A Survey on Federated Identity Management Systems Limitation and Solutions

Abstract

An efficient identity management system has become one of the fundamental requirements for ensuring safe, secure, and transparent use of identifiable information and attributes. Federated Identity Management (FIdM) allows users to distribute their identity information across security domains which increases the portability of their digital identities, and it is considered a promising approach to facilitate secure resource sharing among collaborating participants in heterogeneous IT environments. However, it also raises new architectural challenges and significant security and privacy issues that need to be mitigated. In this paper, we provide a comparison between FIdM architectures, presented the limitations and risks in FIdM system, and discuss the results and proposed solutions.

Evaluasi Penerapan Single Sign-on Saml Dan Oauth 2.0: Studi Pada Perguruan Tinggi Yogyakarta

“…Dengan semakin banyaknya aplikasi dan sumber daya yang tersedia untuk pengajar, staf, dan mahasiswa, penyediaan akses yang seamless menjadi semakin penting. Single Sign-On (SSO) dapat menjadi salah satu solusi untuk mengintegrasikan sistem yang dimiliki perguruan tinggi [3]. SSO menyediakan tempat terpusat untuk mengakses semua aplikasi dan sumber daya dengan satu username dan password.…”

A comparative cyber risk analysis between federated and self-sovereign identity management systems

“…According to Aldosary and Norah (2021), the four main FIDM components include: A user is a person who acquires a specific digital identity to interact with some services. The user agent or user interface is a software application or browser that allows users to interact with the services they require. The service provider (SP) site is an entity that offloads authentication to a third party. SP can also be called relying party (RP) as it relies on external identity authorization entities (i.e., IdP) to decide access to its services. The identity provider (IdP) is an entity that identifies users that later enables SPs to authorize user accesses based on their identities. …”

“…Simpson (2016) conducted a systematic FIDM security analysis survey, which categorizes security incidents that occur in FIM protocols to specify the FIDM problem landscape. Aldosary and Norah (2021) provided a comparison between FIdM architectures such as liberty alliance, security assertion markup language SAML v2.0, WS-Federation, Shibboleth, and so forth to summarize the FIDM limitations based on how it affects the user. In Simpson (2016), the author not only reviews a comprehensive attack surface of attacks in FIDM, but also models the escalation of attacks, that is, how attacks on one stakeholder can cause possible attacks on other stakeholders.…”