Slashdot Mirror


Liberty Alliance Completes Phase 2

g0_p writes "According to CNET the Liberty Alliance project released its phase 2 specifications for the Liberty Identity Web Services Framework. This will provide the much talked about 'single-sign-on' to multiple websites capability. Websites will be able to securely share information about the user including credit card data. The biggest benefit of sharing this kind of data is for people using web services through handhelds and mobile phones (Lesser buttons to click to buy birthday gift..). This may be significant, since many of the new phone models have web browsing capability and there is a considerable surge in sales. Now that this phase is complete we should start seeing this standard being implemented out there on the web. It would also be interesting to see how it stands up against Microsoft Passport in terms of security which has had troubles in the past."

29 of 105 comments (clear)

  1. Where this needs to come from... by pegr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No initiative is going to work unless someone gets a major credit card company on-board to assume the risk, pure and simple.

    1. Re:Where this needs to come from... by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Informative

      You mean like American Express or Bank of America, who are both major sponsors of this project?

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:Where this needs to come from... by pegr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sponsoring the project is not the same as assuming the risk. If it weren't for that little issue, this would have been done already (MS not withstanding). MS as muddied the waters for the already-risk averse...

    3. Re:Where this needs to come from... by ePhil_One · · Score: 3, Insightful
      No initiative is going to work unless someone gets a major credit card company on-board to assume the risk, pure and simple.

      What they need is a compelling reason for consumers to want their web sites to share sign on information like credit card info. I certainly wont be shopping anywhere that plans to share my info with anybody else.

      All their marking fantasy will hit the brick wall of consumer distrust and make a digusting "splat" sound

      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
    4. Re:Where this needs to come from... by John+Hurliman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would like to see micropayments get worked in to a system like this, THAT would be a compelling reason for consumers to adopt such a system. Access premium content by logging in through a gateway and digitally signing a payment agreement, no credit card hassle every time you want 25 cent comics.

  2. Sun has released an open source implementation.... by tcopeland · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...called the Interoperability Prototype for Liberty.

    Just to see what would turn up, I ran PMD over the source code - it came out pretty clean.

  3. centralization == bad by Empiric · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Frankly, I don't want "single-sign-on", and I don't get why other people would either. The information I'd want to be available to my bank is completely different from what I'd want to be available to "Jim's Hardware Shack".

    Presumably, in order for this to work effectively, if you have one standardized set of information about "you", it would have to be the superset of information you'd need for all the sites you use. And, to be efficient from an implementation standpoint, I'd expect this information will be replicated all over the place in various caching mechanisms. This leaves your information fully available to web site operators reputable, disreputable, secure and hackable alike. As well as likely creating a situation where if your primary "record" is compromised, it could provide enough information to allow access "as you" to *all* the web sites you use. This seems like quite a high price to pay for the need to create a separate login for each site, which realistically, is probably on the order of a dozen or two registered sites a year for most users.

    --
    ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    1. Re:centralization == bad by DrEldarion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I still don't see why this idea came around where they HAVE to store all your information on someone's server somewhere. Why not have it all be stored client-side and just have the user click a button to send everything? It can be heavily encrypted on the hard drive and over the connection, and you won't have to worry about someone hacking the server and stealing everything or worry about unwanted information sharing.

    2. Re:centralization == bad by stevesliva · · Score: 4, Interesting
      SSO in its standard form simply allows using the same identity and credentials at multiple sites. Your SSO credentials are only the intersection of all sets of personal information needed by SSO sites, not the superset. Each site then stores additional information hashed with your unique SSO id. It's a matter of debate what that intersection should be:
      • Username/Identifier
      • Password/PIN/etc.
      • Secret Question?
      • Secret Answer?
      • Zipcode?
      • etc...
      It is possible to have SSO with only the first two, but the many numbnuts that forget their password require some secure form of reset.
      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
    3. Re:centralization == bad by finkployd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We are using federated identity in the higher education world via an Internet2 called Shibboleth which is very similar to Liberty (both based on SAML). It has been somewhat successful in our setting.

