Difference between revisions of "Distributed Identity"
From MgmtWiki
(→Context) |
(→Context) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
** It also required the user to pre-register with one or more of those providers, typically one of the big social sites, like: Google, Microsoft or Facebook. | ** It also required the user to pre-register with one or more of those providers, typically one of the big social sites, like: Google, Microsoft or Facebook. | ||
* The current most common protocol for some sort of a [[Distributed Identity]] was [[OpenID Connect]] which included [[Self-issued Identity]], but that concept never succeeded in the marketplace. | * The current most common protocol for some sort of a [[Distributed Identity]] was [[OpenID Connect]] which included [[Self-issued Identity]], but that concept never succeeded in the marketplace. | ||
| + | * Interestingly [https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSGMCP_5.4.0/security/cics/idprop_intro.html | ||
| + | IBM has offered support for Distributed Identity] in their CICS for several generations now. This is similar to the federated identity supported by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Directory_Federation_Services Microsoft ADFS]. | ||
* Now other organizations believe that they can succeed where the OpenID foundation failed. | * Now other organizations believe that they can succeed where the OpenID foundation failed. | ||
Revision as of 15:35, 6 November 2018
Full Title or Meme
A means to distribute the sources of Identifiers and Attributes while giving more choice to Users.
Context
- Decentralized ID is a somewhat different concept in that it envisions an identity which is centralized with the user rather than with a central authority.
- The current paradigm in open identity is for each conforming Relying Party to provide a list of Identifier or Attribute Providers that the User could chose from to allow access.
- In this model it was up to the Relying Party to establish a link and share a secret with the Identifier or Attribute Provider in advance of any transactions.
- It also required the user to pre-register with one or more of those providers, typically one of the big social sites, like: Google, Microsoft or Facebook.
- The current most common protocol for some sort of a Distributed Identity was OpenID Connect which included Self-issued Identity, but that concept never succeeded in the marketplace.
- Interestingly [https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSGMCP_5.4.0/security/cics/idprop_intro.html
IBM has offered support for Distributed Identity] in their CICS for several generations now. This is similar to the federated identity supported by Microsoft ADFS.
- Now other organizations believe that they can succeed where the OpenID foundation failed.
Problems
- The big problem is Trust where there are no standards or examples of any trust without a history of trusted behavior.
- Beware of time-stamping services posing as trust anchors. Bellcore created such a service in the early 1990 and spun it off into a separate company in 1994.[1] None of these services provide any trust in the contents of the documents.
- Proof of Persistent Identity must be provided. This can be little more than the inclusion of a public key in a blockchain, but that cannot provide any Assurance of protection of the Credential.
Solutions
- The Decentralized Identity Foundation has been created to enable "an open source decentralized identity ecosystem for people, organizations, apps, and devices". The have a list of areas of interest[2] that include block-chain and universal discovery which seem to be diametrically opposite of Privacy legislation like the GDPR and California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018.
- In this wiki the IAP (Identifier or Attribute Provider) supply a Data Category only when that category has User Consent. To get all of those categories that the Relying Party requires, the request needs to go to a User Agent that is able to release the data held across many providers, some of the Thousand Points of Light that apply to the real-world User, but only those appropriate for the Relying Party request are enabled by the user.
References
- ↑ BELLCORE SPINS OFF NEW COMPANY TO OFFER DIGITAL NOTARY (TM)(SM) SERVICE http://seclists.org/interesting-people/1994/Mar/100
- ↑ Decentralized Identity Foundation working groups http://identity.foundation/working-groups
