Andras Cser probed a sore spot in IAM last week with his post, “XACML Is Dead.” It’s a necessary conversation (though I did see a glint in his eye at the Forrester BT Forum after he pressed Publish!). Our Q3 2012 Identity Standards TechRadar showed that XACML has already crested the peak of its moderate success trajectory, heading for decline. We haven’t seen its business value-add or ecosystem grow since then, despite the publication of XACML 3.0 and a few other bright spots, such as Axiomatics’ recent funding round.
It’s not that we don’t need an interoperable solution for finer-grained access control. But the world’s demands for loosely coupled identity and access systems have gotten...well, more demanding. The solution needs to be friendly to open web API security and management. It needs to be friendly to mobile developers. And it most certainly needs to be prepared to tackle the hard parts of integrating authorization with truly heterogeneous cloud services and applications, where business partners aren’t just enterprise clones, but may be tiny and resource-strapped. This admittedly gets into business rather than technical challenges, but every ounce of technical friction makes success in the business realm less likely.
Protocol gut check. That's how someone recently described some research I've got under way for a report we're calling the "TechRadar™ for Security Pros: Zero Trust Identity Standards," wherein we'll assess the business value-add of more than a dozen identity-related standards and open protocols. But it's also a great name for an episode of angst that recently hit the IAM blogging world, beginning with Eran Hammer's public declaration that OAuth 2.0 -- for which he served as a spec editor -- is "bad."
As you might imagine, our TechRadar examination will include OAuth; I take a lot of inquiries and briefings in which it figures prominently, and I've been bullish on it for a long time. In this post, I'd like to share some thoughts on this episode with respect to OAuth 2.0's value to security and risk pros. As always, if you have further thoughts, please share them with me in the comments or on Twitter.
Cloud providers and many federated IAM practitioners are excited about OAuth, a new(ish) security technology on the scene. I’ve written about OAuth in Protecting Enterprise APIs With A Light Touch. The cheat-sheet list I keep of major OAuth product support announcements already includes items from Apigee, Covisint, Google, IBM, Layer 7, Microsoft, Ping Identity, and salesforce.com. (Did I miss yours? Let me know.)
OAuth specializes in securing API/web service access by a uniquely identified client app on behalf of a uniquely identified user. It has flows for letting the user explicitly consent to (authorize) this connection, but generally relies on authorizing the actions of the calling application itself through simple authentication. So does the auth part of the name stand for authentication, authorization, or what? Let’s go with “all of the above.”
However, OAuth is merely plumbing of a sort similar to the WS-Security standard (or, for that matter, HTTP Basic Authentication). It doesn’t solve every auth* problem known to humankind, not by a long shot. What other IAM solutions are popping up in the API-economy universe? Two standards communities are building solutions on top of OAuth to round out the picture: