W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > May 2011

Re: webid trust model, one or multiple?

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 12:30:24 -0400
Message-ID: <4DC02DA0.4030709@openlinksw.com>
To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
On 5/3/11 12:18 PM, peter williams wrote:
> Javascript implemented ssl is the tweak.

So the work by Manu and Co. is close bar the key storage abstraction. I 
don't mind getting the storage abstraction sorted since we have ability 
to persist data to a variety of locations using different data access 
APIs via JS.

> Connectionless SSL messaging over
> http post bearers (not TCP/UDP) is another, avoiding the wars over
> websockets.


> Cryptopolitics has put static rules around https in browsers and servers,
> that make it hard to evolve to the agent world we need. The javascript
> breaks us out from the box, long ago locked by the culture of restricting
> crypto-in-a-hole.
> There should have been a 1000 vendors adding custom protocols to SSL by now
> (since that was the intent). This would have allowed https to be the
> framework that openid re-created (tunneling AX alongside its session layer
> protocol, leveraging the common derived keying, for example).
> Another tweak may be to not worry about all the SSL modes perhaps enabling
> SSL in HTTP posts bearer to focus only on handshaking (vs data transfer) -
> mainly for authentication and session management. One leaves app data
> transfer (encryption etc) to the browser platform, using existing mature
> sockets, channels, etc.
> Now we can start to really do secured restful services, because the SSL
> security layer is providing the crypto-session support in a manner that is
> tune up for that view of how to orchestrate the web. We are not  forced to
> keep retrofitting the https concept, conceived for a web generation now 10
> years out of date.


Many of us seeking RWW via WebID are certainly interested in these 
matters, and expressing interest via actual code and product 
contributions etc..

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xg-webid-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-webid-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Kingsley Idehen
> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 6:09 AM
> To: peter williams
> Cc: 'Melvin Carvalho'; public-xg-webid@w3.org
> Subject: Re: webid trust model, one or multiple?
> On 5/2/11 5:34 PM, peter williams wrote:
>> So where do we fit into the trust space?
>> Lets assume we are trying to fit into both legacy and future - which
>> the right balance. Assume we are not ultra-religious, about proper
> architecture.
>> Assume utility is most important.
>> We know even by openid 2's appearance, that the live journal notion
>> (openid
>> 1) had fallen by the wayside. The FOAF basis of openid 1 was even
>> further back in time, and even more irrelevant. The netscape practice
>> from 1996, before ldap era at Netscape, of having personal home pages
>> on http://netscape.com/~jeffw died a very, very long time ago.
>> We know that the core political agreement in openid space - between
>> openid and XRI - had two goals BOTH of which fell by the wayside post
> openid2.
>> First, the use of an XRI record as user-centric intermediary between
>> IDP(s) and consumer sites died. Second, also died the use of a
>> hierarchy of signed XRD files for multiple namespaces - which competed
>> with a hierarchy of signed RR files known as DNSsec (preferred by US
>> govt, and which ties to be fair into IPv6 and IPsec). The latter -- in
>> the XRI/XRD case - allowed for poly-archical relationship models -
>> competing with triples and RDF and Sparql (in many ways). The well
>> known war of URI vs XRI was actually a side-show.
>> Anyways, ALL of that stuff above has fallen by the wayside. None of it
>> has relevance. Henry was wrong to state in the paper that openid
>> requires a user to type a URI (whereas webid doesn't). Openid in
>> practice has not required typing URIs in years, and the number of
>> folks using that legacy mode is next to zero. This compares with a
>> billion Google users (using nascar-mode
>> openid2.) Microsoft's ACS bridge doesn't even bother enabling legacy
>> URI interoperability (so it wont talk to the wordpress IDPs, or at
>> least its hard to configure in the default admin UI).
>> Now, when I used to talk to John Bradley who is a fair minded
>> engineering with solid protocol, identity, and trust [framework]
>> ideas, I came away with the impression that he and the crew felt that
>> had tried as hard as anyone could, to deliver a user-centric world: as did
> the XRI folks, in support.
>> But, there was just no demand from the public. It was also 5-10 years
>> too early, tech-wise. AS we all know, sometimes a tweak makes all the
>> difference.
> Luck and timing open windows for tweaks.
> 5-10 years ago there was a clear sense of how data access by reference could
> go InterWeb scale via URIs. Personally, I am not convinced a majority of
> folks actually understand the implications of the URI abstraction in this
> regard. Misconception that a Syntactic lingua franca pegged to a specific
> format remains my acid test for the aforementioned confusion.
> Expanding what programmers have done for eons on local computers re.
> de-reference (indirection) and address-of operators is the key to solving
> the problem. Interchange formats are only loosely bound to this system with
> actual representation formats being negotiable. These solid principles
> reflected in the URI abstraction are the true ingenuity that belies the Web.
> The sooner folks understand this the better for everyone. Trouble is, folks
> have been discouraged from learning about pointers and linked data
> structures for many years; especially following initial failure of object
> oriented technology (languages, databases, and middleware e.g. CORBA) pre
> emergence of today's ubiquitous InterWeb.
>> This is why Im wary of three things we keep alluding to: HTML5 is some
>> special kind of winner (to compete with OAUTH), DANE/DNSsec suddently
>> does correctly what signed XRD did not (for SSL server certs
>> counter-signing, at least), users with browsers will be controlling
>> very trusted agents in the cloud - that then orchestrate multi-agent
>> flows (for such as the photo printing use case); and,  then, in a
>> world of poorly assured endpoints with self-asserted identifies, some
>> magical reputation service will evolve (Nasdaq), based on web caching
>> and triple crawling - doing facebook-style be-friending, be-liking, and
> be-dumping when you break a rule.
> There needs to be a model (mental and solution implementation) inversion. It
> might just be that Sony security breaches could help people ask the
> following questions when interacting with input capture forms presented by a
> Web Site:
> 1. Why should I ever need to type in my Credit Card Number?
> 2. Why should I ever need to give away my Mobile or Home telephone number?
> 3. Why should I ever need to give away my email address?
> 4. Why should I ever need to give away my Social Security Number?
> 5. Why should I ever need to give away my Passport Number?
> 6. Why should I ever need to give away my Birthday?
> 7. Why should I ever need to give away my Home Address?
> Security folks (those who truly understand the subject matter of
> privacy) have known for a long time that Data Access by Reference is the key
> here. It's also why WebID, once properly understood via its Linked Data
> (format agnostic via URIs) foundation, leads to a eureka moment.
> Basically, the revelation has more to do with the ability to build and
> exploit Linked Data Structures at InterWeb scales via de-reference
> (indirection) and address-of operator pattern exploitation.
>> Beyond an authorization logic for attributes and statements, Im
>> looking for our trust claim. As it stands, I see folks mixing topics.
>> Just believe, and it will come out in the wash. No it wont. It just
>> makes for crappy crypto, that no one with an auditor will adopt.
>> My gut tells me that we want a query server (ideally sparql) that can
>> simply compute trust chains - the sequence of foaf cards that link webid X
> and Y.
> Yes, but SPARQL is an implementation detail. You just want a service than
> can compute trust chains. Same with FOAF, its just an implementation detail.
>> That query service will itself be a webid-powered endpoint.
> Yes.
>> It holds the
>> cache of my reliances on foaf cards, and it computes my particular
>> closure (and yours, and Henries...).
> Yes.
>> Joe's and Kingsley's sparql services are close here. We just need the
>> queries, and the multi-tenancy.
> You just need the service published in our case :-)
>> Then we stop. We leave the rest of markets, for now.
> Yes!
>>    We let OTHERS add
>> criteria and compute metrics, that judge whether one closure is better
>> than another. One group that can do this is the federated social web
>> folks of course, "adding" value to webid. But, so can n other groups,
