The biggest detractor to Single Sign On is the same thing that makes it so appealing – you only need to prove your identity once. This scares the hell out of some people because if you can compromise a users session in one application it's possible to affect other applications. Congratulations: checking your Facebook profile just caused your online store to delete all it's orders. Let's break that attack down a little.
- You just signed into Facebook and checked your [insert something to check here] from some friend. That contained a link to something malicious.
- You click the link, and it opens a page that contains an iframe. The iframe points to a URL for your administration portal of the online store with a couple parameters in the query string telling the store to delete all the incoming orders.
- At this point you don't have a session with the administration portal and in a pre-SSO world it would redirect you to a login page. This would stop most attacks because either a) the iframe is too small to show the page, or b) (hopefully) the user is smart enough to realize that a link from a friend on Facebook shouldn't redirect you to your online store's administration portal. In a post-SSO world, the portal would redirect you to the STS of choice and that STS already has you signed in (imagine what else could happen in this situation if you were using Facebook as your identity provider).
- So you've signed into the STS already, and it doesn't prompt for credentials. It redirects you to the administration page you were originally redirected away from, but this time with a session. The page is pulled up, the query string parameters are parsed, and the orders are deleted.
There are certainly ways to stop this as part of this is a bit trivial. For instance you could pop up an Ok/Cancel dialog asking "are you sure you want to delete these?", but for the sake of discussion lets think of this at a high level.
The biggest problem with this scenario is that deleting orders doesn't require anything more than being signed in. By default you had the highest privileges available.
This problem is similar to the problem many users of Windows XP had. They were, by default, running with administrative privileges. This lead to a bunch of problems because any application running could do whatever it pleased on the system. Malware was rampant, and worse, users were just doing all around stupid things because they didn't know what they were doing but they had the permissions necessary to do it.
The solution to that problem is to give users non-administrative privileges by default, and when something required higher privileges you have to re-authenticate and temporarily run with the higher privileges. The key here is that you are running temporarily with higher privileges. However, security lost the argument and Microsoft caved while developing Windows Vista creating User Account Control (UAC). By default a user is an administrator, but they don't have administrative privileges. Their user token is a stripped down administrator token. You only have non-administrative privileges. In order to take full advantage of the administrator token, a user has to elevate and request the full token temporarily. This is a stop-gap solution though because it's theoretically possible to circumvent UAC because the administrative token exists. It also doesn't require you to re-authenticate – you just have to approve the elevation.
As more and more things are moving to the web it's important that we don't lose control over privileges. It's still very important that you don't have administrative privileges by default because, frankly, you probably don't need them all the time.
Some web applications are requiring elevation. For instance consider online banking sites. When I sign in I have a default set of privileges. I can view my accounts and transfer money between my accounts. Anything else requires that I re-authenticate myself by entering a private pin. So for instance I cannot transfer money to an account that doesn't belong to me without proving that it really is me making the transfer.
There are a couple ways you can design a web application that requires privilege elevation. Lets take a look at how to do it with Claims Based Authentication and WIF.
First off, lets look at the protocol. Out of the box WIF supports the WS-Federation protocol. The passive version of the protocol supports a query parameter of wauth. This parameter defines how authentication should happen. The values for it are mostly specific to each STS however there are a few well-defined values that the SAML protocol specifies. These values are passed to the STS to tell it to authenticate using a particular method. Here are some most often used:
When you pass one of these values to the STS during the signin request, the STS should then request that particular type of credential. the wauth parameter supports arbitrary values so you can use whatever you like. So therefore we can create a value that tells the STS that we want to re-authenticate because of an elevation request.
All you have to do is redirect to the STS with the wauth parameter:
Once the user has re-authenticated you need to tell the relying party some how. This is where the Authentication Method claim comes in handy:
Just add the claim to the output identity:
protected override IClaimsIdentity GetOutputClaimsIdentity(IClaimsPrincipal principal, RequestSecurityToken request, Scope scope)
IClaimsIdentity ident = principal.Identity as IClaimsIdentity;
ident.Claims.Add(new Claim(ClaimTypes.AuthenticationMethod, "urn:super:secure:elevation:method"));
// finish filling claims...
