal servers. Portlets also provide better support for multiple devices.
One can define different JSP pages for different devices for the same Portlet and hence
support multiple devices while reusing the logic programmed in the Portlets. Portlets
provide a modular structure. A web page is created by aggregating Portlets. Users have
their choice of what Portlets to aggregate and what layout to use. This enables users to
have personalized user interfaces. Also, administrators have the liberty of organizing
permission on per Portlet basis which gives them finer access-control granularity. The
GridSphere  portal server is used in this project.
The novel aspect of the user interface design in this project is that the structure of
the user interface is dynamic. The structure is determined by analyzing the description of
the arguments in the application description for the selected mode. Then widgets like text
boxes, combo boxes, labels, etc. are rendered accordingly.
The current version of the user interface consists of four Portlets: Application
portlet, Message portlet, Progress portlet and Utility portlet. The Application portlet is the
main portlet and is responsible for the dynamic user interface generation as described
above. The Progress portlet show the steps involved in executing an application and to
displays the progress of the execution. The Message is used to convey messages
generated by the GAP Service. The Utility portlet provides means to upload files. This is
needed because many applications require an external file. Portlets use JSP pages to
render the visual components. This design conforms to the MVC (model-view-controller)
design pattern. The data obtained from the GAP service represents the model. JSP pages
are the views and the portlets play the role of controller. There are four states involved in
executing an application.
* Init State: A user initializes an application.
* Mode State: The user selects one of the customized modes of the application.
* Argument State: The user provides the necessary inputs to the application.
* Result State: The user obtains the result of the execution of the application.
The portlet interface is designed as a state machine so that a user can go back and
forth to correct any errors he/she makes. Figure 4-4 shows a dynamically created
interface for Dinero, a cache simulation application, for two different modes. The left-
hand side of the figure shows application portlet for a simplified version of the Dinero
application. The right-hand side of the figure shows the application portlet for the full
fledged version of the Dinero application.
Type Block Size
TUnifed Compute Compul
Type Compute Compulsory/Capacity/Conflict miss rates
1.1.-.. yes v
Select the input trace format
Level Type Block Size
1 Unified v 32 J
2 Ujnifed v 32
3 UniFei 32
14 Unfed v 32
5 JLUned 32
Level Type Size
1 | | Unfed *v] 16k
14 Uned v 4k
15 Unifed [k -
Level Type Associativity
1 | Unifed vs| 1|
|2 Unied v 11
4 1Unied v 1
5 | Unifed v 1|
Level Type Rapl .-n Policy
SJ Unified v LRU
2 T Unipfiaed c| LRJ o
/2 / usb /Lk
Figure 4-4. Dynamically generated interfaces of Dinero for two different modes. The left
hand side shows the interface for a basic mode. The right hand side shows the
interface for an advanced mode.
As in any computer system deployment, security is critical to the successful
deployment of the GAP framework. The distributed nature of the GAP framework poses
a number of challenges to the design of the security architecture. In addition to the typical
security issues like authentication and authorization found in non distributed systems,
issues related to secure communication have to be addressed in a distributed system like
the GAP framework. The loose coupling of the entities of the GAP framework that
belong to different security domains further complicates the problem, making it even
more complex than the security architecture for a single domain distributed system. In
such multi-domain systems, one has to address issues like trust, single-sign-on, security
management and distributed authentication and authorization.
The GAP framework employs a service-oriented architecture. In order to fully
utilize the benefits of the service-oriented architecture of the GAP framework, the
security architecture must use widely accepted standard-based technologies. This chapter
describes the GAP security architecture that addresses the security challenges of multi-
domain system, using widely accepted standard technologies. The emphasis is on
addressing the problem of having multiple security domains. The novel aspects of the
proposed architecture are (1) the extended form of identity federation which incorporates
the user attributes in addition to the user identity and (2) the distributed context-aware
role-based access control mechanism. Liberty Alliance  defines specifications and
architectural models for identity federation. However identity federation is used mainly to
provide a single-sign-on capability. The federation used in the GAP framework provides
a basis for distributed, context aware access control in addition a single-sign-on
As described earlier, the GAP architecture consists of the GAP portal, the GAP
framework-services and the Grid middleware. These entities are independent and may
well belong to different security domains. In addition, they may have different security
infrastructures employing different technologies. For example, the GAP portal may use a
usemame/password based mechanism. The GAP framework-services may use a public
key infrastructure (PKI) based mechanism. The middleware may use a symmetric key
based mechanism. Further, these entities may have to communicate with each other over
a public, unsecured network. Figure 5-1 depicts the security problems that need to be
addressed by the GAP framework.
GAP Portal GAP Framework-services In-VIGO
AAA Module Unsecure AAA Module Unsecure AAA Module
(Technology 1) (Technology 2) (Technology 3)
AAA Module: Authentication, Authorization and Accounting Module
Figure 5-1. Security problem of the GAP framework. As can be seen, each entity is
independent and has its own security domain. Each entity may employ
different security technology to address authentication, authorization and
accounting issues. The communication links between the entities are
In order to address the above mentioned issues, this chapter describes a distributed
security architecture that:
* Provides single-sign-on for the end users.
* Does not require changes to existing security mechanisms employed by individual
* Lets the resource owners maintain access control over their resources.
* Simplifies security management in the sense that it does not require excessive
coordination between the entities in order to perform security related tasks like
adding a user, adding a resource, changing resource access policies etc.
The proposed solution extends the identity federation technique to include the user
attributes in addition to the user identity to build the distributed security infrastructure.
The attribute federation technique supports multiple user classes to be federated. Further,
a distributed, context-aware role-based access-control mechanism is proposed to deal
with the distributed authorization issues in the presence of multiple, federated user
classes. This technique simplifies the security management while letting the resource
owners to have access control over their resources. Although this architecture is
developed in the context of the GAP framework, it has general applicability for a service-
oriented system that spans multiple security domains. Appendix A describes various
functions of security architecture for a distributed, multi-domain system. The following
section describes how those functions are realized in the GAP security architecture. The
subsequent sections discuss use-cases and advantages of the GAP security architecture.
5.1 GAP Security Architecture
The GAP framework consists of independent entities (GAP portal, GAP
framework-services and Grid middleware) that communicate over an unsecured network.
The GAP security architecture uses the federation technique to loosely-couple GAP
portal, GAP framework-services and Grid middleware, without requiring modifications
to the existing security mechanisms.
Figure 5-2 shows the GAP security architecture. The foundations of federation are
secure communication and trust. Figure 5-2 shows how these primitives are enabled
between the entities. Using the federation, distributed authentication and authorization
functions are realized. The following sections describe how the GAP security architecture
realizes the various security functions outlined in Appendix A.
Federation, Authentication Identity Provider I Attribute Policy Authority Authorization Environment
& Authorization Attribute Authority I Agreement Authorization Service Agreement Authority
Compute resources and service container'
GAP Portal and GAP service container account have each others public keys
Trust have each others X.509 certificates issued exchanged securely.
by a trusted CA Service container account is a user of
Secure communication WS-Security, WS-Secure communication SSHVFS
eeo i\ SSL/TLS
GAP Portal GAP Framework- In-VIGO
Individual Entities AMod -Unsecure A M e Unsecure
AAA Module AAA Module AAA Module
;Technology 1; .Tecz'rolog 2i (Technology 3)
Figure 5-2. GAP security architecture. This figure shows how trust, secure
communication and federation are constructed among the entities. Secure
communication and trust are the foundation of federation. The federation is
used in the distributed authentication and authorization functions.
