Rapport sur les résultats

gerous example: GLN is unique for a person. Unfortunately in the health care system of Switzerland we have quite a number of health care providers that work in different organizations that may or may not be members of different communities. Depending on the context of the person, this person may have different users (at least one in each community). C’est une pure question de terminologie. Demande : use proper terminology. use good examples.

- Table 1: Assertion Data: SAML assertions are the only supported standard to transport claims about the authenticated identity. This is geared towards SOAP web services and not practical for HTTP based services. Faute de modification appropriée, l’intégration de nouveaux profils FHIR IHE et d’applications mobiles posera des problèmes. Demande : Support for HTTP based services should be included.

- There are several references in the document to the purpose of login to a web portal. This precludes purposes like authentication of web services, REST interfaces or mobile applications. Demande : The purpose should be formulated openly. Further references should be avoided.

- Table 1: The following description is not an "English" sentence; “The IdP stores enough information about the authentication means of the user to validate the user”. The IdP must ensure that the information stored about the authentication means of the user cannot be used to recover the authentication means itself. Demande : change the formulation.

1.6 External Entities and Subjects

La Poste fait la remarque suivante à propos du tableau 2, ch. 1.6 : - The term "identification token" has not been used before. The term identification means of identification token should not be used. The purpose of this token is to be used in the authentication process and it should be called authentication means. The term means is more generic than token since a means just implies that it can be used for the purpose instead of token, which implies a physical presence.

- We are missing the HelpDesk. This role also requires privileged access to be able to support end users. The terms trusted and privileged should be aligned.

- IdP: This abbreviation is wrongly explained. Dans sa prise de position, La Poste cite la page Wikipedia traitant du NIP.

Elle précise que les points soulevés sont une pure question de terminologie et demande pour ces éléments : Use properly defined terms that avoid confusion.

3 Security Problem Definition

La Poste note à propos du tableau 3 : CredentialHandling: The wording is geared towards smart card use. Faute de modification appropriée, l’usage du mTAN ne sera pas possible. Elle demande que l’on reprenne les définitions de la norme ISO 29115, chap. 3.3. SCH dit à propos du CredentialHandling que dans le cas où l’utilisateur peut révoquer ses credentials de manière autonome, il n’a pas besoin de communiquer avec le service d’assistance du NIP. La dernière phrase du tableau 3 sous CredentialHandling doit être terminée comme suit : « […] appropriate channels or that the claimant is able to revoke/reset his device/token through appropriate means ». SCH souhaite aussi apporter les compléments d’explication suivants à la Policy P.Assertion : „SAMLID-Token has to comply with the specification given in section 6.3 or 6.4. The IdP information processing system shall contain a component to generate unique reference identifiers. A time restricted SAMLID-Token issued […]”. Le point suivant doit en outre être précisé au sujet de P.TrustedCommunityEndpoint : “[…] as defined in section 6.3 or 6.4”.

4 Security Objectives

Dans le tableau du ch. 4.1, La Poste fait les remarques suivantes à propos de l’O.Confidentiality : Please note that all references to public keys in the user data conflict with this requirement. Public keys are made for dissemination. C’est une pure question de terminologie. Demande : modify the definition of user data. Elle fait en outre la remarque suivante au sujet de l’O.Authentication : The ex-