>> that focus on other criteria that the social web cares little about.
> And its the only way it can work. Disparity becomes the basis for additional
> security via domain specific rules and policy graphs. The metrics in the
> Accounts dept. cannot apply to the Marketing dept., for instance. What's
> good for Facebook cannot be good for LinkedIn or the rest of the world.
> The hard part seems to be fundamental acceptance that loose coupling is good
> :-)
> Kingsley
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-xg-webid-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-xg-webid-request@w3.org]
>> On Behalf Of Melvin Carvalho
>> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 11:18 AM
>> To: Peter Williams
>> Cc: Kingsley Idehen; public-xg-webid@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: webid trust model, one or multiple?
>> On 2 May 2011 19:10, Peter Williams<home_pw@msn.com>   wrote:
>>> But society thinks it has special rights to define the privacy space. Us
>> has decided that google et al should enforce it (whatever it is) on your
>> behalf. Those who consume websso profiles are governed by google,
> concerning
>> use and reuse.
>>> The single most important thing trust thing we have to address is ensure
>> multiple idps support your access to sites - and they do not know of each
>> others existence.
>> Yeah it's kind of a shame that hosting your own OpenID become less of a
>> focus.  In fact I think live journal who invented OpenID as a system to
>> federate ID probably dont have access to most OpenID relying parties these
>> days.
>> The idea of giving choice in trust, is hopefully similar to what blogs did
>> to traditional media.  Giving more choice to the end user in terms of who
>> they want to get their information from.
>> I think it's a sign of going mainstream when the president of the united
>> states recommended broadening your horizens by putting down a news paper
> and
>> reading some blogs from time to time.
>> It's hopeful that Identity, and WebID in particular, can help bring about
>> that kind of choice and put users more in control of how they use the Web.
>>> This (re) balances the power.
>>> This is where openid ultimately failed. Let's see how webid does.
>>> On May 2, 2011, at 5:31 AM, Kingsley Idehen<kidehen@openlinksw.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> On 5/2/11 7:44 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>>>> On 1 May 2011 20:37, peter williams<home_pw@msn.com>    wrote:
>>>>>> Is there one webid trust model, or are there to be multiple -
>>>>>> because the IX about standardizing "a framework" for trust
>>>>>> overlays? If it's a framework, I see value in using logical
>>>>>> description "enabling" trust metrics, generically. These can drive
>>>>>> link chain discovery, as usual. It's criteria based search.
>>>>>> Im trying to decide where to spend my time in the next three
>>>>>> months. There is no point me being involved in something I don't
>>>>>> believe will ever work (standardize a single trust metric). I might
>>>>>> as well get out the way, if this is the group's mission.
>>>>>> If it helps motivate the decision, a realworld user story of
>>>>>> handling macro-trust issues - at national scale - may be applicable.
>>>>>> There is just no way I can impose a trust metric on my very local,
>>>>>> de-centralized customer base - as they network using the social
>>>>>> web. They will quickly slap me down for even trying, let alone
>>>>>> agree with any given proposal. They SEEK local variance in trust
>>>>>> etc. It's what distinguishes their value, in the subtle "business
>>>>>> social networking" scene found in selling real-estate to migratory
>>>>>> populations, or as folks change lifestyle with age, income brackets,
>> etc.
>>>>>> The that scene, one sells trust in "gated communities" to one
>>>>>> person, and one sells "iron bars on the windows" to another. Some
>>>>>> communities measure trust in the absence of broken cars in the
>>>>>> street, or absence of side-walks in country streets; and the
>>>>>> realtor will project that value system. Trust, safety, confidence,
>>>>>> and assurance are all variant terms, that get bandied around.
>>>>>> Others communities have more divisive trust measures, often
>>>>>> obliquely stated or enforced. Somehow the independent realtor as
>>>>>> trusted agent has to mediate even these issues (which obviously
>> requires  ALOT of social finesse).
>>>>> I think this paper is an excellent model
>>>>> http://www.cdm.lcs.mit.edu/ftp/lmui/computational%20models%20of%20tr
>>>>> ust%20and%20reputation.pdf
>>>>> It basically says there's an element of trust that is subjective and
>>>>> an element that is observed
>>>>> Trust is per individual and per group
>>>>> Observed trust can be direct through interaction or observed, or
>>>>> indirect through reputation of a individual or group, either prior
>>>>> or propagated
>>>>> It's a relatively complex model, but then trust is a hard thing to
>>>>> model and can get very complex.
>>>>> One reason I'm excited about WebID is that it's possible (longer
>>>>> term) to model complex concepts such as trust as data and ontologies
>>>>> develop
>>>> When all is said an done, this is basically about the power of data
>> access by reference combined with logic based schemas. As I state
>> repeatedly, this is the "holy grail" for those who've grappled with these
>> matters long before the emergence of today's ubiquitous InterWeb.  It is
>> also why the real narrative has to be about how contemporary
> infrastructure
>> (InterWeb, URIs, and EAV) have emerged to solve some really old headaches.
>>>> OpenLink built and sold secure ODBC drivers to corporations (still does)
>> on the back of a trust graph based on data containers (files) hosting EAV
>> content using the old INI notation for graphs. It's how we were able sell
>> drivers that handled scenarios like departmental partitioning such that
>> payroll, pensions, 401K data etc. was protected via enterprise specific
>> rules i.e., we gave our customers the infrastructure to implement their
> own
>> rules etc..
>>>> Today, WebID enables us to deliver the same functionality via URIs, EAV
>> based Linked Data graphs (RDF and other formats), SPARQL, and user
> definable
>> trust models (ontologies).
>>>> Privacy (where vulnerability is calibrated by the vulnerable) is the
>> biggest problem on this planet today, due to InterWeb ubiquity. We now
> have
>> critical infrastructure in place for addressing this problem head-on.
>>>> --
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Kingsley Idehen
>>>> President&    CEO
>>>> OpenLink Software
>>>> Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>>>> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>>>> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen



Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2011 16:30:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:45 UTC