5.1.1 Secure Communication
The GAP portal and the GAP framework-services communicate using SOAP
messages. Therefore, secure communication mechanisms for Web services can be applied
between the GAP portal and the GAP framework-services. WS-Security, WS-Secure
communication and SSL/TLS are the different mechanisms that are provided. These
mechanisms can be used to provide different levels of protection for the messages that are
exchanged. (Messages can be encrypted, digitally signed or encrypted and digitally
signed.) The choice of the security mechanism and the level of protection applied are
configurable parameters. These configuration parameters are provided through security
descriptors on both client and server side. The GAP framework-services and the In-VIGO
Grid middleware use SSH security mechanism. This is because the In-VIGO Grid
computing middleware is not yet service oriented.
In order to form a trust network, some trust relationships need to be preconfigured
at the configuration time. In the GAP framework, trust relationships between GAP portal
and GAP framework-services and between GAP framework-services and Grid
middleware are preconfigured.
GAP Portal GGAP FrameworknVGO
Figure 5-3. Preconfigured trust relationships in GAP framework. Trust relationships
between the GAP portal and the GAP framework-services and between the
GAP framework-services and the In-VIGO middleware are preconfigured.
Figure 5-3 shows the preconfigured trust relationships in the GAP framework. The
GAP portal and GAP framework-services establish a trust relationship by sharing their
X.509 certificates, issued by a trusted certification authority. When messages are
exchanged between the GAP portal and GAP framework-services, the proof-of-
possession method is used to evaluate the trust relationship. The messages are either
encrypted or digitally signed according to the WS-Security specification. In this trust
relationship the GAP portal takes the responsibility of faithfully asserting the identities
and attributes of the user. The GAP framework-services in turn take the responsibility of
honoring those assertions and let the users to execute the applications that are available to
The In-VIGO Grid middleware consists of two primary types of resources from the
perspective of security architecture. They are the compute resources and the virtual file
system (VFS) service. The term compute resource means a single computer, a cluster or a
network of computers. The GAP framework-services and the Grid middleware may
establish trust relationships by two different mechanisms for each of the two types of
resources. Here again the method of evaluation of trust relationship is the proof-of-
possession. In this trust relationship the GAP framework-services take the responsibility
to faithfully apply the access control policies and to assert authorization decision. The In-
VIGO middleware in turn takes the responsibility of honoring the assertions and provides
compute and VFS resources.
5.1.3 Identity Provider
The users of the GAP framework need an identity. The GAP portal acts as the
identity provider for the users. User identities are provided in the form of
usemame/password pairs. This username/password pair is local to the portal and not
recognized by the other entities in the GAP framework. Attribute assertions are used to
federate the users so that other entities recognize them. The portal administrator may
decide the policies on how the user's credentials are ascertained. It may be based on an
existing identity (GatorOne, SSN etc.) or may be based on other methods. Although the
current architecture uses a portal server which uses usemame/password pair to provide
user identities, the architecture is not limited to the use of usemame/password pair. In
fact, the architecture can support a portal that uses advanced methods like biometric
identities. The choice of the identity provision method does not, in any way, affect the
other entities in the architecture.
5.1.4 Attribute Authority
The users generally have attributes. These attributes are the ones that differentiate
different classes of users. A typical RBAC solution to a single domain system binds the
users to roles at the time user identities are provided based on user attributes. Thereafter
the user attributes do not play a part. However in a system like the GAP framework
where the identity provider and access control functions are likely located in different
security domains, the early binding of identities to roles is not desirable. Each security
domain may want to assign different roles to the same user, which is an internal decision
of that security domain. Each security domain may be interested on a set of user attributes
for role assignment that is different from the attributes requested by another security
domain. Further, the entity that makes access-control decisions may not want to expose
its role-hierarchy to the identity provider. Hence the GAP framework provides an
attributes authority which faithfully asserts the user attributes. The other entities can use
the attributes to assign roles to users dynamically. In the current architecture the GAP
portal performs the function of attribute authority.
The GAP portal authenticates users when they log-in to the portal by validating the
usemame/password pair. In order to provide a single-sign-on capability to the users, once
a user is authenticated, other entities must be able recognize him/her without requiring to
authenticate again. This is made possible by federating identities.
The federation between trusted entities in the GAP framework is achieved by
exchanging assertions. In a typical federated-identity management system, the issuing
party issues an authentication assertion about an authenticated user. The authentication
assertion typically contains the subject, authentication method, conditions under which
the assertion is valid and the lifetime of the assertion. In the GAP security architecture,
the identity federation is augmented to include attributes of the users. This enables the
issuing party to differentiate different classes of users. The set of attributes that need to be
asserted are agreed upon by the issuing and relying parties in advance. The GAP portal,
being the identity provider and attribute authority, is the issuing party. The GAP
framework-services are the relying party. The attribute assertions play a part in the
proposed distributed authorization mechanism.
Authorization is the process of managing access control to objects (in this case
applications) by subjects (in this case the users). Simply stated, the authorization function
of the GAP security architecture is to decide the following question.
Is user A permitted to use application X?
The role-based access-control (RBAC)  is the most common technique used
manages access control. RBAC assigns users to roles which generally reflect their
position in the organization. A role is usually assigned a set of permissions by the
administrator. The main advantage of using RBAC is its ability to greatly simplify the
Users Peission Permissions
Figure 5-4. Role based access control. The roles serve as an intermediary to bring users
and permissions together.
Figure 5-4 shows a simplified RBAC model. As shown in the figure, a role is both
a collection of users on one side and a collection of permissions on the other. The role
serves as an intermediary to bring these collections together. In the GAP framework, a set
of permissions can be defined on applications and other resources like data and the
permissions and the users can be linked by roles. Additional features of RBAC such as
role hierarchies and constraints can also be used to enhance the access control model.
The GAP framework will benefit from using a context-sensitive RBAC [15-17].
Context information may be applied to the user assignment or permission assignment or
both. Keeping the context information out of access control policies makes the
administration easier. The following illustrates how the use of context can make the
security policy administration easier. In this illustration, context is applied to the
permission assignment. A security policy can be specified as:
Students who are on the university network can execute applications during the class
time if the resources are not heavily loaded.
Permission: Execute applications
Contexts: on the university network, during the class time and heavily loaded
The above security policy will remain the same even if the IP addresses of the
university network are changed or this class time is changed or the definition of heavily
loaded resource is changed. The context can be classified as subject context (e.g. on the
university network refers to subject), object context or environment context (e.g. heavily
loaded refers to the environment). Table 5-1 shows some of the relevant context
information that need to be considered when making access control decision in the GAP
Table 5-1. Some relevant context information for access control
User (Subject) context Application (object) context Environment Context
Location Licensing requirements Time/Day
Authentication method System load
Even the context-sensitive RBAC does not completely solve the access-control
problem of the GAP framework. The multi-domain nature of the GAP framework
introduces additional problems.
