| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Philip Hallam-Baker | Jan 25, 2001 2:08 pm | .bin, .bin |
| Stephen Farrell | Jan 26, 2001 2:57 am | |
| Geor...@tivoli.com | Jan 26, 2001 8:42 am | |
| Stephen Farrell | Jan 26, 2001 9:11 am |
| Subject: | Re: Interim requirements II! | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Geor...@tivoli.com (Geor...@tivoli.com) | |
| Date: | Jan 26, 2001 8:42:27 am | |
| List: | org.oasis-open.lists.security-core | |
Stephen,
[R-ReAuth] Ability for server to signal that re-authenticaiton is required where you'd normally expect an authorization decision.
I didn't phrase that too well, but I guess folks'll recognize the issue.
Let me test your theory that folks will recognize the issue.
We discuss a requirement with our customers which may or may not be the same as this. We call it either "step-up authentication" or "authorization based on strength of authentication". The idea is that the authorization rules state that in order to be granted access to a resource, the requester must authenticate using a particular mechanism, which is normally viewed as "extra strong" or "strong enough for purposes of this specific access".
We also discuss another requirement which is at least related to this. I don't think we have a name for it, so I'll make one up: "verification of presence". This requirement says that in order to perform some action the requester must re-authenticate (perhaps using the same mechanism as initial authentication) in order to verify that he or she hasn't walked away and abandoned a session which has subsequently been "adopted" by somebody else. People familiar with ATM machine security will recognize this one.
Is either of these what you mean? Are both?
--bob
Bob Blakley Chief Scientist, Security Tivoli Systems, Inc.






.bin, .bin