Don,

Thanx for the information.  I agree with Alan's view that banks
like to see themselves as identity issuers.   BTW, there are _two_
SSO scenarios that could (or should) be addressed:

- Logging on to ACSes (Or banks, as in the case of Europe)
- Logging on to shops

1. Logging on to banks:
---------------------------
As banks in Europe already have invested quite a bit in authentication
devices and systems, I think that they are _extremely_ reluctant to
upgrade their systems.  Only a full-blown PKI-solution owned
by banks (be it Identrus, VISA, MasterCard etc), or individually
deployed by a bank (several banks use PKI since years back for
client auth.+sign.) could make this change.  Unfortunately there
are still no cheap, de-facto-standard, PKI-cards and associated
software having built-in support in major OSes, which has stalled the
mainstream market so far, in spite of being a hot topic since 1995...

2. Logging on to shops using Passport or similar ID-provider:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if you eliminate Microsoft as an ID-provider, favoring
a federated approach using a network of trustworthy providers,
there are both technical, commercial, and "political" [1] problems
that makes me doubt this will happen in a big way.  Assuming
there are _thousands_ of identity providers, how is a customer
going to specify its own ID-provider?  IMHO the only reasonable
way is to use DNS [2] plus a few "short-cut-buttons" to locally
popular ID-providers.  Another major technical problem is
that the financial industry largely have underestimated the value of
an organizational-level PKI, which means that essentially there are
only VeriSign et. al. Web-server certificates _generally_available_.
Although to some extent usable as organization-certificates, Web-
server certificates lack the characteristics needed for creating
_stable_ digital links between organizations, as a domain-name is
usually owned by one legal entity (like IBM.COM), but enterprises
may have many legal entities.  An example of this deficiency would
be a host named "SECURE1.IBM.COM" that surely does not say
too much about the legal entity, and due to the fact that the rest of the
subject-information is not fully standardized even for web-server
certificates,  you really need DUNS-based IDs to create something
resembling a server-based "digital company paper".
It is true that VeriSign (only?) offers DUNS-support, but only as a
_proprietary__option_ which makes DUNS useless for merchants
as a _universal_  certificate-based organization "GUID". 
Why is this important?  Because merchants use relational databases
that need unique,  stable and trustworthy keys to function.  As the
certificate of a typical ID-provider service' login "ticket" only
represents "the issuer dimension" of a customer identity, you need
strictly profiled ways of expressing vouched-for IDs as well, at
least in order to achieve not only secure, but _reliable_, 100%
automated, plug-and-play, PKI-based, interoperability.  The latter
is in my opinion a pre-requisite for general PKI-acceptance.

A sticky commercial problem is who is going to pay for TTP IDs.
Microsoft's model is in my opinion not working as merchants
already _have_ a login-solution that is for "free".  The only
working _long-term_solution_ seems to be that the _ID-owner_
(and in some cases the ID-owner's employer or bank) pays for
having a universal ID-resource.  _Short-term_ I think issuers will
have to be very "friendly" in order to persuade the _external_
market to enhance their systems to use new ID-solutions.

=================================================
Conclusion: Until cheap, open, trustworthy, interoperable,
generally available solutions exist, status quo is likely to rule
w.r.t. to _globally_  usable identification/login systems!
=================================================

Cheers,
Anders

[executive level] PKI-based SSO: http://www.x-obi.com/purple
2] [technical] Using DNS in e-commerce: 
http://www.x-obi.com/OBI400/UDDI-and-DNS-OBIX-2002.pdf 

1] A "political" problem is that Passport et. al. _competes_ with the
banks' ambitions to become issuers of client-side PKI TTP-solutions.
I.e. for firm "PKI-believers", Passport, SAML, Liberty, 3D(!) etc.
are inferior solutions as they usually do not offer end-to-end security.
Personally, I think banks should (and have already done in some
markets), prepare themselves (and their _customers_), for the
coming PKI-market by offering SSO-services _now_.  And of
course getting that crucial organization-PKI running!  To make
companies scrap their own "free" ID-solutions and start to
use and trust _external_ identification systems, is not something
that will happen over the next weekend or two.

I believe that "just" an organization-PKI for banks and other
financial providers, would eliminate a ___lot___ of hassles
(including getting 3D Secure running, that certainly does not
need any specific "VISA" certificates to function).


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Don Park" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Internet-Payments" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 20:11
Subject: [3d-secure] NEWS: 3D-Secure and Passport


Just in case anyone missed it, Microsoft and Arcot finally announced
integration of Passport with 3D-Secure.

  http://news.com.com/2102-1001-942295.html 

One of the benefit of using third-party authentication service like
Passport, AOL, and Liberty Alliance is that you don't end up with 10
passwords if you have 10 credit cards.  People rememember ATM PIN
because they usually have only one.  One of the reason credit card PIN
didn't take off is because a person typically has more than one credit
card.  Single Sign-On (SSO) is helpful too but not necessary.

Best,

Don Park
Docuverse


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Free $5 Love Reading
Risk Free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/TPvn8A/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Info:         http://groups.yahoo.com/group/3d-secure/
Unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 




Reply via email to