RE: [security-services] Smart Browser

[Jahan Moreh <jmoreh@sigaba.com>]

Sorry for the late reply....I was on the road.

Indeed, I agree with Don as well. This is not a new protocol or a new
cryptographic technique. It is well within SAML's context of "...using
well-known
security technologies utilizing a standard syntax (markup language) in the
context of the Internet". I feel that we are missing the scenario where a RP
can authenticate a Subject *without* needing to query the authentication
mechanism. This is a very important need and the smart browser profile, as
suggested by Don, augmented via Secure Remote Password (SRP) would fulfill
this need.

Thanks
Jahan


---------------------------
Jahan Moreh
Chief Security Architect
Sigaba Corp.
jmoreh@sigaba.com <mailto:jmoreh@sigaba.com> 
cell: 310.890.9391
tel: 310.286.3070





>-----Original Message-----
>From: Flinn, Don [mailto:Don.Flinn@hitachisoftware.com]
>Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 7:05 AM
>To: Hal Lockhart; Oasis Sstc (E-mail)
>Subject: RE: [security-services] Smart Browser
>
>
>Hal
>
>The intent is not to invent a new protocol.  The intent, as I proposed,
>is to use Kerberos, or the Needham and Schroedar protocol upon which
>Kerberos is based.  The existing SAML browser protocols, IMHO, 
>lean more
>towards the invention of new protocols than what I am suggesting.
>Specifically, I am suggesting that we use existing, well known 
>protocols
>in the smart browser profile.
>
>Don
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Hal Lockhart [mailto:hal.lockhart@entegrity.com]
>Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 9:41 AM
>To: Flinn, Don; Oasis Sstc (E-mail)
>Subject: RE: [security-services] Smart Browser
>
>
>I don't understand the motive for inventing a new authentication
>protocol.
>History has shown that this is something which is fraught with risk. It
>seems to me that we have plenty of good ones already, they are just not
>widely deployed. This one seems particularly puzzling since is has
>essentially the same external characteristics as Kerberos.
>
>This also seems to violate what I understood to be the intent of the
>SAML
>requirement we all agreed to last spring.
>
>"SAML will not propose any new cryptographic technologies or models for
>security; instead, the emphasis is on description and use of well-known
>security technologies utilizing a standard syntax (markup language) in
>the
>context of the Internet."
>
>Hal 
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Flinn, Don [mailto:Don.Flinn@hitachisoftware.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 3:04 PM
>> To: Oasis Sstc (E-mail)
>> Subject: [security-services] Smart Browser
>> 
>> 
>> I had to drop out of today's focus group for another meeting.  
>> 
>> I would like to get a reading from the group on the Smart Browser
>> Profile concept that I put on the mailing list a couple of weeks ago.
>> There has been no discussion on this.  I would like to know 
>> whether this
>> means that there is no interest and the idea should be dropped or
>> whether people thought it worthwhile, in which case I would do
>> additional work on it, or hated the idea.  
>> 
>> I have attached the writeup again for easy reference.
>> 
>> Don
>> 
>> 
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

winmail.dat