1 / 17

ESPRESSO (Establishing suggested practices regarding Single sign on) Update

ESPRESSO (Establishing suggested practices regarding Single sign on) Update. Heather Ruland Staines Society for Scholarly Publishing , June 2011. ESPReSSO Timeline.

lexiss
Télécharger la présentation

ESPRESSO (Establishing suggested practices regarding Single sign on) Update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ESPRESSO (Establishing suggested practices regarding Single sign on) Update Heather Ruland Staines Society for Scholarly Publishing, June2011

  2. ESPReSSO Timeline • In 2009, NISO launched a new Chair's Initiative—a project of the chair of NISO’s Board of Directors, focusing on perfecting a seamless, item-level linking through single sign-on authentication technologies in a networked information environment. • Fall 2009: Working Group meetings begin. • 2010: Sub-groups meet. Feeback collected from publishers. • May 24, 2011: Draft posted for 30 day public comment. (Comments close on June 22) • Late Summer 2011 (target): Publication of Suggested Practice

  3. The Challenges Authentication has become complex for several reasons: • Users now have more options as to how and where to enter a publisher’s site. This makes a consistent, coherent user experience more difficult. • Users may experience multiple authentication mechanisms. The user’s physical location could affect the browser flows and authentication mechanisms they see. Within the publisher site, the user might navigate from a public page to a protected page, triggering authentication. • Publishers must present and support multiple authentication mechanisms, necessitating a usable authentication GUI interface that combines multiple methods and that can be used successfully by people with a low familiarity with technical concepts. • Campuses have deployed various approaches to authentication, some requiring users to be able to use, handle, and manipulate proxy-prefixed URLs that are incomprehensible to the average person.

  4. Goal of the Recommendations: • The recommendations specifically address: • typical browser flows • the sequence of pages presented to users • page layout, what information to include in each of those pages • consistent GUI elements • additional features and functionality to provide users with added value. • Provide users with a consistent experience across a multitude of sites and situations. • Reduce user confusion and aborted sessions during the discovery/login process by using a consistent set of visual elements • Be straightforward and easy to implement for both IDP and SP sites.

  5. The Team

  6. What have we accomplished?

  7. Accomplishments • Agreement to include research and recommendations from other working groups such as: • REFEDS • Kantara • JISC • The Shibboleth Group

  8. Accomplishments • Include input from publishers and providers: • Springer (MetaPress) • Elsevier • Nature Publishing Group • Wiley • Oxford University Press • Cambridge University Press • IEEE • AIP • Ithaka/JSTOR • EBSCO • H.W. Wilson • Semantico • High Wire • IOP

  9. Deliverable 1 • Standardizing terminology • Use cases describing the ways in which a browser would arrive at a Service Provider, traverse a Discovery process, and arrive at a specific login. (library home page, federated searches, Open Web, also deep linking between documents and results either via OpenURL/link resolvers, or Crossref) • Develop a standard vocabulary of technical, business and policy-related terms used by Web SSO and Federated Authentication products. • Develop a set of “best practice” recommendations for the relationships between customers, licensing bodies, federations, and service providers.

  10. Deliverable 2 • Standardizing user interface presentation for user authentication • Identify a preferred location for login • Recommend to Service Providers a standard approach for guiding the user to the desired authentication method • Standardized GUI flows • Easy identification of home site • Guidelines to address the proliferation of Shibboleth Federations • Where branding can be displayed • Develop standardized approaches for handling automatic login when the url presented at the SP identifies the user’s preferred authentication method and/or  authentication provider. • Develop a consistent approach/link syntax for campus-based software to present a deep link to a Service Provider which will trigger an automatic login process that bypasses the Discovery process.

  11. Deliverable 3 • Identify approaches that allow Federated Search technologies and portals to leverage existing Web SSO authentication sessions of a user when contacting backend Service Provider sites. • Work with those package mechanisms that currently support “delegated authentication”. • Ensure that Service Providers have access to the documentation they need to support this feature.

  12. Deliverable 4 • Provide plans for the promotion and adoption of these Recommended Practices to make the access improvements a reality • 1.    Marketing plan • 2.    Business case/justification will be developed as part of the marketing plan. 

  13. Recommendations for Service Providers (SPs), Licensee Organizations (LO), and Identity Providers (IdPs) • SPs continue to support multiple authentication options during this time of transition. • SPs and LOs move quickly to reduce reliance on IP-based access control. There are many security issues with this approach and it is no longer adequate in today’s rapidly ubiquitous computing environment. • SPs and LOs move quickly to deprecate userids/passwords validated at the service provider site. • SPs and LOs move quickly to implement and use standards-based federated authentication.

  14. Recommendations for Service Providers (SPs), Licensee Organizations (LO), and Identity Providers (IdPs) (con’t) • SPs adopt standard placement/wording of the login link on all the public pages on their site. • SPs present a standard approach (discovery) for guiding the user to the desired authentication method. • IdPs create a consistent experience as the user moves from SP to IdP to SP. • SP and IdP web designers insert branding at appropriate places in the flow to provide visual feedback that the flow is progressing as expected. • SPs offer a single url point of access for IP authentication and Federated Login.

  15. Example of SP recommendations:

  16. Example of IdP Recommendations:

  17. Questions and More Information • SSO website: www.niso.org/workrooms/sso • SSO Interest Group list: www.niso.org/lists/ssoinfo • SSO Charge: www.niso.org/workrooms/sso/charge • Heather Staines • Heather.Staines@springer.com

More Related