- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 08:36:27 -0400
- To: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>, public-webid@w3.org
- Message-ID: <5370C04B.8070908@openlinksw.com>
On 5/12/14 7:50 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote: > On 2014-05-12 13:33, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> On 5/12/14 6:00 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote: >>> On 2014-05-12 10:57, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote: >>>> >>>> On 12 May 2014, at 09:32, Anders Rundgren >>>> <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2014-05-07 11:48, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote: >>>>>> On 7 May 2014, at 08:42, Anders Rundgren >>>>>> <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't claim knowing everything so please bear with me when I >>>>>>> ask a simple question :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Using JBoss and Tomcat (java-based) servers an HTTPS Client >>>>>>> Certificate Authenticated >>>>>>> session created from a browser *never terminates* regardless of >>>>>>> session time-out settings >>>>>>> because the TLS session has no link into the Java Servlet web >>>>>>> session framework. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Due to this neither manual logout or automatic logout work in >>>>>>> such setups. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Q1: how do other web-servers enforce logout from the server-side? >>>>>>> Q2: if other web-servers actually can do this, does this >>>>>>> require TCP terminate? >>>>>>> Q3: if other web-servers actually can do this, logout works >>>>>>> formost/all browsers without specific measures? >>>>>>> >>>>>> As far as I can tell a server cannot force logout of the client, >>>>>> since the browsers tend to resend the same certificate >>>>>> to the server. You can only do this with Firefox which has a >>>>>> Javascript logout call currently. In my view login/logout >>>>>> has to be handled by the client in the chrome. >>>>> >>>>> This is a unique problem for HTTPS Client Certificate >>>>> Authentication; no other authentication >>>>> method needs modifications of the chrome in order to perform >>>>> logout or requires the client >>>>> to support session timeout policies. >>>> >>>> That is wrong as a little reflection should show: >>>> >>>> - Basic Authentication uses the Chrome >>> >>> True. However, basic auth is even less popular than HTTPS Client >>> Cert Auth. >>> Form-based login rules on the web. >>> >>> >>>> - All other current methods rely on cookie based authentication, >>>> and it is problematic to exactly the extent that >>>> there until recently it was difficult for a user to control his >>>> cookie based personas. This is exactly what Aza Raskin >>>> was trying to bring into the Chrome with his "Identity in the >>>> Browser" blog post >>>> http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/identity-in-the-browser-firefox/ >>> >>> Fine with me. If the mechanism is universal it would be a useful >>> option. >>> >>> >>>>> I can though imagine a chrome-based identity context but it should >>>>> be optional and universal. >>>>> It should probably also address logout to *all* enabled sites that >>>>> you have encountered >>>>> during your session on the web. >>>> >>>> yes, there are many such features that become possible once one >>>> starts thinking about tying >>>> identity to the Chrome, and putting the user fully in control of >>>> it. Google Chrome's Profiles >>>> are a good step in the direction, but they don't yet help show >>>> which certificates are used, >>> >>> OK >>> >>> >>>> which is important just because with WebID one could log into all >>>> sites with the same certificate. >>> >>> In theory a singe certificate using WebID could log in to all sites >>> but due to differences in >>> policies etc. this won't happen. I don't see that as a problem if >>> you have a working certificate >>> selection filter. >>> >>> >>> Question: where does this leave us? >>> >>> Anders >> >> Waiting for Chrome, Firefox, and Opera to catch up with IE (Windows) >> and Safari (on Mac OS X, iOS). Now if you want to look at matters >> through "actual user" lenses, then the total users of IE and Safari >> completely trump the users of Firefox and Chrome, who for all intents >> are purposes fall into the "programmer / developer" user profile. >> >> To conclude, most end-users don't even have a problem. They can work >> with <http://id.myopenlink.net/ods/webid_demo.html> and switch >> certificates without restarting their browsers. As for the issues >> with Certificate selection presentation, that's less of a problem >> when the Certificate Generator UI aids the user accordingly re., CN >> attribute values. >> >> As is often the case, the programmer is making an incorrect >> assumption about end-users based on the programmers own preferred >> combination of host operating system, development tools, and test >> applications (e.g.,, browser in this case). Windows, Mac OS X, and >> iOS end-users don't have a problem because they use the default >> browsers provided by the OS. >> >> If I have <http://id.myopenlink.net/ods/webid_demo.html> tweaked >> (which I will), such that it tests for Firefox/Mozilla, even users of >> that particular browser will be able to authenticate without >> restarting the browser -- since the HTML page served up from the >> server will include the necessary JS code achieving this goal. > > This discusson doesn't go forward. > > Google, Microsoft, PayPal and a lot of other big players recently > put their money on U2F which is completely new solution. So? Does anything stop the implementation of a WebID-Authentication profile for U2F? > There must be > reasons for not bulding on the already deployed platform, right? Yes, but not what you are thinking, I can assure you of that. > > Not until the WebID folks understand the motives behing the U2F we > can expect any progress in this space. A spec shouldn't be based on the motives of vendors. It should be focused on providing an open approach to solving a real problem etc.. Vendors respond to "opportunity costs" above all else. Kingsley > > Anders -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Monday, 12 May 2014 12:36:48 UTC