At that point the relying party can then check to see whether the method satisfies the request. You could write an extension method like:
public static bool IsElevated(this IClaimsPrincipal principal)
return principal.Identity.AuthenticationType == "urn:super:secure:elevation:method";
And then have a bit of code to check:
var p = Thread.CurrentPrincipal as IClaimsPrincipal;
if (p != null && p.IsElevated())
This satisfies half the requirements for elevating privilege. We need to make it so the user is only elevated for a short period of time. We can do this in an event handler after the token is received by the RP. In Global.asax we could do something like:
void Application_Start(object sender, EventArgs e)
+= new EventHandler<SessionSecurityTokenReceivedEventArgs>
void SessionAuthenticationModule_SessionSecurityTokenReceived(object sender,
= new SessionSecurityToken(e.SessionToken.ClaimsPrincipal, e.SessionToken.Context,
e.SessionToken = token;
This will check to see if the incoming token has been elevated, and if it has, set the lifetime of the token to 15 minutes.
There are other places where this could occur like within the STS itself, however this value may need to be independent of the STS.
As I said earlier, as more and more things are moving to the web it's important that we don't lose control of privileges. By requiring certain types of authentication in our relying parties, we can easily support elevation by requiring the STS to re-authenticate.
Earlier this morning the Geneva (WIF/ADFS) Product Team announced a CTP for supporting the SAML protocol within WIF. WIF has supported SAML tokens since it's inception, however it hasn't supported the SAML protocol until now. According to the team:
This WIF extension allows .NET developers to easily create claims-based SP-Lite compliant Service Provider applications that use SAML 2.0 conformant identity providers such as AD FS 2.0.
This is the first I've seen this CTP, so I decided to jump into the Quick Start solution to get a feel for what's going on. Here is the solution hierarchy:
There isn't much to it. We have the sample identity provider that generates a token for us, a relying party application (service provider), and a utilities project to help with some sample-related duties.
In most cases, we really only need to worry about the Service Provider, as the IdP probably already exists. I think creating an IdP using this framework is for a different post.
If we consider that WIF mostly works via configuration changes to the web.config, it stands to reason that the SAML extensions will too. Lets take a look at the web.config file.
There are three new things in the web.config that are different from a default-configured WIF application.
First we see a new configSection declaration:
<section name="microsoft.identityModel.saml" type="Microsoft.IdentityModel.Web.Configuration.MicrosoftIdentityModelSamlSection, Microsoft.IdentityModel.Protocols"/>
This creates a new configuration section called microsoft.identityModel.saml.
Interestingly, this doesn't actually contain much. Just pointers to metadata:
Now this is a step away from WIF-ness. These metadata documents are consumed by the extension. They contain certificates and endpoint references:
<SingleSignOnService Binding="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:bindings:HTTP-Redirect" Location="http://localhost:6010/IdentityProvider/saml/redirect/sso"/>
I can see some extensibility options here.
Finally, an HTTP Module is added to handle the token response:
<add name="Saml2AuthenticationModule" type="Microsoft.IdentityModel.Web.Saml2AuthenticationModule"/>
This module works similarly to the WSFederationAuthenticationModule used by WIF out of the box.
It then uses the SessionAuthenticationModule to handle session creation and management, which is the same module used by WIF.
As you start digging through the rest of the project, there isn't actually anything too surprising to see. The default.aspx page just grabs a claim from the IClaimsidentity object and adds a control used by the sample to display SAML data. There is a signout button though which calls the following line of code:
Saml2AuthenticationModule.Current.SignOut( "~/Login.aspx" );
In the Login.aspx page there is a sign in button that calls a similar line of code:
Saml2AuthenticationModule.Current.SignIn( "~/Default.aspx" );
All in all, this SAML protocol extension seems to making federating with a SAML IdP fairly simple and straightforward.
So how do you know when Windows Azure Access Control Services has upgraded to V2? You get federation metadata…
Or you follow the Windows Azure App Fabric team blog!
