Changes between Version 81 and Version 82 of Internal/Rbac/OrbitRbacDesign

Timestamp:

Sep 11, 2006, 8:10:58 PM (18 years ago)

Author:

hedinger

Comment:

—

Internal/Rbac/OrbitRbacDesign

@@ -65 +65 @@
 In  [[http://orbit-lab.org/attachment/wiki/Internal/Rbac/RbacResources/i01-kluwer01-jpark.pdf PAS01]] Park, Ahn and Sandhu write "Park and Sandhu identify and describe two different approaches for obtaining a user's attributes on the Web: user-pull and server-pull architectures [[http://orbit-lab.org/attachment/wiki/Internal/Rbac/RbacResources/smart-certificates-extending-x-1.pdf PS99b]] .  They classify these architectures based on "Who pulls the user's attributes?"  In the user-pull architecture, the user pulls her attributes from the attribute server then presents them to the Web servers, which use those attributes for their purposes.  In the server-pull architecture, each Web server pulls user's attributes from the attribute server as needed and uses them for its purposes."  LDAP may be used in either approach [[http://orbit-lab.org/attachment/wiki/Internal/Rbac/RbacResources/i01-kluwer01-jpark.pdf PAS01]].
 
-It seems to be a good idea to pursue the server-pull architecture because of temporal constraints and to avoid certificate revocation issues.  If it decided otherwise to use a user-pull architecture, secure cookies [[http://orbit-lab.org/attachment/wiki/Internal/Rbac/RbacResources/diss-jean.pdf Par99]] [[http://orbit-lab.org/attachment/wiki/Internal/Rbac/RbacResources/park00secure.pdf PS00b]] and smart X.509 certificates [[http://orbit-lab.org/attachment/wiki/Internal/Rbac/RbacResources/p1-park.pdf PS99a]] [[http://orbit-lab.org/attachment/wiki/Internal/Rbac/RbacResources/smart-certificates-extending-x-1.pdf PS99b]] [[http://orbit-lab.org/attachment/wiki/Internal/Rbac/RbacResources/park00binding.pdf PS00a]] are the two methods used.  Ahn, Sandhu, Kang, and Park discuss a proof-of-concept implemention of a user-pull architectured, web-based workflow system in  [[http://orbit-lab.org/attachment/wiki/Internal/Rbac/RbacResources/2928_1724_76-10-01.pdf ASKP00]].
+It seems to be a good idea to pursue the server-pull architecture because of temporal constraints and to avoid certificate revocation issues.  If it decided otherwise to use a user-pull architecture, secure cookies [[http://orbit-lab.org/attachment/wiki/Internal/Rbac/RbacResources/diss-jean.pdf Par99]] [[http://orbit-lab.org/attachment/wiki/Internal/Rbac/RbacResources/park00secure.pdf PS00b]] [[http://orbit-lab.org/attachment/wiki/Internal/Rbac/RbacResources/park99rbac.pdf PSG99]] and smart X.509 certificates [[http://orbit-lab.org/attachment/wiki/Internal/Rbac/RbacResources/p1-park.pdf PS99a]] [[http://orbit-lab.org/attachment/wiki/Internal/Rbac/RbacResources/smart-certificates-extending-x-1.pdf PS99b]] [[http://orbit-lab.org/attachment/wiki/Internal/Rbac/RbacResources/park00binding.pdf PS00a]] are the two methods used.  Ahn, Sandhu, Kang, and Park discuss a proof-of-concept implemention of a user-pull architectured, web-based workflow system in  [[http://orbit-lab.org/attachment/wiki/Internal/Rbac/RbacResources/2928_1724_76-10-01.pdf ASKP00]].
 
 Park, Sandhu, and Ahn summarize the issued in implementing RBAC Web in [[http://orbit-lab.org/attachment/wiki/Internal/Rbac/RbacResources/p37-park.pdf PSA01]].