Skip to main content

Open Authorization, Permissions, and Socially Enabled Security

The session I proposed at Mashup Camp, Open Authentication and Authorization for Mashups, went pretty well (though I should have done more marketing).   Unfortunately none of the people on the OAuth group were at Mashup Camp, but perhaps we generated some more interest and use cases for it.

Consider a user navigating web services and granting various levels of permissions to mash-ups; a mash-up might request the right to read someone's location and write to their Twitter stream, for example.  The first time this happens, the user would be asked something like this:

The TwiLoc service is asking to do the following on an ongoing basis:
- Read your current location from AIM, and
- Create messages on your behalf in Twitter.
How does this sound?
[ ] No [ ] Yes [ ] Yes, but only for today

The user would also have a way to see what permissions they've granted, how often they've been used (ideally), and be able to revoke them at any time.

Now, of course, users will just click through and say "Yes" most of the time on these.  But there's a twist; since you're essentially mapping out a graph of web services, requested operations, granted permissions, usage, and revocations, you start to build up a fairly detailed picture of what services are out there and what precisely they're doing.  You also find out what services people trust.  Throw out the people who always click "yes" to everything, and you could even start to get some useful data.

You can also combine with social networks.  What if you could say, "by default, trust whatever my buddy Pete trusts"?  Or, "trust the consensus of my set of friends; only ask me if there's disagreement"?  Or more prosaically, "trust what my local IT department says". 

Popular posts from this blog

Personal Web Discovery (aka Webfinger)

There's a particular discovery problem for open and distributed protocols such as OpenID, OAuth, Portable Contacts, Activity Streams, and OpenSocial.  It seems like a trivial problem, but it's one of the stumbling blocks that slows mass adoption.  We need to fix it.  So first, I'm going to name it:

The Personal Web Discovery Problem:  Given a person, how do I find out what services that person uses?
This does sound trivial, doesn't it?  And it is easy as long as you're service-centric; if you're building on top of social network X, there is no discovery problem, or at least only a trivial one that can be solved with proprietary APIs.  But what if you want to build on top of X,Y, and Z?  Well, you write code to make the user log in to each one so you can call those proprietary APIs... which means the user has to tell you their identity (and probably password) on each one... and the user has already clicked the Back button because this is complicated and annoying.

XAuth is a Lot Like Democracy

XAuth is a lot like democracy:  The worst form of user identity prefs, except for all those others that have been tried (apologies to Churchill).  I've just read Eran's rather overblown "XAuth - a Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Idea", and I see that the same objections are being tossed around; I'm going to rebut them here to save time in the future.

Let's take this from the top.  XAuth is a proposal to let browsers remember that sites have registered themselves as a user's identity provider and let other sites know if the user has a session at that site.  In other words, it has the same information as proprietary solutions that already exist, except that it works across multiple identity providers.  It means that when you go to a new website, it doesn't have to ask you what your preferred services are, it can just look them up.  Note that this only tells the site that you have an account with Google or Yahoo or Facebook or Twitter, not what the…
Twister is interesting.  It's a decentralized "microblogging" system based on putting together existing protocols:  Bitcoin, distributed hash tables, and Bittorrent.  The most interesting part for me is using Bitcoin for user registration and spam control.  Federated systems handle this with federated trust, which is at least conceptually simple.  The Twister/Bitcoin mechanism looks intriguing though I don't know enough about Bitcoin to really comment.  Need to read further.