I have been waiting MONTHS for this release, begging and pleading with Microsoft to get more information on when the big day would come. Needless to say I am super excited!
This version adds:
Federation provider and Security Token Service (FINALLY!)
- Out of box federation with Active Directory Federation Services 2.0, Windows Live ID, Google, Yahoo, Facebook
New authorization scenarios
- Delegation using OAuth 2.0
Improved developer experience
- New web-based management portal
- Fully programmatic management using OData
- Works with Windows Identity Foundation
Additional protocol support
- WS-Federation, WS-Trust, OpenID 2.0, OAuth 2.0 (Draft 13)
Now to just migrate from Appfabric Labs…
One of the projects that’s been kicking around in the back of my head is how to make Windows Phone 7 applications able to authenticate against a Windows domain. This is a must have for enterprise developers if they want to use the new platform.
There were a couple ways I could do this, but keeping with my Claims-shtick I figured I would use an STS. Given that ADFS is designed specifically for Active Directory authentication, I figured it would work nicely. It should work like this:
Nothing too spectacularly interesting about the process. In order to use ADFS though, I need the correct endpoint. In this case I’m using
That takes care of half of the problem. Now I actually need to make my application call that web service endpoint.
This is kind of a pain because WP7/Silverlight don’t support the underlying protocol, WS-Federation.
Theoretically I could just add that endpoint as a service reference and build up all the pieces, but that is a nightmare scenario because of all the boiler-plating around security. It would be nice if there was a library that supported WS-Federation for the phone.
As it turns out Dominick Baier came across a solution. He converted the project that came from the Identity training kit initially designed for Silverlight. As he mentions there were a few gotchas, but overall it worked nicely. You can download his source code and play around.
I decided to take it a step further though. I didn’t really like the basic flow of token requests, and I didn’t like how I couldn’t work with IPrincipal/IIdentity objects.
First things first though. I wanted to start from scratch, so I opened the identity training kit and looked for the Silverlight project. You can find it here: [wherever you installed the kit]\IdentityTrainingKitVS2010\Labs\SilverlightAndIdentity\Source\Assets\SL.IdentityModel.
Initially I thought I could just add it to a phone project, but that was a bad idea; there were too many build errors. I could convert the project file to a phone library, but frankly I was lazy, so I just created a new phone library and copied the source files between projects.
There were a couple references missing, so I added System.Runtime.Serialization, System.ServiceModel, and System.Xml.Linq.
This got the project built, but will it work?
I copied Dominick’s code:
private void button1_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
_client = GetWSTrustClient(
new UsernameCredentials("username", "password"));
var rst = new RequestSecurityToken(WSTrust13Constants.KeyTypes.Bearer)
AppliesTo = new EndpointAddress("[…]")
_client.IssueCompleted += client_IssueCompleted;
void client_IssueCompleted(object sender, IssueCompletedEventArgs e)
_client.IssueCompleted -= client_IssueCompleted;
if (e.Error != null)
var token = e.Result;
button2.IsEnabled = true;
GetWSTrustClient(string stsEndpoint, IRequestCredentials credentials)
var client = new WSTrustClient(new WSTrustBindingUsernameMixed(),
new EndpointAddress(stsEndpoint), credentials);
To my surprise it worked. Sweet.
This left me wanting more though. In order to access any of the claims within the token I had to do something with the RequestSecurityTokenResponse (RSTR) object. Also, how do I make this identity stick around within the application?
The next thing I decided to do was figure out how to convert the RSTR object to an IClaimsIdentity. Unfortunately this requires a bit of XML parsing. Talk about a pain. Helper class it is:
public static class TokenHandler
private static XNamespace ASSERTION_NAMESPACE
private const string CLAIM_VALUE_TYPE
= "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string"; // bit of a hack
public static IClaimsPrincipal Convert(RequestSecurityTokenResponse rstr)
return new ClaimsPrincipal(GetClaimsIdentity(rstr));
private static ClaimsIdentity GetClaimsIdentity(RequestSecurityTokenResponse rstr)
XDocument responseDoc = XDocument.Parse(rstr.RequestedSecurityToken.RawToken);
XElement attStatement = responseDoc.Element(ASSERTION_NAMESPACE + "Assertion")
.Element(ASSERTION_NAMESPACE + "AttributeStatement");
var issuer = responseDoc.Root.Attribute("Issuer").Value;
ClaimCollection claims = new ClaimCollection();
foreach (var c in attStatement.Elements(ASSERTION_NAMESPACE + "Attribute"))
string attrName = c.Attribute("AttributeName").Value;
string attrNamespace = c.Attribute("AttributeNamespace").Value;
string claimType = attrNamespace + "/" + attrName;
foreach (var val in c.Elements(ASSERTION_NAMESPACE + "AttributeValue"))
claims.Add(new Claim(issuer, issuer, claimType,
return new ClaimsIdentity(claims);
Most of this is just breaking apart the SAML-goo. Once I got all the SAML assertions I generated a claim for each one and created a ClaimsIdentity object. This gets me a step closer to how I wanted things, but keeping the identity around within the application is still up in the air. How can I keep the identity for the lifetime of the application? I wanted something like Thread.CurrentPrincipal but the phone platform doesn’t let you access it.
There was a class, TokenCache, that was part of the original Silverlight project. This sounded useful. it turns out it’s Get/Add wrapper for a Dictionary<>. It’s almost useful, but I want to be able to access this cache at any time. A singleton sort of solves the problem, so lets try that. I added this within the TokenCache class:
public static TokenCache Cache
if (_cache != null)
_cache = new TokenCache();
private static TokenCache _cache;
private static object _sync = new object();
now I can theoretically get access to the tokens at any time, but I want to make the access part of the base Application object. I created a static class called ApplicationExtensions:
public static class ApplicationExtensions
public static IClaimsPrincipal
GetPrincipal(this Application app, string appliesTo)
throw new ArgumentException("Token cannot be found to generate principal.");
public static RequestSecurityTokenResponse
GetPrincipalToken(this Application app, string appliesTo)
public static void
SetPrincipal(this Application app, RequestSecurityTokenResponse rstr)
It adds three extension methods to the base Application object. Now it’s sort of like Thread.CurrentPrincipal.
How does this work? When the RSTR is returned I can call:
Accessing the identity is two-part.
If I just want to get the identity and it’s claims I can call:
var principal = Application.Current.GetPrincipal("https://troymcclure/webapplication3/");
IClaimsIdentity ident = principal.Identity as IClaimsIdentity;
If I want to reuse the token as part of web service call I can get the token via:
var token = Application.Current.GetPrincipalToken(https://troymcclure/webapplication3/);
There is still quite a lot to do in order for this to be production ready code, but it does a pretty good job of solving all the problems I had with domain authentication on the Windows Phone 7 platform.
Every couple of weeks I start up Autoruns to see what new stuff has added itself to Windows startup and what not (screw you Adobe – you as a software company make me want to swear endlessly). Anyway, a few months ago around the time the latest version of Windows Live Messenger and it’s suite RTM’ed I poked around to see if anything new was added. Turns out there was:
A new credential provider was added!
Not only that, it turns out a couple Winsock providers were added too:
I started poking around the DLL’s and noticed that they don’t do much. Apparently you can use smart cards for WLID authentication. I suspect that’s what the credential provider and associated Winsock Provider is for, as well as part of WLID’s sign-on helper so credentials can be managed via the Credential Manager:
Ah well, nothing too exciting here.
Skip a few months and something occurred to me. Microsoft was able to solve part of the Claims puzzle. How do you bridge the gap between desktop application identities and web application identities? They did part of what CardSpace was unable to do because CardSpace as a whole didn’t really solve a problem people were facing. The problem Windows Live ran into was how do you share credentials between desktop and web applications without constantly asking for the credentials? I.e. how do you do Single Sign On…
This got me thinking.
What if I wanted to step this up a smidge and instead of logging into Windows Live Messenger with my credentials, why not log into Windows with my Windows Live Credentials?