      The rational for why we wanted is was that we (Penn State University) have a very strong central authentication and account management system. That is all well and good for internal services but like any university we license resources from external entities. Such as Webassign (popular web resource for Physics students), and various library resourses like OCLC, JSTOR, etc. Shibboleth allows our students to not have to create accounts on these resourses (and remember different userids and passwords) but use their PSU access id and password.

      So to carry this over to the commercial side of things with liberty, they have the concept of an identity providor. This could be your bank, your isp, whatever. You only have to create an account with them, then you can use liberty to "assert" your identity to other commercial sites. Along with that you can choose to pass attributes like your credit card number, your shipping address, whatever. The benefit being that you do not have this data stored on mutiple databases at various companies, nor do you have multiple accounts to deal with at various companies.

      Finkployd

    4. Re:centralization == bad by moitz · · Score: 2, Funny
      Why not have it all be stored client-side and just have the user click a button to send everything?

      I can think of a great little program that can help you with that! Oh, and BTW, your system may not be optimized, it's broadcasting an IP to hackers, and your clock isn't accurate.

      -moitz-

      --
      Screw 'em...who cares what anyone thinks.
    5. Re:centralization == bad by 4of12 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I like the idea of standard protocols for authentication, but with plenty of flexibility built in.

      There should be no reason for Jim's Hardware Shack to have access to my full profile of personal information at all.

      It should be sufficient that I can locally create a digital check:

      1. my name or handle (and I should be able to create as many or few as I like),
      2. Jim's Hardware Shack's name (or any of the names they want to use),
      3. my secret pin to sign the check or fund transfer request,
      4. an amount,
      5. a time interval in which the transaction can be performed
      6. the name of a server (aka the bank) (say in Cayman Islands) that will vouch for that transaction.

      Then, Jim's Hardware Shack need only submit my digitally-signed transaction request to the named server. The named server is the only information that Jim will need to know.

      As long as Jim's Hardware Shack trusts the named server to send them the amount of the transaction and "Jim's Hardware Shack" provides them with some registered server at which to dump the funds (I don't need to know where), Jim shouldn't ever even need to know who I am.

      Internet banking can be secure and needn't disclose any more information than is absolutely needed.

      Jim's Hardware Shack sure as hell doesn't need my blanket credit card number, my One Single True Name, etc..

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
  4. Crap Press Release for Liberty Alliance by jonbrewer · · Score: 3, Informative

    This tripe reads like a press release. Leading in with "According to CNET" is particularly deceptive when used here. I say that g0_p, the submitter, works for Ketchum, the public relations firm that represents Liberty Alliance. I also say that Robert Lemos the "CNET Staff Writer" responsible for the article, just took a press release and changed a few words. This is not his writing, nor are the other ten articles he "wrote" for CNET this week..

  5. Remember what Franklin said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary keystroke reduction deserve neither liberty nor keystroke reduction."

  6. MS Passport... by herrvinny · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If Passport doesn't convert to the "Liberty Identity Web Services Framework", I fail to see how this can get wide consumer usage. Remember, people just want to buy stuff online, they don't want to learn about the differences between passport and a services framework. Somehow they're either going to have to persuade MS to use the framework, or make a superior client that's easy to download (maybe make it an ActiveX control?) Of course, the problem is, Passport ships with Windows/IE, so it's going to be more quickly available that any other client.

    1. Re:MS Passport... by stevesliva · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Passport doesn't require a client, does it? I assume the real Passport server program ships with Windows Server 2003 and IIS, but there's no passport client per se... MSN messenger and originally XP registration forced you to get a MS Passport, but passport authentication works just fine with any modern web browser, or else Hotmail would be useless from non-Windows OSes.

      So anyways, if it's like Passport, really you just need to get large websites to use the Liberty Identity Service, and users of those websites will end up with Liberty Identity credentials.

      That's why MS loved signing eBay up for Passport...

      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
  7. So click No by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you are worried about this then stop clicking "Yes" to the "Do you want mozilla to remember this information" box. Or turn the feature off altogether.

    Don't make Mozilla out to be wrong just because you don't know how to read dialogs.

  8. Athens by mapnjd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Am I the only one here who's heard of Eduserv Athens? (Disclaimer: I am employed by Eduserv in a different department).



    Athens has over 2,500,000 users (from UK and Irish Academia and the NHS) and allows secure single sign on to more than 300 resources. It has also been around for years (at least 7). So all this talk of secure single sign-on being "new" seems to be a bit of misinformation as far as I can tell.



    Downside: Athens is not open-source :-(
    Upside: Eduserv are a not-for-profit company that makes substantial grants back to academia.

    --
    Bus error in your favour. Collect 200kB
  9. Passport does not compete against Liberty by finkployd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    WS:Federation does.

    In the federated identity world, the showdown is going to come between Liberty and WS:Fed. Liberty currently has the advantage of actually existing, and the spec followed a very open and transparent development model that was very inclusive (as spec development goes). WS:Fed on the other hand was developed behind closed doors by Microsoft and (to a lesser extent) IBM, and is just now applying for standards body recognition.

    Another noteworthy point is that Liberty by design is very similar to Shibboleth, an Internet2 Middleware initiative for higher education federated authentication/authorization that has been very successful. Both are built off of Oasis's SAML spec. Shibboleth however places far more emphasis on user privacy.

    Finkployd

  10. The name is horrible by astrashe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If I would see a car lot called "Honest Al's Used Cars", I'd hold on to my wallet. Honest people don't usually point out their own honesty.

    And when bunch of big companies try to figure out easy and effective ways to share information about me, and call it "the liberty alliance", I doubt that liberty is uppermost in their minds.

    As everyone has pointed out, no one wants this stuff, and we'd all be better off if it just went away.

  11. Any OSS implementation's by IA-Outdoors · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I only know that Sun has a liberty compliant implementation. Does anybody know of an OSS project geared at being compliant? Also, I think one thing this project needs to tackle next is authentication strength. I may have app A and app B authenticating to one backend data source (i.e. Active Directory, LDAP, IMAP, etc) but app A may have more critical data and may require additional creditional (i.e. biometrics, smart card, etc). Being able to chain these credentials to the applications desire authentication strength is going to be key.

    --
    You never saw a fish on the wall with its mouth shut.
  12. Is it just me or.... by aberant · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When i think of ultimate security of my personal information it doesn't include giving it to some service to remember it for me because i am too lazy to pull out my wallet and type in some numbers. Heck, if i'm going that far I should just get a remote control for my computer so i can hit the amazon.com button on it and then hit the big red BUY! button. Anyway.. back to my point.. I dont trust that people that i don't know will take care of personal information better then i can.

  13. "Fewer", not "lesser" by jimm · · Score: 2

    AAARRRGGGHHH! It's "fewer buttons to click", not "lesser buttons to click".

    This is worth wasting karma over. If you can't communicate clearly, how do you expect others to take you seriously? How do you expect to be able to CODE well?

    --
    Transcript show: self sigs atRandom.
  14. SSO Doesn't mean All Your Information Belong to Us by cybrthng · · Score: 2, Interesting

    SSO should be independant of your data sources. SSO doesn't rely on your billing address/information for authentication.

    SSO is a token/cookie/uri that is passwd between websties that accept the "token" as proof that you have been authenticated.

    SSO doesn't take the users data store and pass that along, each vendor maintains its own store and uses the token to authenticate from via an agent that handles this.

    For example you can implement RSA clear trust on all of your sites/services but each user store remains to the application. An Agent simply parses the token, passes to the auth server and verifies the information. Your credit card number isn't passed and would be kept independant of your SSO.

    SSO does not mean "Cyber Wallet" if that is what you fear.

    Microsoft's Single Signon is a combination of LDAP/Active Directory, SSO and Wallet. It usually takes the combindation thereof to complete that cycle. Hopefully this is not the direction of the stated sso implementation.

  15. Passport Wars by Aspasia13 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Consumer: "Lord Gates, only you could be so bold. When the US senate hears about this..."

    Lord Gates: "Don't play games with me. You weren't on any mercy mission this time. We intercepted several credit card transmissions from you."

    Consumer: "I don't know what you're talking about, I'm on a shopping mission."

    Lord Gates: "You are a member of the Liberty Alliance and a traitor!" [to guards] "Take them away!" ....

    Later, in a Passport meeting:

    Lackey #1: "Holding her is dangerous... when the Senate hears about this..."

    Lord Gates: "That won't be a problem. The US Senate has been disbanded. The Regional Sales Leaders have direct control now."

    Lackey #2: "But how will you maintain control without the beaurocracy?"

    Lord Gates: "Fear will keep them in line. Fear of our legal department."

    The Saga Continues...

  16. Re:Who cares? by jfengel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually, I find it rather scary to have my CC# stored in my browser. First, I'm never sure when it's going to fill it out without my noticing. Is it possible to trick my browser into auto-filling it into a hidden form?

    Second, how well protected is by browser's forms cache? Is my CC# stored, unencrypted, on my disk somewhere? The info is available to anybody who sits down an borrows my browser.

    There are a host of problems with single-sign-on, but auto-fill is at least as dangerous, IMO.

  17. Went to a dog an pony show on this one by theendlessnow · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It was all crapola!!

    Liberty Alliance is a way for BUSINESSES to establish trust relationships with regards to YOUR personal data. Yep.. trust one vendor, and if he's a friend to another vendor (duh) they get your info as well. Isn't that convenient.

    One problem... you can't manage your own certificates!! HA!!

    One group was intentionally left out of the Liberty Alliance... us!!

    This just a Sun driven organziation whose goal is to make sure their rip-off of Passport succeeds. It may not use a server centric model, but the result is the same. Your information going to people you didn't want it to go to without any means by which you can shut it down.

    In all fairness, I haven't seen this v2 thing. Maybe it has some fixes that protect the consumer in some way. When Sun did their presentation on this a year or so ago, EVERY major company in the audience RIPPED them apart with questions regarding the OWNERSHIP of their certificates. This is all about B2B and giving the shaft to the C.

    "Privacy and security are fundamental components of the identity issue, and Liberty's work has been developed with this in mind," said Piper Cole, chair of Liberty's Public Policy Expert Group and vice president of global public policy for Sun Microsystems. "Privacy is good for business and Liberty's mission is to provide the technology tools and business guidance to ensure good privacy."

    Your privacy is gone with the first trust made to a company YOU don't want to have your information. Until Liberty Alliance specifies a means by which certificates can be controlled, time limited and revoked by the INDIVIDUAL... this is just a Passport wannabe.

    1. Re:Went to a dog an pony show on this one by MassacrE · · Score: 2, Insightful
      A business _could_ take your personal information and publish it on their website (ignoring legal reprocussions). What prevents them from doing so is this business policy that you are bashing.

      Businesses are.. well, in the business of making money. This means that they cannot afford to upset their customers by selling personal information. Even if you doubt this, they cannot risk the legal reprocussions of sharing your credit card information then having the remote site hacked. There are now heavy legal restrictions in place for sharing of someone's "personal" information, differing per country. Being publicly blasted for being insecure and taken to court by some government does not promote their primary goal.

      If anyone had even bothered to read the Liberty overview, you'd see that it is extremely user privacy focused. For the default case, for instance, a user must have accounts set up on both services and choose to link the two services in order for liberty to 'start'. The token each service uses to talk to the other about you is a unique id, preventing different sites from being able to cross-reference information about you. Finally, personal information sharing is a service - and this service can be run on your local PC or cell-phone. You actually do have the ability to exert absolute control over your personal information sharing, by having all requests (say hypothetically a weather site asking for your zip code) go through a local policy engine to choose whether to always allow, always refuse, or to prompt.

      The purpose of federated identity is not to steal and sell consumer's personal information; it is to reduce IT costs due to multiple passwords within an enterprise, and to make online purchasing more secure, more private, and thus more trusted by the user. Only by making online commerce feel 'safe' to the end consumer can they really encourage mainstream consumer (i.e. buying) usage of the internet.

  18. The internet equivalent of a Social Security # by j0keralpha · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And so we continue to move closer to a single identifier per person. You're SS# is used for identity verification with nearly every social and financial service, and now we move closer to being wedded to another identifier. Whether we want it or not, Internet ID is going to move closer to this paradigm as time moves on. Ive seen a lot of flambait regarding 'YES to SSO' or 'DOWN with SSO!'. But this kind of consolidation is the same trend every vital service has moved towards.