Certificate Program in Cloud Computing

This fall, the Professional and Continuing Education division at the University of Washington is introducing a new certificate program in cloud computing. It consists of three consecutive courses taken on Monday nights throughout the fall, winter and spring terms. In keeping with the cloud theme, you can attend either in person at the UW campus, or online. The cost is US $2577 for the program.

The organizers invited me on to a call this morning to learn about this new program. The curriculum looks good, covering everything from cloud fundamentals to big data. The instructors are taking a very project-based approach to teaching, which I always find is the best way to learn any technology.

It is encouraging to see continuing ed departments address the cloud space. Clearly they’ve noted a demand for more structured education in cloud technology. No doubt we will see many programs similar to this one appear in the future.

Can’t See The SOA For The Clouds

It has been quite a week for SOA. First, TheServerSide published a presentation delivered at their recent Java conference by Rod Johnson from VMware in which he essentially accused SOA of being a fad. Normally this is the kind of comment people would overlook; however, Rod, who is SVP, Middleware and GM of the SpringSource division at VMware, is very well regarded in the Java community, so his comments certainly carry weight.

First to cry foul was Dave Linthicum writing in Infoworld, who made the important point that “SOA is something you do” whereas “cloud computing is a computing model.” Joe McKendrick at ZDnet quickly followed up, adding that “too much work has gone into SOA over too many years at companies to relegate it to “artificial fad” status.“

To be fair to Rod, his actual statement is as follows:

If you look at the industry over the past few years, the way in which cloud computing is spoken of today is the way in which SOA was spoken of four or five years ago. I think with respect to SOA, it really was a fad. It was something that is very sound at an architectural practice level, but in terms of selling product, it was really an artificial, marketing created, concept.

And in many ways, it is hard to disagree with him. As a SOA vendor, I’m as guilty as anyone of… um… perhaps being overly enthusiastic in my support of SOA. So it’s perhaps not surprising that it would all lead to an eventual backlash. Anne Thomas Manes was certainly the most effective at calling us all out a few years ago.

Putting hype cycles behind us though, it would be a shame to miss the real impact that SOA has had in the enterprise. I would argue that SOA is in fact a great success, because while the term may have gone out of fashion, we have absorbed the ideas it described. I don’t need to write about the vision of SOA anymore; my customers seem to know it and practice the concepts without calling it such. And I don’t seem to need to evangelize my own SOA products the way I once did, simply because people accept SOA Gateways as the architectural best practice for run time governance.

This seems to be supported by an article Forrester analyst Randy Hefner published in CIO later in the week. In it, he describes the results of a survey they conducted earlier in the year. Randy writes:

organizations that use SOA for strategic business transformation must be on to something because they are much more satisfied with SOA than those that do not use SOA for strategic business transformation.

Randy’s report examines the use of SOA—apparently in its full three letter glory—as a tool to transform business. It’s a good article because he manages to distill so much of the theory and hand waving that turned people off into some concrete, prescriptive actions that just make sense.

He closes with this insight:

SOA policy management is an advanced area of architecture design, and policy-based control of services is the business-focused SOA practice that takes the greatest amount of SOA experience and expertise. Forrester first published its vision for SOA policy management three years ago, knowing it would take a while to mature in the industry, and indications are that interest in SOA policy increased significantly this year over previous years.

Given my own experience over the last year, I would agree entirely, and suggest that we are there.

Introducing Layer 7’s OAuth Toolkit

“If your tools don’t work for you, get rid of them,” is a simple creed I learned from my father in the workshop. Over the years, I have found it is just as relevant when applied to software, where virtual tools abound, but with often-dubious value.