Yes, Windows. I want to change this:
Question: What would this solve?
Answer: At present, nothing ground-breakingly new. For the sake of argument, lets look at how this would be done, and I’ll (hopefully) get to my point.
First off, we need to know how to modify the Windows logon screen. In older versions of Windows (versions older than 2003 R2) you had to do a lot of heavy lifting to make any changes to the screen. You had to write your own GINA which involved essentially creating your own UI. Talk about painful.
With the introduction of Vista, Microsoft changed the game when it came to custom credentials. Their reasoning was simple: they didn’t want you to muck up the basic look and feel. You had to follow their guidelines.
As a result we are left with something along the lines of these controls to play with:
The logon screen is now controlled by Credential Providers instead of the GINA. There are two providers built into Windows by default, one for Kerberos or NTLM authentication, and one for Smart Card authentication.
The architecture looks like:
When the Secure Attention Sequence (CTRL + ALT + DEL / SAS) is called, Winlogon switches to a different desktop and instantiates a new instance of LogonUI.exe. LogonUI enumerates all the credential provider DLL’s from registry and displays their controls on the desktop.
When I enter in my credentials they are serialized and supposed to be passed to the LSA.
Once the LSA has these credentials it can then do the authentication.
I say “supposed” to be passed to the LSA because there are two frames of thought here. The first frame is to handle authentication within the Credential Provider itself. This can cause problems later on down the road. I’ll explain why in the second frame.
The second frame of thought is when you need to use custom credentials, need to do some funky authentication, and then save save the associated identity token somewhere. This becomes important when other applications need your identity.
You can accomplish this via what’s called an Authentication Package.
When a custom authentication package is created, it has to be designed in such a way that applications cannot access stored credentials directly. The applications must go through the pre-canned MSV1_0 package to receive a token.
Earlier when I asked about using Windows Live for authentication we would need to develop two things: a Credential Provider, and a custom Authentication Package.
The logon process would work something like this:
- Select Live ID Credential Provider
- Type in Live ID and Password and submit
- Credential Provider passes serialized credential structure to Winlogon
- Winlogon passes credentials to LSA
- LSA passes credential to Custom Authentication Package
- Package connects to Live ID STS and requests a token with given credentials
- Token is returned
- Authentication Package validated token and saves it to local cache
- Package returns authentication result back up call stack to Winlogon
- Winlogon initializes user’s profile and desktop
I asked before: What would this solve?
This isn’t really a ground-breaking idea. I’ve just described a domain environment similar to what half a million companies have already done with Active Directory, except the credential store is Live ID.
On it’s own we’ve just simplified the authentication process for every home user out there. No more disparate accounts across multiple machines. Passwords are in sync, and identity information is always up to date.
What if Live ID sets up a new service that lets you create access groups for things like home and friends and you can create file shares as appropriate. Then you can extend the Windows 7 Homegroup sharing based on those access groups.
Wait, they already have something like that with Skydrive (sans Homegroup stuff anyway).
Maybe they want to use a different token service.
Imagine if the user was able to select the “Federated User” credential provider that would give you a drop down box listing a few Security Token Services. Azure ACS can hook you up.
Imagine if one of these STS’s was something everyone used *cough* Facebook *cough*.
Imagine the STS was one that a lot of sites on the internet use *cough* Facebook *cough*.
Imagine if the associated protocol used by the STS and websites were modified slightly to add a custom set of headers sent to the browser. Maybe it looked like this:
Finally, imagine if your browser was smart enough to intercept those headers and look up the user’s token, check if they matched the header ”Relying-Party-Accepting-Token-Type” and then POST the token to the given reply URL.
Hmm. We’ve just made the internet SSO capable.
Now to just move everyone’s cheese to get this done.
Other possible titles:
- So Long and Thanks for all the Identity
- Goodbye awesome technology; Hello Awesomer Technology
- CardSpace? What’s CardSpace?
Over on the Claims Based Identity Blog they made an announcement that they have stopped development of CardSpace v2. CardSpace was an excellent technology, but nobody used it. Some of us saw the writing on the wall when Microsoft paused development last year, and kept quiet about why. For better or for worse, Microsoft stopped development and moved on to a different technology affectionately called U-Prove.
U-Prove is an advanced cryptographic technology that, combined with existing standards-based identity solutions, overcomes this long-standing dilemma between identity assurance and privacy. This unlocks a broad range of scenarios that have historically been out of the reach of both the private and public sectors - cases where both verified identity information and privacy are required.
So what exactly does this mean? Central to U-Prove is something called an Agent:
Specifically, the Agent provides a mechanism to separate the retrieval of identity information from trusted organizations from the release of this information to destination sites. The underlying mechanisms help prevent the issuing organizations from tracking where or when this information is used, and to help prevent different destination sites from trivially linking users’ actions together.
Alright, what does that really mean?
Short answer: it’s kind of like CardSpace, except you—the developer—manage the application that controls the flow of claims from IdP to RP.
The goal is to enable stronger control of the release of private data to relying parties.
For more information check out the FAQ section on Connect.
For the last few years ObjectSharp has been using Salesforce.com to help manage parts of the business. As business increased, our reliance on Salesforce increased. More and more users started getting added, and as all stories go, these accounts became one more burden to manage.
This is the universal identity problem – too many user accounts for the same person. As such, one of my internal goals here is to simplify identity at ObjectSharp.
While working on another internal project with Salesforce i got to thinking about how it manages users. It turns out Salesforce allows you to set it up as a SAML relying party. ADFS v2 supports being a SAML IdP. Theoretically we have both sides of the puzzle, but how does it work?
Well, first things first. I checked out the security section of the configuration portal:
There was a Single Sign-On section, so I followed that and was given a pretty simple screen:
There isn’t much here to setup. Going down the options, here is what I came up with:
I know from previous experience that ADFS supports version 2 of the SAML Protocol.
What is the URI of the IdP, which in this case is going to be ADFS? Within the ADFS MMC snap-in, if you right click the Service node you can access the properties:
In the properties dialog there is a textbox allowing you to change the Federation Service Identifier:
We want that URI.
Within Salesforce we set the Issuer to the identifier URI.
Identity Provider Certificate
Salesforce can’t just go and accept any token. It needs to only be able to accept a token from my organization. Therefore I upload the public key used to sign my tokens from ADFS. You can access that token by going to ADFS and selecting the Certificates node:
Once in there you can select the signing certificate:
Just export the certificate and upload to Salesforce.
Custom Error URL
If the login fails for some reason, what URL should it go to? If you leave it blank, it redirects to a generic Salesforce error page.
SAML User ID Type
This option is asking what information we are giving to Salesforce, so it can correlate that information to one of their internal ID’s. Since for this demo I was just using my email address, I will leave it with Assertion contains User’s salesforce.com username.
SAML User ID Location
This option is asking where the above ID is located within the SAML token. By default it will accept the nameidentifier but I don’t really want to pass my email as a name so I will select user ID is in an Attribute element.
Now I have to specify what claim type the email address is. In this case I will go with the default for ADFS, which is http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/05/identity/claims/emailaddress.
On to Active Directory Federation Services
We are about half way done. Now we just need to tell ADFS about Salesforce. It’s surprisingly simple.
Once you’ve saved the Salesforce settings, you are given a button to download the metadata:
Selecting that will let you download an XML document containing metadata about Salesforce as a relying party.
Telling ADFS about a relying party is pretty straightforward, and you can find the detailed steps in a previous post I wrote about halfway through the article.
Once you’ve added the relying party, all you need to do is create a rule that returns the user’s email address as the above claim type:
Everything should be properly configured at this point. Now we need to test it.
When I first started out with ADFS and SAML early last year, I couldn’t figure out how to get ADFS to post the token to a relying party. SAML is not a protocol that I’m very familiar with, so I felt kinda dumb when I realized there is an ADFS URL you need to hit. In this case it’s https://[adfs.fqdn]/adfs/ls/IdpInitiatedSignOn.aspx.
It brings you to a form page to select which application to post a token to:
Select your relying party and then go.
It will POST back to an ADFS endpoint, and then POST the information to the URL within the metadata provided earlier. Once the POST’ing has quieted down, you end up on your Salesforce dashboard:
All in all, it took about 10 minutes to get everything working.
Homer Simpson was once quoted as saying “To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems”. I can’t help but borrow from it and say that Claims-Based Authentication is the cause of, and solution to, most problems with identity consumption in applications.
When people first come across Claims-Based Authentication there are two extremes of responses:
- Total amazement at the architectural simplicity and brilliance
- Fear and hatred of the idea (don’t you dare take away my control of the passwords)
Each has a valid truth to them, but over time you realize all the problems sit somewhere between both extremes. It’s this middle ground where people run into the biggest problems.
Over the last few months there’s been quite a few people talking about the pains of OpenID/OpenAuth, which when you get right down to the principle of it, is CBA. There are some differences such as terminology and implementation, but both follow the Trusted Third Party Authentication model, and that’s really what CBA is all about.
Rob Conery wrote what some people now see as an infamous post on why he hates OpenID. He thinks it’s a nightmare for various reasons. The basic list is as follows:
- As a customer, since you can have multiple OpenID providers that the relying party doesn’t necessarily know about, how do you know which one you originally used to setup an account?
- If a customer logs in with the wrong OpenID, they can’t access whatever they’ve paid for. This pisses off said customer.
- If your customer used the wrong OpenID, how do you, as the business owner, fix that problem?
- Is it worth fixing?
- Is it worth the effort of writing code to make this a simpler process?
- “I'll save you the grumbling rant, but coding up Open ID stuff is utterly mind-numbing frustration”. This says it all.
- Since you don’t want to write the code, you get someone else to do it. You find a SaS provider. The provider WILL go down. Laws of averages, Murphy, and simple irony will cause it to go down.
- The standard is dying. Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, and Joe-Blow all have their own particular ways of implementing the standard. Do you really want to keep up with that?
- Dealing with all of this hassle means you aren’t spending your time creating content, which does nothing for the customer.
The end result is that he is looking to drop support, and bring back traditional authentication models. E.g. storing usernames and passwords in a database that you control.
Following the Conery kerfuffle, 37signals made an announcement that they were going to drop OpenID support for their products. They had a pretty succinct reason for doing so:
Fewer than 1% of all 37signals users are currently using OpenID. After consulting with a fair share of them, it seems that most were doing so only because that used to be the only way to get single sign-on for our applications.
I don’t know how many customers they have, but 1% is nowhere near a high enough number to justify keeping something alive in any case.
So we have a problem now, don’t we? On paper Claims-Based Authentication is awesome, but in practice it’s a pain in the neck. Well, I suppose that’s the case with most technologies.
I think one of problems with implementations of new technologies is the lack of guidance. Trusted-Third Party authentication isn’t really all that new. Kerberos does it, and Kerberos has been around for more than 30 years. OpenID, OpenAuth, and WS-Auth/WS-Federation on the other hand, haven't been around all that long. Given that, I have a bit of guidance that I’ve learned from the history of Kerberos.
First: Don’t trust random providers.
The biggest problem with OpenID is what’s known as the NASCAR problem. This is another way of referring to Rob’s first problem. How do you know which provider to use? Most people recognize logo’s, so show them a bunch of logo’s and hopefully they will pick the one that they used. Hoping your customer chooses the right one every time is like hoping you can hit a bullseye from 1000 yards, blindfolded. It could happen. It won’t. But it could.
The solution to this is simple: do not trust every provider. Have a select few providers you will accept, and have them sufficiently distinguishable. My bank as a provider is going to be WAY different than using Google as a provider. At least, I would hope that’s the case.
Second: Don’t let the user log in with the wrong account.
