-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Define Behaviour for Multiple OpenId issuers for a WebID #63
Comments
If we go with requiring User's IdP to also act as User associated Authorization Server it may mean that in practice User would need to choose one. Otherwise Which AS would stay responsible for managing user authorizations for which client? |
for each interaction. What happens if you set up an account based on an ID from IdP A, which lists IdP A+B+C, using IdP B as initial AS, and then IdP goes down, temporarily or permanently? Should you be unable to get authorization based on authentication with IdP A or C? |
The user's ID is not on the IDP, the webID would be something completely separate, so if the WebID goes down, then that's a whole different problem. But in short, no, if your WebID goes down you should not be able to get authorization based on any IDP. |
I think if someone would use multiple Authorization Server, that User most likely will pick one AS for any given Client (app). I guess app doing discovery before asking User for authorization it could ask which AS that User wants to use with that app.
Yes, we don't make any assumption about where User publishes one's WebID Profile. |
Side-notes that:
|
I think one should be able to enter one's own WebID in the app and let it discover all the rest. Also one could do DDOS attack directly on WebID, especially that many deployments may choose to run storage server and identity provider together. |
There are use cases for both; some might want to enter their IDP, some their WebID. For usability arguments (which are important), neither is probably optimal. Browser autocompletion seems like a good direction. |
Hmm, I'm not sure. That triple is specifically for OIDC provider semantics. (Maybe we can have rdfs or owl subclass or whatever, so that one can infer that it's a subset of "trusted identity provider"?)
Oooooh interesting! That's a really great question. (I've opened an issue about this on the DID Spec repo, since it might be of interest to the DID community as well.) |
I think wording based around "Statement matching triple |
As stated above, this current Solid-OIDC specification draft answers this question: https://solid.github.io/authentication-panel/solid-oidc/#resource-access-validation |
As a reference to this issue: nodeSolidServer/node-solid-server#1266
Currently, the Solid spec does not explicitly define behaviour for a user who's WebID lists multiple OpenID issuers. The normative spec should indicate that when dereferencing a WebID's issuers a server must not reject a token if any of the issuers match the issuer in the token.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: