Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

  1. Equivalent functionality is currently available with CoSign and Stanford's WebAuth.
  2. Consequently, the issues and approaches are already known, but complex.
  3. Because of how kerberos is typically deployed, this approach is probably only relevant to intra-domain situations.
  4. Use Shibboleth to transport a Kerberos ticket to SP-A as an attribute; SP-A then presents the ticket to the backend service.
  5. No constraints on the protocol stacks SP-A uses to communicate with the backend.
  6. This approach relies on KeberosKerberos' existing support for delegation; the ticket must already be a "delegated ticket".

 SOAP

  1. Typically described as used by a portal/mid-tier to access backend services.
  2. Security typically described as using WS-Security and WS-Trust, etc.
  3. The client (in the mid-tier) and the server (backend) applications would typically use a framework (WCF, Axis, etc) to compose and process SOAP messages.
  4. Consequently, these frameworks would have to support the use of SAML credentials within WS*, as well as the use of delegated credentials. The problem is that no one is using a SOAP framework that we can easily integrate with.
  5. There's also a belief that applications aren't really using SOAP between tiers. There's discussion of using SOAP to integrate components of large administrative applications; its hard to find real examples of using SOAP + Security with academic and collaborative applications.
  6. Describe the EGEE/SWITCH strategy.
  7. There's a suggestion to extend the 2.0 IdP to support requesting credentials via a SOAP connection. The belief is that this won't be used by anyone, adding support tot he claim that SOAP isn't really being used.

Liberty Protocols

  1. Not geting sufficient traction in the marketplace for us to even consider using these protocols.

CardSpace

  1. Tooling packages readily available for processing messages.
  2. WS-Trust, etc already support the forwarding and processing of delegated credentials.
  3. Shib's CS support would have to support the use of holder-of-key.