OAuth is an emerging technology that has lately been in need of useful tools, and to fill this gap we are introducing an OAuth toolkit into Layer 7’s SecureSpan and CloudSpan Gateways.  OAuth isn’t exactly new to Layer 7; we have actually done a number of OAuth implementations with our customers over the last two years. But what we’ve discovered is that there is a lot of incompatibility between different OAuth implementations, and this is discouraging many organizations from making better use of this technology. Our goal with the toolkit was to provide a collection of intelligently parameterized components that developers can mix-and-match to reduce the friction between different implementations. And thanks to the generalization that characterize the emerging OAuth 2.0 specification, this toolkit helps to extend OAuth into interesting new use cases beyond the basic three-legged scenario of version one.

I have to admit that I was suspicious of OAuth when it first appeared a few years ago. So much effort had gone into the formal specification of SAML, from core definition to interop profiles, that I didn’t see the need for OAuth’s one use case solution and had little faith in the rigor of such a grass roots approach. But in time, OAuth won me over; it fits well with the browser-centric, simple-is-better approach of the modern Internet. The mapping to more generalized, token server-style interactions in the new version of the spec appeals to the architect in me, and the opening up of the security token payload indicates a desire to play well with existing infrastructure, which is a basic enterprise requirement.

However, adding extensibility to OAuth will also bring about this technology’s greatest challenge. The 1.0a specification benefitted enormously from laser focus on a use case so narrow that it was a wonder it gained the mindshare that it did. OAuth in 2011 has no such advantage—generalization being great for architects but hell for standards committees and vendors. It will be interesting to see how well the OAuth community satisfies the oftentimes-conflicting agendas of simple, standard, and interoperable.

Here at Layer 7 we predict a bright future for OAuth. We also think it’s very useful today, which is why we introduced a toolkit instead of a one-size-fits-one approach. We see our customers using OAuth in concert with their existing investments in Identity and Access Management (IAM) products, such as IBM’s Tivoli Access Manager  (TAM) or Microsoft’s Active Directory (AD). We see it being used to transport SAML tokens that require sophisticated interpretation to render entitlement decisions. Taking a cue from OAuth itself, the point of our toolkit is to simplify both implementation and integration. And the toolkit’s parameterization helps to insulate the application from specification change.

I’ll be at the Gartner/Burton Catalyst show this week in San Diego where we’ll be demonstrating the toolkit. I hope you can drop by and talk about how it might help you.

LulzSec Disbands

“Live Fast, die young, and leave a good-looking corpse” was first uttered by actor John Derek in Knock on any Door,a 1949 film also staring Humphrey Bogart. This irresistible catchphrase has inspired generations of rebels from film to music to out-of-control teenagers. It also seems to have been taken to heart by the hacker collective LulzSec, which after a spectacular 50-day blitz across the Internet, is dissolving back into the shadowy back alleys from which it appeared. And just as James Dean—another famous adherent to the formula—did for film, so too have LulzSec changed the face of IT security and left an inspirational challenge for hacking’s next generation.

What is interesting about LulzSec isn’t necessarily their technique but their PR. The group appeared on the heels of high profile hacks by Anonymous and fed masterfully into a media-fueled hack-steria, feeding a public imagination over-stimulated with big audacious exploits that make great copy. LulzSec was the perfectly-timed counterpoint to Anonymous—gang fights equaling news that writes itself, whether the conflict is between thugs, dancers, graffiti writers, or hackers. And slipping away before being caught (sans one alleged member) ties this story up neatly into a narrative made to entertain. I’ve no doubt the movie rights will be bid sky-high.

If LulzSec can make claim to a legacy, then surely it is that effective marketing is just as important as the hack itself. LulzSec went from zero to global brand in a scant 50 days—a success that most marketing gurus can only dream of. In its wake, the collective leaves a somewhat heightened awareness of the terrible cost of security breaches among the general public. Their means to this end, of course, remain dubious; most hackers claim the same as a knee-jerk justification of their actions, though few are as wildly successful as LulzSec has been.

Nevertheless, no CEO wants to be subject to the negative publicity endured by Sony, which has suffered wave-after-wave of successful cyber attack. It is safe to say that LulzSec has dragged Internet security back into the executive suite, something which seemed almost unthinkable only a few months ago. The intelligent response to this new attention should be an increased emphasis on basic IT security foundations.

Upcoming Cloud Identity Talk At TMForum Management World

I’ll be delivering a presentation at TMForum Management World on Wednesday, May 25, 2001 in Dublin, Ireland. My talk is the second presentation in the Carrier Grade Cloud: Secure, Robust and Billable session. I’m scheduled to speak between 5pm and 5:30, which makes it a perfect way to end the day before retiring to a fine Irish pub. This talk suffers from the rather prosaic title Implementing Identity and Access Control and Management in the Cloud, but the actual content is great, and I promise to deliver a very entertaining show. This is actually a new talk, and I was fortunate enough to have an opportunity to rehearse  last weekend for the Western Canadian Engineering Students’ Society Team (WESST), who met at Simon Fraser University. Students can be a surprisingly tough crowd, but we all had a good time and I was able to work out some of the bugs in the flow. I’m sure it will play well in Dublin.

I hope you can join me next week at TMForum. We can all sneak out afterward for a pint of the Guinness.

Amazon’s Mensis Horribilis

Hot on the heels of Amazon Web Service’s prolonged outage late last month, Bloomberg has revealed that hackers used AWS as a launch pad for their high profile attack against Sony. In a thousand blogs and a million tweets, the Internets have been set abuzz with attention-seeking speculation about reliability and trust in the cloud. It’s a shame, because while these events are noteworthy, in the greater scheme of things they don’t mean much.

Few technologies are spared a difficult birth. But over time, with continuous refinement, they can become tremendously safe and reliable, something I’m reminded of every time I step on an airplane. It never ceases to amaze me how well the global aviation system operates. Yes, this has it’s failures—and these can be devastating; but overall the system works and we can place our trust in it. This is governance and management and engineering working at the highest levels.

Amazon has been remarkably candid about what happened during their service disruption, and it’s clear they have learned much from the incident. They are changing process, refining technology, and being uncharacteristically transparent about the event. This is the right thing to do, and it should actually give us confidence. The Amazon disruption won’t be the last service failure in the cloud, and I still believe that any enterprise with reliability concerns should deploy Cloud Service Broker (CSB) technologies. But the cloud needs failure to get better—and it is getting better.

In a similar vein, overreacting over the Sony incident is to miss what actually took place. The only cloud attribute the hackers leveraged on Amazon was convenience. This attack could have been launched from anywhere; Amazon simply provided barrier-free access to a compute platform, which is the point of cloud computing. It would be unfortunate if organizations began to blacklist general connections originating from the Amazon AWS IP range, as they already do for email originating in this domain because of an historical association with spam.  In truth this is another example of refinement by cloud providers, as effective policy control in Amazon’s data centers have now largely brought spam under control.

Negative impressions come easy in technology, and these are hard to reverse. Let’s hope that these incidents are recognized for what they are, rather than indicators of a fundamental flaw in cloud computing.

NIST Seeks Public Input On New Cloud Computing Guide

What is the cloud, really? Never before have we had a technology that suffers so greatly from such a completely ambiguous name. Gartner Research VP Paolo Malinverno has observed that most organizations define cloud as any application operating outside their own data centre. This is probably as lucid a definition as any I’ve heard.

More formalized attempts to describe cloud rapidly turn into essays that attempt to bridge the abstract with the very specific, and in doing seem to miss the cloud for the clouds. Certainly the most effective comprehensive definition has come from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and most of us in the cloud community have fallen back to this most authoritative reference when clarity is important.

Now is our chance to give back to NIST. To define cloud is to accept a task that will likely never end, and the standards boffins have been working hard to continually refine their work. They’ve asked for public comment, and I would encourage everyone to review their latest draft of the Cloud Computing Synopsis and Recommendations. This new publication builds on the basic definitions offered by NIST in the past, and at around 84 pages, it dives deep into the opportunities and issues surrounding SaaS, IaaS, and PaaS. There is good material here, and with community input it can become even better.

You have until June 13, 2011 to respond.