* The users are defined by the GAP portal. The execution environment is managed
by the In-VIGO middleware. The applications are managed by the GAP
framework-services. The authorization decision is made by the GAP framework-
services that do not know the users. If the GAP portal were to expose the user
information to the GAP framework-services then there would be a tight coupling
between the GAP portal and the GAP framework. For every user addition, deletion
and modification, the GAP portal and the GAP framework-services have to
* There will be many different classes of users that will use the applications. Since
the GAP framework-services that make the access control decision do not know the
users, by extension they do not know user classes as well. If the user class
information is not incorporated into the access control decision, all the users who
come through the GAP portal will be treated as having same roles and hence same
access rights. That is not flexible. If the GAP portal is be given the user-role
assignment responsibility, then the GAP framework-services will have expose its
The proposed solution clearly partitions the authorization function giving each
entity their share of authority without loosing autonomy. The federation is used to bridge
the partitions to make the authorization decision. Figure 5-5 illustrates the process of
mapping users to roles.
4 Attribute and Context agreement --
User .."Attribute Permission Pemsn----
UAssignmen Assignment Assignment
The GAP portal The GAP framework
Figure 5-5. Extended RBAC. Instead of directly mapping users to roles, the mapping is
dynamically performed indirectly through user attributes. Although this
indirection adds additional layer of complexity, it greatly simplifies security
administration in a multi-domain distributed system.
RBAC was invented in the context of single organizational security administration.
In a single organization, the user attributes had a very close relationship with the roles
defined by the security infrastructure. For example, a manager would have the manager
role. When a user is given an identity his/her attributes are taken into account to assign a
role. Once the role is assigned the attributes are not considered in the security functions.
However, in a multi-organizational context with separate security domains, it is not
possible to assign roles at the time of identity provisioning because the identity provider
and access control functions may belong to two different security domains. In such
situations it is useful to separate the user attributes and roles. When a user is federated,
his/her attributes are taken into account to assign the relevant roles. In other words, the
users are bound to the roles dynamically when the user accesses a resource. This
arrangement provides many advantages to the GAP framework as described below.
1. The GAP portal and the GAP framework-services can agree on the attributes and
the context that are relevant for access control decisions. The set of attributes and
the context parameters are fairly static and do not change frequently. This provides
a looser coupling between the entities compared to an agreement on user identities.
2. The user attributes are completely user dependent. Hence the GAP portal can
assign relevant attributes to users without knowing the role definitions.
3. The GAP framework-services can easily use any context-sensitive RBAC
technique. Instead of mapping users to roles, it can map attributes to roles.
5.2.1 A User Executes a Grid-Enabled Application
GAP Portal GAP Factory Service GAP Service in-v~CO
(Identity Provider. (Policy Authority. (Policy Enforcement En ,rr.rnent
Attribule Authority) Policy Decsion Point) Point) Aullr.nlyi
(r Log-in to portal Authenticate user
Authenticate the portal
Select an application Create thentication and Authorize te portal Initialize for the requested
Select an application attribute assertion -Alo Validate the assertions application
M-A2 Authorize the user
Submit the application O use inputs Authenticate pornal
with Inputs Senho inuts with .on ... Validate the assertion
(4 Submit job Authenticate the GAP
Execute the job
Al: Authentication & Attribute Assertions
A2: Authorization Assertion
Figure 5-6. The process of a user executing a Grid-enabled application. As can be seen at
each step along the way several security-related tasks have to be performed by
Let's consider the process of a user executing a Grid-enabled application. Figure 5-
6 shows the steps involved in achieving the task from the security point of view.
1. A User logs into the GAP portal using the credentials (a usemame/password pair)
provided to him/her by the portal (identity provider). The portals authentication
module authenticates the user. If the user is authenticated successfully, he/she is
able to log-in to the portal. At this point, the other entities are not involved.
2. The user now selects an application to execute on the Grid. The federation
agreement between the GAP portal and the GAP framework-services dictates that
the portal provide authentication assertion and certain attribute assertions about the
user. The GAP portal constructs those assertions, contacts the GAP factory service
on behalf of the user and sends the assertions with the request to execute the
application. The GAP factory service authenticates the portal using the credentials
used to establish trust relationship between them. It makes sure that the portal is
authorized to issue the attribute assertions. It validates the assertion, extracts the
attributes and authorizes the user based on his/her attributes. If the user is
authorized, a GAP service is initialized and its end point together with the
authorization assertion is sent back to the GAP portal.
3. Now the GAP portal interacts directly with the GAP service assigned for this
session. With each message, the portal sends the authorization assertion. The GAP
service extracts and validates the authorization assertion. If it is valid, the GAP
service provides the requested service.
4. Now the GAP service accesses the In-VIGO on behalf of the end user. The In-
VIGO authenticates and authorizes the GAP service. In the current architecture, the
In-VIGO accepts all the decisions made by the GAP service. Hence the
authorization assertions are not sent to the In-VIGO. In some sense, the GAP
service and the In-VIGO are tightly coupled. However, when the In-VIGO
becomes service oriented, the same mechanisms between the portal and services
can be applied between the GAP service and the In-VIGO.
Note that the exact identity of the user is not passed around. Only the attributes of
the user is used to make authorization decision. When a unique identity is required for a
user, a pseudonym can be assigned to the user to uniquely identify him/her.
5.2.2 Adding/Removing a User
Because of the use of the federation, the process of adding/removing a user is fairly
simple. Every user has only one identity provided by the identity provider (the GAP
portal). When a new user needs to be added, the GAP portal ascertain the credentials of
the user and his/her attributes and issues a username/password pair and records his/her
attributes. When a user needs to be removed, only his/her issued identity needs to be
invalidated in the GAP portal. Note that the other entities are not involved in these
5.2.3 Adding/Removing a Resource
When the In-VIGO wants to add a new resource it can do so easily. As long as the
GAP service is able to access the new resource with its credentials, the In-VIGO is free to
add a new resource. In the case of removing a resource, the In-VIGO may do so without
5.2.4 Changing Authorization Policies
The GAP factory service is free to change the authorization policies without
needing to change configurations in the other entities. Only when the GAP factory
service wants to change the set of attributes on which it bases the authorization decision it
has to redefine the agreement with the GAP portal. In this case, the GAP portal needs to
issue attribute assertions for the new set of attributes. However it should be noted, change
of attributes on which the decision is made is very infrequent. In most cases, the policy
changes usually involve mapping of attributes to roles or definition of roles.
5.3 Advantages of the GAP Security Architecture
* Users are able to single-sign-on and obtain services.
* It does not require changes to existing security mechanisms. This is very useful
when extending the architecture as described below.
* The entities are loosely-coupled. The agreements between the entities do not
change frequently. Hence the security management is easier.
* Every entity has control over its resources. The GAP portal has full control over the
users it manages. The GAP framework-services have full control over the
applications it manages. And the In-VIGO middleware has full control over the
resources (computers, networks etc.) it manages.
* The architecture can be extended in various ways because the GAP portal, the GAP
framework-services and Grid middleware are independent and autonomous entities.
Figure 5-7 shows the possible extensions.
a. The GAP portal can aggregate services from many different GAP
framework-services groups (as shown in the left-hand side of Figure 5-7).
With each group, the portal reaches an agreement on the relevant set of
attributes and context information. As long as the portal can provide
assertions of the attributes and context information, this agreement will
work. An agreement with one service group does not affect the other
service group in any way.
b. A GAP framework-services group can interact with multiple portals (as
shown in the right-hand side of Figure 5-7). For each portal, the GAP
framework-services can have different security policies by providing a
dedicated GAP factory service for each portal client. This dedicated GAP
factory service will implement the specific policies of the agreement. As
in the first case, each portal will agree on the set of attributes and context
information to be used in the access control decision.
c. A combination of the above two can also be configured where each portal
interacts with many service groups and each service group interacts with
GAP Portal GAP Portal 1 GAP Portal 2
GAP Framrework-servces GAP Framework-services GAP Framework-services
Figure 5-7. Possible extensions to the GAP architecture. (a) The GAP portal may interact
with many groups of the GAP framework-services. (b) One group of GAP
framework-services may interact with many portals. (c) Combination of (a)
and (b) can also be supported.
As described in Chapter 5, the security architecture consists of several functions
and these functions are layered and distributed. This chapter describes how the
architecture is implemented in a prototype system. One of the guiding principles is to
separate the application logic from the security functions as much as possible so that
changes to one does not seriously affect the other. The following sections describe the
implementation details of the various security functions.
6.1 Secure Communication
As mentioned in Chapter 5, Globus toolkit 4.0 (GT4.0)  is used as the WSRF
 container for the GAP framework-services implementation. GT4.0 comes with built-
in support for secure communication. It supports message level and transport level secure
communication. At message level, two standards are supported: WS-Security and WS-
Secure communication. At transport level, HTTP over SSH/TLS (HTTPS) is supported.
At both level, messages can be signed (integrity protection), encrypted (privacy
protection) or signed and encrypted. Further, the choice of secure communication method
(WS-Security, WS-Secure Communication or SSH/TLS) and the level of protection
(integrity, privacy or both) can be specified per Web service operation. For each service,
the values for the configurable parameters are provided via a security descriptor. Table 6-
1 shows excerpts of the security descriptor for the GAP service. As can be seen the
method "createVA" has been secured by transport level security and it is both integrity
and privacy protected. Similarly other methods are also protected. Instead of specifying
method-by-method, one may provide one specification that applies to all unspecified
methods. This way of specification is shown at the bottom of the excerpts shown in Table
6-1. In this case, all unspecified methods are not protected (auth-method, none).
Table 6-1. Excerpts of the security descriptor for the GAP service. The security
configuration can be applied per operation basis or commonly for all
The Globus toolkit security infrastructure uses public key infrastructure. The
private key and the certificate of the WSRF container are provided through the
container's security descriptor. Alternatively, each service may have its own key that can
be specified as part of the security descriptor. For this implementation, the container's
key and certificate are shared by all the services deployed in that container.
On the client side, corresponding security configuration should be provided. The
security configuration of the client must match the security specifications of the server.
For example, if the server expects to use WS-Security with integrity and privacy
protection then the client must be configured to do so. Client side configurations can be
provided either through security descriptors or programmatically. In this implementation,
a client-side security descriptor is used. This security descriptor includes the client's key
and certificate information as well as the secure communication method and the level of
protection. The syntax of client-side security descriptor is similar to the one on the
Communication between the GAP framework-services and the In-VIGO compute
resources is secured using SSH. GAP service uses In-VIGO resource handler APIs to
submit jobs to compute resources. The resource handler APIs in turn use SSH to submit
job to compute resources. All the compute resources are configured to have the public
key of the user account on which the GAP service is deployed. The user account on
which the GAP service is deployed is configured with host keys of all the compute
The trust between the GAP portal and the GAP framework-services is established
by policy agreement and sharing certificates issued by a trusted certification authority.
For this implementation, a certification authority has been setup to issue certificates. The
Globus toolkit provides a tool called simpleCA to setup a simplified certification
authority. The simpleCA tool is deployed as the certification authority for this
implementation. Note that the implementation does not mandate the use of simpleCA.
Any other certification authority can be used to issue certificates without changing the
6.3 Identity Provider
In the GAP framework, the GAP portal is the identity provider to the end users.
The most important task in providing identity to a user is to ascertain the credentials of a
potential user. It is a human task. It is to be performed by someone who has the portal
administrative privilege. Once the credentials are ascertained, the administrator can log-in
to the portal and create a user using the user administration portlet provided by the portal.
For this implementation, the Gridsphere  portal server is used. User identities are
provided in the form of usemame/password pairs. The Gridsphere portal stores the user
identities in a database. In this implementation, the Gridsphere portal is configured to
store the user identities in a MySQL  database.
6.4 Attribute Authority
In the current implementation, the GAP portal functions as the attribute authority.
As in the case of identity provider, the main task of the attribute authority is to ascertain
the attributes of the users. Once that is done, these attributes need to be stored in a
persistent storage. Portal servers usually do not provide the capability to store any
arbitrary set of attributes. They only allow storing a set of predefined attributes. Hence
the portal user database schema needs to be extended to add the capability to store any
attributes. In this implementation, additional tables are created to keep the user attribute
information. Note that the set of attributes used in the federation is not fixed. Rather it
can be configured in the database.
The portal servers always come with a built-in authentication module. In this
implementation, it has been decided to use the built-in authentication module. Once a
user is authenticated, the portal server provides APIs to obtain the user identity. Portlets
can use this API to obtain the currently logged-in user identity. This can be done by
appropriately configuring the portlet deployment descriptor file (portlet.xml). Table 6-2
shows excerpts from the portlet.xml of the GAP portlets application. As can be seen,
user-attributes like user.name, user.id etc. can be made available to a portlet application
in this way. Once these attributes are made available, a portlet can obtain the values for
these attributes using the ActionRequest.getAttributesO API.
Table 6-2. Excerpts from a portlet deployment descriptor
xsi:schemaLocation "http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/portlet/portlet-app 1 0.xsd">
However, the Portlet specification  mandates only a predefined set of user
attributes made available in this way. In the case of the GAP portlets, they need to be able
to obtain any arbitrary attributes of a user. Therefore the portlet.xml approach is not
sufficient. In this implementation, these attributes are stored in a database table against
the user ids. The GAP portlets first obtain the user id using the portlet API and then use
the user id to obtain the relevant set of user attributes from the database. These attributes
are then used to construct attribute assertions. These attribute assertions are used to
enable federation as described in the next section.
As described in Chapter 4, the entities of the GAP framework belong to different
security domains. They are loosely-coupled by a federation. The proposed federation uses
user attributes in additions to user identity. The use of attribute in the federation enables
the resource owners to have flexible access-control over the resources that belong to
\ob' GAP Factory Service
-Authorization Assertion GAP Service
Figure 6-1. Three types of assertions used in the GAP framework. The GAP portal
provides authentication and attribute assertions to the GAP factory service.
The GAP factory service returns authorization assertion which is used in the
subsequent communication with the GAP service.
The entities in the federation use assertions to share security information. Security
Assertion Markup Language (SAML)  is used as the assertion language. SAML is
XML based and widely accepted. It has the broad support of the industry. Hence it is well
suited to the GAP framework that employs service-oriented architecture and uses Web
services technology. This implementation uses SAML 1.1 [20, 21] compliant
OpenSAML  software library. Three types of assertions are used in this
implementation. They are authentication assertion, attribute assertion and authorization
As can be seen in Figure 6-1, the GAP portal, after authenticating the user, requests
the GAP factory service to execute an application. Along with the request to execute an
application, the GAP portal sends the authentication and attribute assertions. The
authentication assertion contains the subject, the issuer, the authentication method, the
time the authentication was performed and the conditions that are attached to the
assertion. The subject in this case is a unique id which need not be known by the GAP
factory service in advance. The attribute assertion contains the subject, the issuer, a set of
attributes as attribute-value pair and the conditions attached to the assertion. Both these
assertions are signed by the issuer (in this case the GAP portal). Figure 6-2 shows an
MajorVersion="1" MinorVersion="1" xmlns="um:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:assertion"
Figure 6-2. An attribute assertion
When the GAP factory service receives these assertions, it evaluates them as
1. Authenticate the sender. This is performed by the secure communication layer by
validating the digital signature of the message using the certificate.
