Authenticity

http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub92/lynch.html
Authenticity

Validating authenticity entails verifying claims that are associated with an object—in effect, verifying that an object is indeed what it claims to be, or what it is claimed to be (by external metadata). For example, an object may claim to be created on a given date, to be authored by a specific person, or to be the object that corresponds with a name or identifier assigned by some organization. Some claims may be more mechanistic and indirect than others. For example, a claim that "This object was deposited in a given repository by an entity holding this public/private key pair at this time" might be used as evidence to support authorship or precedence in discovery. Typically, claims are linked to an object in such a way that they include, at least implicitly, a verification of integrity of the object about which claims are made. Rather than simply speaking of the (implied) object accompanying the claim (under the assumption that the correct object will be kept with the claims, and that the object management environment will ensure the integrity of the object) one may include a message digest (and any necessary information about canonicalization algorithms to be applied prior to computing the digest) as part of the metadata assertion that embodies the claim.

It is important to note that tests of authenticity deal only with specific claims (for example, "did X author this document?") and not with open-ended inquiry ("Who wrote it?"). Validating the authenticity of an object is more limited than is an open-ended inquiry into its nature and provenance.

There are two basic strategies for testing a claim. The first is to believe the claim because we can verify its integrity and authenticate its source, and because we choose to trust the source. In other words, we validate the claim that "A is the author of the object with digest X" by first verifying the integrity of the object relative to the claim (that it has digest X), and then by checking that the claim is authenticated (i.e., digitally signed) by a trusted entity (T). The heart of the problem is ensuring that we are certain who T really is, and that T really makes or warrants the claim. The second strategy is what we might call "independent verification" of the claim. For example, if there is a national author registry that we trust, we might verify that the data in the author registry are consistent with the claim of authorship. In both cases, however, validating a claim that is associated with an object ultimately means nothing more or less than making the decision to trust some entity that makes or warrants the claim.

Several final points about authenticity merit attention. First, trust in the maker or warrantor of a claim is not necessarily binary; in the real world, we deal with levels of confidence or degrees of trust. Second, many claims may accompany an object; in evaluating different claims, we may assign them differing degrees of confidence or trust. Thus, it does not necessarily make sense to speak about checking the authenticity of an object as if it were a simple true-or-false test—a computation that produces a one or a zero. It may be more constructive to think about checking authenticity as a process of examining and assigning confidence to a collection of claims. Finally, claims may be interdependent. For example, an object may be accompanied by claims that "This is the object with identifier N," and "The object with identifier N was authored by A" (the second claim, of course, is independent of the document itself, in some sense). Perhaps more interesting, in an archival context, would be claims that "This object was derived from the object with message digest M by a specific reformatting process" and "The object with message digest M was authored by A." (See Lynch 1999 for a more detailed discussion of this case.)

Definition: Integrity

http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub92/lynch.html

Integrity

When we say that a digital object has "integrity," we mean that it has not been corrupted over time or in transit; in other words, that we have in hand the same set of sequences of bits that came into existence when the object was created. The introduction of appropriate canonicalization algorithms allows us to consider the integrity of various abstractions of the object, rather than of the literal bits that make it up, and to operationalize this discussion of abstractions into equality of sets of sequences of bits produced by the canonicalization algorithm.

When we seek to test the integrity of an object, however, we encounter paradoxes and puzzles. One way to test integrity is to compare the object in hand with a copy that is known to be "true."5 Yet, if we have a secure channel to a known true copy, we can simply take a duplicate of the known true copy. We do not need to worry about the accuracy of the copy in hand, unless the point of the exercise is to ensure that the copy in hand is correct—for example, to detect an attempt at fraud, rather than to be sure that we have a correct copy. These are subtly different questions.6

If we do not have secure access to an independently maintained, known true copy of the object (or at least a digest surrogate), then our testing of integrity is limited to internal consistency checking. If the object is accompanied by an authenticated ("digitally signed") digest, we can check whether the object is consistent with the digest (and thus whether its integrity has been maintained) by recomputing the digest from the object in hand and then comparing it with the authenticated digest. But our confidence in the integrity of the object is only as good as our confidence in the authenticity and integrity of the digest. We have only changed the locus of the question to say that if the digest is authentic and accurate, then we can trust the integrity of the object. Verifying integrity is no different from verifying the authenticity of a claim that "the correct message digest for this object is M" without assigning a name to the object. The linkage between claim and object is done by association and context—by keeping the claim bound with the object, perhaps within the scope of a trusted processing system such as an object repository.