While you are at it, try moving the oceans using this shot glass. Seriously though, if you follow the first step, this one is a by product. Think about it. Would a customer be more likely to log into their ISP billing system with their Google account, or their bank’s account? That may be a bad example in practice because I would never use my bank as a provider, but it’s a great example of being sufficiently distinguishable. You will always have customers that choose wrong, but the harder you make it for them to choose the wrong thing, the closer you are to hitting that bullseye.
Third: Use Frameworks. Don’t roll your own.
One of the most important axioms in computer security is don’t roll your own [framework/authn/authz/crypto/etc]. Seriously. Stop it. You WILL do it wrong. I will too. Use a trusted OpenID/OpenAuth framework, or use WIF.
Forth: Choose a standard that won’t change on you at the whim of a vendor.
WS-Trust/Auth and SAML are great examples of standards that don’t change willy-nilly. OpenID/OpenAuth are not.
Fifth: Adopt a provider that already has a large user base, and then keep it simple.
This is an extension of the first rule. Pick a provider that has a massive number of users already. Live ID is a great example. Google Accounts is another. Stick to Twitter or Facebook. If you are going to choose which providers to accept, make sure you pick the ones that people actually use. This may seem obvious, but just remember it when you are presented with Joe’s Fish and Chips and Federated Online ID provider.
Finally: Perhaps the biggest thing I can recommend is to keep it simple. Start small. Know your providers, and trust your providers.
Keep in mind that everything I’ve said above does not pertain to any particular technology, but of any technology that uses a Trusted Third Party Authentication model.
It is really easy to get wide-eyed and believe you can develop a working system that accepts every form of identification under the sun, all the while keeping it manageable. Don’t. Keep it simple and start small.
Sometime last week I got confirmation that my sessions were accepted for PrairieDevCon! The schedule has not yet been announced, but here are the two sessions I will be presenting:
Changing the Identity Game with the Windows Identity Foundation
Identity is a tricky thing to manage. These days every application requires some knowledge of the user, which inevitably requires users to log in and out of the applications to prove they are who they are as well as requiring the application to keep record of the accounts. There is a fundamental shift in the way we manage these users and their accounts in a Claims Based world. The Windows Identity Foundation builds on top of a Claim based architecture and helps solve some real world problems. This session will be a discussion on Claims as well as how WIF fits into the mix.
Track: Microsoft, Security
Speaker: Steve Syfuhs
Building a Security Token Service In the Time It Takes to Brew a Pot of Coffee
One of the fundamental pieces of a Claims Based Authentication model is the Security Token Service. Using the Windows Identity Framework it is deceivingly simple to build one, so in this session we will.
Track: Microsoft, Security
Speaker: Steve Syfuhs
What is PrairieDevCon?
The Prairie Developer Conference is the conference event for software professionals in the Canadian prairies!
Featuring more than 30 presenters, over 60 sessions, and including session styles such as hands-on coding, panel discussions, and lectures, Prairie Developer Conference is an exceptional learning opportunity!
Register for our June 2011 event today!
Okay, how much $$$?
Register early and take advantage of Early Bird pricing!
Get 50% off the post-conference price when you bundle it with your conference registration!
| ||Conference ||Conference + |
|Until February 28 ||$299.99 ||$449.99 |
|Until March 31 ||$399.99 ||$549.99 |
|Until April 30 ||$499.99 ||$649.99 |
|May and June ||$599.99 ||$749.99 |
|Post-Conference Workshop Only ||$299.99 |
For more information check out the registration section.
Mix 2011 has opened voting for public session submissions, and I submitted one! Here is the abstract:
Identity Bests – Managing User Identity in the new Decade
Presenter: Steve Syfuhs
Identity is a tricky thing to manage. These days every website requires some knowledge of the user, which inevitably requires users to log in to identify themselves. Over the next few years we will start seeing a shift toward a centralized identity model removing the need to manage users and their credentials for each website. This session will cover the fundamentals of Claims Based Authentication using the Windows Identity Foundation and how you can easily manage user identities across multiple websites as well across organizational boundaries.
If you think this session should be presented please vote: http://live.visitmix.com/OpenCall/Vote/Session/182.
(Please vote even if you don’t! )