2. Authorize the sender. The sender must be authorized to carry these assertions with
3. Authenticate the issuer. This is performed by validating the digital signature of the
4. Authorize the issuer. The issuer must be authorized to issue these assertions.
5. Validate the assertions. Assertions need to be validated to see at the time of
receiving the assertions they are not expired.
6. Extract the attributes and authorize the user. After performing the above tasks, the
GAP factory service extracts the attributes. Based on the attributes, it performs the
If the user is successfully authorized, the GAP factory service initializes a GAP
service to serve this request and sends the endpoint of the GAP service back to the GAP
portal. Along with the endpoint address, it sends an authorization assertion to the portal.
The portal, in turn, sends this authorization assertion the GAP service along with the
subsequent messages. The GAP service evaluates the authorization assertion using a
As explained in the previous section, the GAP factory service obtains the user
attributes from the assertions. Using the attributes and the context information, the GAP
factory service has to make an authorization decision. This part of the implementation is
yet to be completed. A method for attribute-role mapping is described in . Various
context-sensitive role-based access control approaches are discussed in [15-17]. A
detailed study of these models can be useful in designing an authorization server for the
This thesis proposes a framework for scalable Grid-enabling of legacy scientific
applications. The key to the scalability is the common abstraction of command-line
applications. The common abstraction is implemented by the GAP service so that the
GAP service handles any command-line applications. The evaluation is performed to
validate the scope and applicability of the common abstraction. To that end, the
framework has been validated against a variety of applications, from simple UNIX
commands like Is and cat to very complex applications like Dinero and Simple scalar tool
set. These applications are very valuable and commonly used by many researchers. Many
of these applications have very complex command line interface with large number of
inputs, have dependencies among inputs, require external input files and have very
complex parameter structures. Figure 7-1 shows a command to invoke Dinero application
to use its full capability. As can be seen these applications are really complex to invoke
using a command-line based interface.
dineroIV -skipcount 0 -flushcount 0 -maxcount 1000 -stat-interval 0 -informat p
-on-trigger 0 -off-trigger 0 -stat-idcombine -11-ubsize 32 -12-ubsize 32
-13-ubsize 32 -14-ubsize 32 -15-ubsize 32 -11-usbsize 4 -12-usbsize 4
-13-usbsize 4 -14-usbsize 4 -15-usbsize 4 -11-usize 16k -12-usize 16k -13-usize
16k -14-usize 16k -15-usize 16k -11-uassoc 1 -12-uassoc 1 -13-uassoc 1
-15-uassoc 1 -15-uassoc 1 -11-urepl 1 -12-urepl 1 -13-urepl 1 -14-urepl 1
-15-urepl 1 -11-ufetch d -12-ufetch d -13-ufetch d -14-ufetch d -15-ufetch d
-11-upfdist 1 -12-upfdist 1 -13-upfdist 1 -14-upfdist 1 -15-upfdist 1
-11-upfabort 0 -12-upfabort 0 -13-upfabort 0 -14-upfabort 0 -15-upfabort 0
-11-uwalloc a -12-uwalloc a -13-uwalloc a -14-uwalloc a -15-uwalloc a -11-uccc
-12-uccc -13-uccc -14-uccc -15-uccc
Figure 7-1. A command that utilizes the full capability of the Dinero application
The corresponding user interface created by the GAP framework is shown in
Figure 7-2. As can be seen, this user interface makes it very easy to use Dinero
application. This illustrates the GAP framework's ability to support very complex
applications. Further it shows the usability of the GAP framework.
S ph r Po rta l- ,la
Fie Edit View Go Bookmarks Tools Help
,- -*-- | http:fl10.5.144.67:9080/gridspherelgridsphere?cid=vaportlet&gsaction=
In-VIGO In-Virtual Inrormation Grid Organizations
.. . .. . . . . . .. .1 .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .
Disregard the initial U memory references from the standard input
Flush the cache after processing every U references read from standard input
Stop the simulation after processing U references read from the standard input
Show statistics after every U references read from standard input
Select the input trace format
Disregard trace records until one with address A is seen
Disregard the references from the standard input after seeing one with address A
Level Type Block Size
[i Unified v 32 ]
1 I fie ld t 32
I1 II Unified v 132
Figure 7-2. The user interface generated by the GAP framework to use the full capability
of Dinero application
The applications, used in the evaluation, have been selected to validate various
features commonly found in command-line applications. Table 7-1 describes those
features that are currently supported by the GAP framework. The set of features are
categorized into three groups. Input type considers the variations at the single user input
level. Argument complexity looks at the inter-relationships between user inputs. Finally
the application type looks at complexities involved in organizing and executing
G3 o |^
7 _17-17-7 Z
applications. As can be seen the GAP approach accommodates a wide variety features
that are found in command-line applications.
Table 7-1. Various command-line application features that are handled by the GAP
Input Type Description
Text User types in some values. This is the most common input
Selection User selects one of the predefined values. These values can have a
description so that user selects the value based on its description.
Boolean User selects to use or not use a feature
With Flag A flag is associated with the input. These flags are not shown to
the users. Rather, the GAP service adds the flag to the command
when the command is constructed
Multi Value An input may consists of a flag and more than one value can be
associated with that flag.
File User provides an external file as an input to the application. The
user may upload this file and then select it or he/she may select an
Simple An argument consists of single user input. This is the most
common form of an argument.
Multipart Certain inputs have to occur together (perhaps in a specific order)
in order to construct a complete argument.
Repetitive In certain applications, some arguments can repeat several times.
For example in Dinero the cache specification can be repeated up
to five levels.
Single command In order to execute the application, only one command is required.
This is the most common case.
Multi command Some applications require more than one command to execute.
These commands can be encapsulated in a script and that script
can be invoked by the GAP service.
Interactive Some command-line applications have an interactive interface.
These applications can be invoked by a non interactive script.
Then the script can be invoked by the GAP service.
Toolset Some applications are collected as toolset. The GAP framework
supports toolset by providing the capability to define the toolset in
the application registry. In this way, the GAP framework supports
Table 7-2 shows the various applications that have been Grid-enabled using the GAP
Table 7-2. Various ap locations that have been Grid-enabled using the GAP framework.
Application Input Types Argument Application Type
Simple scalar Text, Selection, Simple, Multipart Single command,
toolset. It consists of Boolean, With flag, Toolset
five complex File
Dinero Text, Selection, Simple, Multipart, Single command
Boolean, With flag, Repetitive
Cacti Text Simple Single command
Abinit Text, File Simple Interactive
Octave Text, File Simple Single command
Gamess Text, File Simple Single command
Ls Text, Multi-value Simple Single command
Cat File Simple Single command
An overview of research efforts to build interoperable portal services around a Web
services model is presented in . It describes a portal architecture, beginning with core
portal services that can be used to build Application Web Services, which in turn may be
aggregated and managed through Portlet containers.