In the digital environment, we also commonly encounter the issue of what might be termed "situational" integrity, i.e., the integrity of derivative works. Consider questions such as "Is this an accurate transcript?", "Is this a correct translation?", or "Is this the best possible version given a specific set of constraints on display capability?" Here we are raising a pair of questions: one about the integrity of a base object, and another about the correctness of a computation or other transformation applied to the object. (To be comprehensive, we must also consider the integrity of the result of the computation or transformation after it has been produced). This usually boils down to trust in the source or provider of the computation or transformation, and thus to a question of authentication of source or of validity, integrity, and correctness of code.

Clifford Lynch

http://www.cni.org/staff/clifford_index.html

Clifford Lynch has been the Director of the Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) since July 1997. CNI, jointly sponsored by the Association of Research Libraries and EDUCAUSE, includes about 200 member organizations concerned with the use of information technology and networked information to enhance scholarship and intellectual productivity.

Prior to joining CNI, Lynch spent 18 years at the University of California Office of the President, the last ten as Director of Library Automation. Lynch, who holds a Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of California, Berkeley, is an adjunct professor at Berkeley's School of Information. He is a past president of the American Society for Information Science and a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Information Standards Organization.

Lynch currently serves on the National Digital Strategy Advisory Board of the Library of Congress, Microsoft's Technical Computing Science Advisory Board, the board of the New Media Consortium, and the Task Force on Sustainable Digital Preservation and Access; he was a member of the National Research Council committees that published The Digital Dilemma: Intellectual Property in the Information Age and Broadband: Bringing Home the Bits.

Talks, Presentations, and Interviews
Publications


Clifford A. Lynch
Executive Director, Coalition for Networked Information
21 Dupont Circle
Washington, DC, 20036
202.296.5098
202.872.0884 (fax)
clifford@cni.org

How to prove integrity or authenticity

http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub92/lynch.html

we want to ask questions about the authenticity of the object: If its integrity is intact, are the assertions that cluster around the object (including those embedded within it, if any) true or false?

How do we begin to answer questions about authenticity and integrity? There are only a few fundamental approaches.

We examine the provenance of the object (for example, the documentation of the chain of custody) and the extent to which we trust and believe this documentation as well as the extent to which we trust the custodians themselves.
We perform a forensic and diplomatic examination of the object (both its content and its artifactual form) to ensure that its characteristics and content are consistent with the claims made about it and the record of its provenance.
We rely on signatures and seals that are attached to the object or the claims that come with it, or both, and evaluate their forensics and diplomatics and their consistency with claims and provenance.
For mass-produced and distributed (i.e., published) objects, we compare the object in hand with other versions (copies) of the object that may be available (which, in turn, means also assessing the integrity and provenance of these other versions or copies).

Taxonomy and Classification Scheme

http://www.knowledgeonecorp.com/news/pdfs/Do%20you%20really%20need%20a%20Taxonomy%20V2.pdf

Do you really need a Taxonomy/Classification Scheme with a Records Management System?
Why are we still doing it the old way?

Taxonomy and Classification for RIM

http://www.arma-gla.org/presentations/2009-10/Schinkelwitz_Taxonomy.pdf


Taxonomy and
Classification for RIM
Bruce Schinkelwitz, MAS CRM
Presented to Greater Los Angeles ARMA, Nov. 18, 2009

RIM Taxonomy and Developing Effective Classification

The National Archives

Managing Digital Records Without an Electronic Record Management System

The National Archives produces standards and guidance on all aspects of records management. These represent best practice and focus on public record bodies.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/managing-electronic-records-without-an-erms-publication-edition.pdf
http://nationalarchives.fileburst.com/rmas/
Home
Information management
Records management
Guidance:
Standards:
Best practice guidance:
Cataloguing guidelines:
Records Management Capacity Assessment System:
Electronic records toolkits:
Exporting and transferring electronic data:
XML schema:
Management, appraisal and preservation of electronic records:
Requirements for an offsite store:
Essential Records Management: