On 2010-06-08, at 1:36 PM, SitG Admin wrote:

> Condensed:
> 
>> l)      The protocol should facilitate multiple identity providers to be 
>> used to satisfy a relying party's requirements.  Two common examples are i) 
>> when one identity provider handles the authentication event and another 
>> identity provider supplies identity attributes; and ii) when one identity 
>> provider handles the authentication event and some identity attributes, and 
>> another identity provider supplies additional identity attributes.  In these 
>> cases, context and attributes need to be passed from one identity provider 
>> to another.
> 
> To suggest a different case, and a less common example: MultiAuth (see David 
> Fuelling's work on this) can be used to store identity attributes *such that 
> neither Provider knows the user's identity attributes*. In this case, only 
> the Relying Party would be able to combine these pieces to see the user's 
> protected data; the independent identity providers, it is assumed, would not 
> cooperate with each other. (If this is a concern, more providers can be 
> added, with the user's data protected if even a single party does not 
> cooperate in the attack.)
> 
> The underlying math made simple: you (a user), wishing to secretly present 
> the number 7 to your Relying Party, store "2" with one provider and "5" with 
> another. The equation is "x+y=secret", but only your RP can calculate the 
> secret; either provider, on its own, has no idea what the other number might 
> be. Now, for the real world, use extremely high numbers (hundreds of digits) 
> so they are harder to guess, and "XOR" (effectively allowing for subtraction 
> without using negative signs) instead of straight addition. Two sets of 
> meaningless data, neither intrinsically related to the secret data, but when 
> combined they reproduce the original secret.

I think the use case from Patricia is different. To access a particular 
resource, the user might need to be over 21 and a BC resident -- assuming that 
two different authorities are required to make these claims -- this requires 
claims from more than one IdP / OP.

-- Dick

_______________________________________________
specs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs

Reply via email to