The paper identifies Job Submission, Data Management, Context Management and
Batch Script Generation as the core services. It also attempts to define a general purpose
set of schemas that describe how to use a particular application and bind it to the services
it needs. These schemas are the foundation for what is called Application Web Services.
An Application Web Service has some similarities with the GAP Service. Both
approaches attempts to wrap legacy applications as services. However the difference lies
in the capabilities of the service. The GAP Service is capable of supporting applications
with very complex command-line syntax (e.g. DineroIV with multi-part arguments and
with dependencies). Also the GAP Service provides the capability to customize
applications for different user groups. Further the GAP Service is capable of validating
user inputs before the job is submitted to a compute resource using regular expressions.
Portal interfaces generated with the help of the GAP Service are more detailed and
application specific. The description of each input is application specific.
An implementation of a Grid Application Factory Service that is based on a
component architecture that utilizes Web services is described in . The factory
service is utilized by Grid clients to authenticate and authorize users to configure and
launch instances of distributed applications. This helps solve the problem of building
reliable and scalable Grid applications by separating the process of installation and
hosting from application execution.
The Application Factory Service creates instances of distributed applications that
are composed of well-tested and deployed components, each executing in configured
hosting environments. In this model each of the components is assumed to be a Web
service. The work reported in this thesis mainly focuses on how to represent legacy
applications as Web services. In a sense the work reported in this thesis is complementary
to that reported in  because application Web services can then be composed using the
Application Factory Service.
GridSpeed  is a Grid portal-hosting server that automatically generates and
publishes customized web interfaces of applications, with minimal effort required from
the users. Users need not modify their applications nor write any glue code to publish
their application on the web. GridSpeed also attempts to find a solution to web-enabling
of applications. However its approach is different from the GAP approach described in
this paper. GridSpeed provides a graphical mechanism to develop an application portal so
that application specialists do not need to know coding. Each application has its own JSP
pages generated by GridSpeed. The approach used in the GAP Service does not create
different JSP pages for each application but generates the application interface
automatically and dynamically. It eliminates the need to manage many different JSP files,
and hence is more scalable and manageable. The other significant difference is that, in
GridSpeed's approach, the application specialist is expected to know the Grid computing
environment to bind applications to Grid resources. In the GAP Service approach, the
application specialist is only expected to provide the requirements and binding takes
Soaplab  is a set of Web services providing programmatic access to some
applications on remote computers. Applab provides the same functionality using
CORBA. Soaplab also wraps command line applications (mainly data analysis
applications) as Web services. Soaplab defines an interface for this class of applications
and has different implementations for each of the applications. Hence, every time a new
application is deployed, a new service implementation is automatically generated and
deployed in a Web service container. The GAP Service has a single service
implementation that is dynamically reconfigured at runtime. Further the GAP Service
approach provides the capability to customize applications and to validate user inputs.
8.2 Federation and Access Control
An approach to federation and access control in the context of federated databases
is described in . The objectives (a single-sign-on capability for users, high level of
autonomy for database custodians and low maintenance overhead) are similar to that of
the GAP framework. The proposed federation in  is enabled by sharing user
credentials. This effectively means that the custodians should know the identity of the
users and should have the capability to evaluate various different forms of credentials. In
addition the access control decisions are based on the user's identity and a flexible
attribute-based access control is not supported. In contrast, the GAP framework uses
SAML assertions, an approach that does not require the owners of the resources to know
the exact user identity in advance and does not need to have the capability to evaluate
various different types of credentials. Further the augmentation of the federation with
attributes enables the GAP framework to support flexible multi-class access control.
An alternative approach to federation is delegation. A X.509 proxy certificate based
delegation approach is described in . An approach to delegation using SAML is
described in . Although delegation based solutions are commonly employed in
current Grid computing systems, it does not scale well when there are large number of
users. The reason is that the resource providers are required to be identity providers and
the portals that act as a front-end to access the resources need to support the credentials
provided by the resource provider. These limitations are avoided in the federation-based
Extensive research has been conducted over the last several years in the area of
context-aware role-based access control. Some of these works have been reported in [31,
15-17]. A study of the various aspects of context-sensitivity in access control will help
devise access control function for the GAP framework. An approach to map attributes to
roles is reported in . Since the same problem needs to be addressed in the GAP
framework, a detailed study of  is very useful.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
This thesis identified the need to have a framework to Grid-enable legacy scientific
applications. The proposed GAP framework provides a scalable and secure solution to
the Grid-enabling problem. Technical contributions of this thesis are (1) an abstraction
that is generic enough to capture the descriptions of numerous types of applications, (2)
an XML schema that captures the abstraction, (3) a generic application service to
interpret the abstraction and (4) a user-interface generation technique that dynamically
generates application specific user interfaces. The security architecture of the framework
supports multiple, loosely-coupled security domains using a federation. This loosely-
coupled security federation makes it possible for the resource owners, who belong to a
security domain, to share them with Grid users, who belong to another security domain,
while providing a single-sign-on capability and maintaining access control over their
resources without changing the existing security mechanisms. A prototype system has
been implemented. The prototype has been evaluated against a variety of applications to
evaluate its scalability with respect to Grid-enabling a large number of different types of
applications. Being able to handle very complex applications like dinero and simple
scalar toolkit gives creditability to the proposed approach.
The choice of service-oriented architecture and Web services provides a unique
opportunity to handle workflows by using existing and emerging technologies such as
Business Process Execution Language for Web services (BPEL4WS) . A complex
simulation process involving multiple applications can be managed and controlled
without frequent user interaction by providing a proper workflow specification and
enacting it in a workflow engine. The GAP framework exposes the applications as
services. In the future GAP framework can be extended to support workflows that
involve a number of GAP services.
The ability to create virtual machines on the fly using VMPlants  and the
support for Grid file system sessions with WSRF based services  provides a
possibility for the GAP service to encapsulate not just the application, but the application,
its data and the execution environment. Provided a virtual machine for a given
specification can be instantiated within a reasonable amount of time, each application
session can be isolated by making it run a virtual machine.
Another interesting problem that may be addressed in the future is the authority
recognition problem. In the GAP framework, the GAP framework-services recognize the
GAP portal as the attribute authority. The GAP framework-services use the services
provided by In-VIGO, based on the assertions of the GAP portal. One can notice that the
In-VIGO does not directly recognize the GAP portal. In such situation, questions arise as
to whether the GAP framework-services must let the In-VIGO know that it is using In-
VIGO on behalf of users not directly recognized by it. If so, what information should the
GAP framework-services provide to In-VIGO and how should this information be
provided so that it can be evaluated without human intervention? Although these
questions are raised in the context of the GAP framework, they are very relevant when
trust is brokered.
FUNCTIONS OF SECURITY ARCHITECTURE
A.1 Identity Provider
Every actor that participates in the process of executing a task will have to have a
digital identity. An actor in this context may be an end user, administrator, application
specialists or even a system entity (e.g. GAP portal, GAP Framework-services and In-
VIGO). The identity provider is responsible for managing digital identities. Identity
management encompasses the following tasks.
Registration: Before an identity can be issued to an actor it is necessary to ascertain
the credentials. Face-to-face meeting and the use of already existing trustworthy identities
(e.g. Gatorl ID, SSN etc.) are some of the common methods to ascertain the credentials
of an actor. The process of identity registration may also involve ascertaining the
attributes. Usually identities are valid for a limited lifetime. In order to extend its lifetime
an identity has to be renewed.
Renewal: If an actor wants to keep a digital identity beyond its lifetime, he/she has
to renew it. The renewal process usually is simpler than the registration process.
Revocation: Sometimes it is necessary to revoke an identity for some reasons
(fraud, compromised identity, status change, etc.). Identity providers must have a
mechanism to inform all relying parties of this revocation within a reasonable amount of
Authentication is the process of reliably verifying an identity of someone or
something. The username/password-based authentication is the most common method
employed to authenticate persons. The address-based authentication is method used to
authenticate computer systems. More sophisticated cryptographic authentication methods
using challenge-response protocols are also commonly used in critical systems. Recently
biometric authentication methods to authenticate persons are also used. The verification
method depends on the type of identity. This function may well be co-located with the
identity provider or it may be separate entity. In password-based systems, identity
provider and the authentication functions are commonly co-located. However, in public
key infrastructure (PKI) based systems, these two functions are generally separate. An
authentication decision may be expressed as an authentication assertion. These assertions
are useful when the relying party and the authenticator are separate entities.
A.3 Attribute Authority
In some cases, a relying party needs the attributes of the actors in addition to the
identities for making authorization decisions. The attribute authority is responsible for
issuing attribute assertions that vouch for the attributes of actors. This again may be co-
located with the identity provider or may be separate. There are several ways an attribute
authority may assert the attributes of a subject. X.509 attribute certificates  and
SAML  attribute assertions are two common forms to express attribute assertions.
Authorization is the process of allowing or denying an actor (subject) access to a
resource. Figure A-i shows various sources of inputs that are used by an authorization
server to make an authorization decision. The four inputs to the authorization server are
the subject, the resource to which the subject requests access, the policies that define how
access control decisions are made and the environmental conditions (like time, resource
overloading etc.) that have a bearing on the decision. There are several techniques used to
design an authorization server. The role-based access control (RBAC)  is the most
commonly used technique today. If the decision point and the enforcement point are
different, then the authorization decision has to be expressed as an assertion by the
decision point. The enforcement point can then use the assertion to enforce the decisions.
SAML authorization decision assertion is one way to represent an authorization decision.
j i ---- -- --- --- ---
SAuthorization Server ---- Authorization Decision
Figure A-1. Schematic representation of authorization decision process. Various sources
of information are used by the Authorization Server to make authorization
decisions. If the enforcement point is different from the decision point then
the authorization decision is expressed as an authorization assertion.
A.5 Secure Communication
The functions that have been described so far are found in almost all security
systems, including non-distributed systems. Distributed systems require secure
communication. When the entities communicate over unsecured network, there is a
danger of messages being intercepted, eavesdropped, modified or replayed. Sufficient
safeguards should be in place to maintain the integrity and privacy of messages and to
prevent such malicious acts. Encryption and digital signatures are used in various ways to
maintain the integrity and privacy of messages. WS-Security , SSL/TLS  and IP
Security (IPSec)  are some of the systems and technologies that enable secure
communication in a system based on Web services. WS-Security provides integrity and
privacy safeguards at the SOAP message level. This will provide end-to-end security
even when there are message layer intermediaries along the communication path.
SSL/TLS provides secure communication at the transport layer. IPSec provides secure
communication at the IP layer. Figure A-2 shows the different technologies employed at
different layers to achieve secure communication.
Message Layer Security
Transport Layer Security SourMessageDest
(SSTLS) Source ProcessorDestination
Network Layer Security < Router Router 4--
Figure A-2. Various secure communication technologies. As shown in the figure secure
communication technologies may be employed at network, transport or
The security architecture for a multi-domain, distributed system must address
issues related to trust and federation. This section discusses issues related to trust. Section
A.7 discusses issues related to federation. In order for the different entities belonging to
different security domains to work together, a trust relationship must exist between the
security domains. A trust relationship defines what each party is authorized to do and
what its responsibilities are. Trust relationships can be agreed upon by either expressing
the security process (e.g. identities of the users are provided following certain procedure)
or by expressing commitments (e.g. the entity that provides the identities and/or attributes
undertakes commitments relating to agreed upon set of user actions) or by expressing
both the security process and commitments. The trust relationships can be direct or
brokered. In direct trust relationships such agreements can be reached at the configuration
time using written contractual agreements. In brokered trust relationships, it may be
necessary to reach such agreements dynamically. Some of the trust relationships have to
be preconfigured at the configuration time in order to be able to construct trust networks.
At minimum, the graph formed by the preconfigured trust network must be connected.
Identity federation provides a simple, loosely-coupled security model for managing
identities. The foundations of identity federation are the trust and secure communication
between the security domains. The existence of trust relationships between the
participating domains in the federation enables a participant to rely on an authentication
decision made by another participant. The authentication decisions are conveyed using
authentication assertions. Federation helps to loosely-couple disparate security systems
together without loosing administrative autonomy. This loose coupling enables security
domains to work together without replicating identities or access control policies. Hence
it simplifies security administration.
Identity federation is used to federate identities between the participating domains.
This is sufficient when all the users participating in the federation belong to the same user
class requiring the same access to the resources. However, when users belong to many
different classes, simple identity federation is not sufficient. The GAP security
architecture addresses this issue by extending identity federation to include user attributes
in addition to user identity.
APPLICATION DESCRIPTION SCHEMA
Document : vatypes.xsd
Created on : June 24, 2004
Author : sanjee
This schema defines various types used in the schema of an
The complex type tool defines an application. This is the root
of all the application description document. The tool element
name (application name), binary (application binary name), path
a set of arguments (defined later), qos (execution environment) and
A part is an indivisible unit of input. A collection of parts is an
argument (defined later).
This element consists of description, default value, value (user
provided), valid (is the user
provided value valid), unique id, type (flagonly, filelist, random
and sequence), flag, minOccurs
(number of times this part is required), maxOccurs (number to times
this part can occur), pattern
(a regular expression to validate the value), choice (if the value is
restricted to a few), start
(start of a sequence if the type is sequence), end (end value if the
type is a sequence) and delimiter
(the characters) that separate flag and value). The elements value
and valid are not used for describing
an application. They are used when an application is used.
Basic argument consists of name, minOccurs, maxOccurs and
The elements minOccurs and maxOccurs have the same meaning as in part
to an argument. If useDefaultValue is true, the argument is not
visible to user.
When executing the application, the argument takes the defaultValue.
element is used to construct modes. Further, it is extended to
defined complete arguments
as shown later.
Argument is extended from basicArgument. In addition to the
basicArgument, it contains a set of parts. Each argument is expected
to have at
least one part. But there is no maximum limit. Arguments are used to
that are logically related and hence have to appear together.
A mode defines a custom application. It is a collection of
Document : va.xsd
Created on : June 24, 2004
Author : sanjee
This is the schema of an application description. This schema
uses the types defined in vatypes.xsd document.
vatypes.xsd defines various types used in this document.
This is the root element of any application description document.
This constraint ensures that the mode names are unique.
This key refers to argument names.
This constraint ensures the argument names used in mode
DINERO APPLICATION DESCRIPTION
Document : dinero.xml
Created on : June 24, 2004
Author : sanjee
This document defines the application description of Dinero
the standard input
references read from standard input
references read from the standard input
from standard input
A is seen
input after seeing one with address A
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Ian Foster, Carl Kesselman, Steven Tuecke, "The Anatomy of the Grid: Enabling
Scalable Virtual Organizations," International Journal on High Performance
Computing Applications, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 200-222.
2. G. Allen, K. Davis, T. Goodale, A. Hutanu, H. Kaiser, T. Kielmann, A. Merzky, R.
van Nieuwpoort, A. Reinefeld, F. Schintke, T. Schott, E. Seidel, B. Ullmer, "The
Grid Application Toolkit: Toward Generic and Easy Application Programming
Interfaces for the Grid," Proceedings ofIEEE, vol. 93, no. 3, pp. 534-550.
3. G. von Laszewski, I. Foster, J. Gawor, P. Lane, "A Java Commodity Grid Kit,"
Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, vol. 13, no. 8-9, pp. 643-
4. Grid Application Framework for Java,
http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/GAF4J, Accessed on 08/12/05.
5. Web Services Resource Framework, http://www.oasis-
open.org/committees/tchome.php?wg_abbrev=wsrf, Accessed on 08/12/05.
6. OGCE Portal, http://www.ogce.org, Accessed on 12/22/04.
7. HotPage Portal, https://hotpage.paci.org/, Accessed on 12/22/04.
8. In-VIGO Portal, http://invigo.acis.ufl.edu/, Accessed on 01/19/05.
9. PUNCH Portal, http://punch.purdue.edu/, Accessed on 01/19/05.
10. OASIS Security Services (SAML) TC, http://www.oasis-
open.org/committees/tchome.php?wg_abbrev=security, Accessed on 09/26/05.
11. Java Portlet Specification Version 1, JSR 168, October 2003.
12. Globus Project, http://www.globus.org, Accessed on 01/19/05.
13. Liberty Alliance Project, https://www.projectliberty.org/, Accessed on 10/19/05.
14. Ravi S. Sandhu, Edward J. Coyne, Hal L. Feinstein, Charles E. Youman, "Role-
Based Access Control Models," IEEE Computer, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 38-47.
15. Arun Kumar, Neeran Karnik, Girish Chafle, "Context Sensitivity in Role-based
Access Control," ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 53-
16. Rafae Bhatti, Elisa Bertino, Arif Ghafoor, "A Trust-based Context-Aware Access
Control Model for Web-Services," Proceedings ofInternational Conference on
Web Services, San Diego, CA, July 2004, pp. 184-193.
17. Junzhe Hu, Alfred C. Weaver, "A Dynamic, Context-Aware Security Infrastructure
for Distributed Healthcare Applications,"
%20Distributed%20Healthcare%20Applications.pdf, Accessed on 10/19/05.
18. Gridsphere, http://www.gridsphere.org, Accessed on 01/19/05.
19. MySQL Open Source Database, http://www.mysql.com, Accessed on 09/26/05.
20. SAML 1.1 Specification: Assertions and Protocols, OASIS Standard, September
21. SAML 1.1 Specification: Bindings and Profiles, OASIS Standard, September 2003.
22. OpenSAML, http://www.opensaml.org, Accessed on 09/26/05.
23. Mohammad A. Al-Kahtani, Ravi Sandhu, "A Model for Attribute-Based User-Role
Assignment," Proceedings of the 18th Annual Computer Security Applications
Conference (ACSAC), Las Vegas, NV, December 2002, pp. 353-364.
24. Marlon Pierce, Geoffrey Fox, Choonhan Youn, Steve Mock, Kurt Mueller, Ozgur
Balsoy, "Interoperable Web Services for Computational Portals," Proceedings of
the ACM/IEEE conference on Supercomputing, Baltimore, MD, November 2002,
25. Dennis Gannon, Rachana Ananthakrishnan, Sriram Krishnan, Madhusudhan
Govindaraju, Lavanya Ramakrishnan, Aleksander Slominski, "Grid Web Services
and Application Factories," Grid Computing: Making the Global Infrastructure a
Reality, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2003, pp. 251-264.
26. Toyotaro Suzumura, Satoshi Matsuoka, Hidyemoto Nakada, Henri Casanova,
"GridSpeed: A Web-based Grid Portal Generation Server," HPCAsia, Tokyo,
Japan, July 2004, pp. 26-33.
27. Soaplab, http://industry.ebi.ac.uk/soaplab/, Accessed on 01/18/05.
28. Kerry Taylor, James Murty, "Implementing Role Based Access Control for
Federated Information Systems on the Web," Australasian Information Security
Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2003, pp. 87-95.
29. Von Welch, Ian Foster, Carl Kesselman, Olle Mulmo, Laura Pearlman, Steven
Tuecke, Jarek Gawor, Sam Meder, Frank Siebenlist, "X.509 Proxy Certificates for
Dynamic Delegation," 3rdAnnualPKIR&D Workshop, Gaithersburg, MD, April
2004, pp. 1-17.
30. Jun Wang, David Del Vecchio, Marty Humphrey, "Extending the Security
Assertion Markup Language to Support Delegation for Web Services and Grid
Services," International Conferences on Web Services, Orlando, FL, July 2005, pp.
31. Michael J.Covington, Mattew J. Moyer, Mustaque Ahamad, "Generalized Role-
Based Access Control for Security Future Applications," 23rdNational
Information Systems Security Conference, Baltimore, MD, October 2000.
32. Business Process Execution Language for Web Services Specification Version 1.1,
OASIS Standard, May 2003.
33. Ivan V. Krsul, Arijit Ganguly, Jian Zhang, Jose A. B. Fortes, Renato J. Figueiredo,
"VMPlants: Providing and Managing Virtual Machine Execution Environments for
Grid Computing," Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE conference on Supercomputing,
Pittsburg, PA, November 2004, pp. 7-15.
34. Ming Zhao, Vineet Chadha, Renato J. Figueiredo, "Supporting Application-
Tailored Grid File System Sessions with WSRF-Based Services," In Proceedings
of High Performance Distributed Computing, Research Triangle Park, NC, July
2005, pp. 24-33.
35. S. Farrell, R. Housley, "An Internet Attribute Certificate Profile for Authorization,"
36. OASIS Web Services Security (WSS) TC, http://www.oasis-
open.org/committees/tchome.php?wg_abbrev=wss, Accessed on 10/09/05.
37. T. Dierks, C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1," RFC 2246.
38. R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol," RFC 1825.
39. Sumalatha Adabala, Vineet Chadha, Puneet Chawla, Renato Figueiredo, Jose
Fortes, Ivan Krsul, Andrea Matsunaga, Mauricio Tsugawa, Jian Zhang, Ming Zhao,
Liping Zhu, Xiaomin Zhu, "From Virtualized Resources to Virtual Computing
Grids: the In-VIGO System," Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 21, no. 6,
40. DineroIV Cache Simulator for Memory References,
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/-markhill/DineroIV/, accessed on 01/04/05.
41. Jason Novotny, Michael Russell, Oliver Wehrens, "GridSphere: An advanced
portal framework," EUROMICRO, Rennes, France, September 2004, pp. 412-419.
Vivekananthan Sanjeepan graduated with a MS degree from the Department of
Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Florida in December 2005. His
research interests are distributed computing, networking, network security, operating
systems, virtual computing and database management systems. Sanjeepan received his
BS degree from the University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka. He is a member of IEEE.
Contact him at email@example.com.