Changes between Version 142 and Version 143 of Internal/Rbac/OrbitRbacDesign

Timestamp:

Sep 20, 2006, 4:15:26 PM (18 years ago)

Author:

hedinger

Comment:

—

Internal/Rbac/OrbitRbacDesign

@@ -6 +6 @@
 In  [[http://orbit-lab.org/attachment/wiki/Internal/Rbac/RbacResources/i01-kluwer01-jpark.pdf PAS01]] Park, Ahn and Sandhu write "Park and Sandhu identify and describe two different approaches for obtaining a user's attributes on the Web: user-pull and server-pull architectures [[http://orbit-lab.org/attachment/wiki/Internal/Rbac/RbacResources/smart-certificates-extending-x-1.pdf PS99b]] .  They classify these architectures based on "Who pulls the user's attributes?"  In the user-pull architecture, the user pulls her attributes from the attribute server then presents them to the Web servers, which use those attributes for their purposes.  In the server-pull architecture, each Web server pulls user's attributes from the attribute server as needed and uses them for its purposes."  LDAP may be used in either approach [[http://orbit-lab.org/attachment/wiki/Internal/Rbac/RbacResources/i01-kluwer01-jpark.pdf PAS01]].
 
-It seems to be a good idea to pursue the server-pull architecture because of temporal constraints and to avoid certificate revocation issues.
-
-This design assumes that user authentication will be handled separately and will be reliable.  It also assumes that ORBIT users will protect their passwords and not intentionally loan them to others.  These two assumptions allow a person to be related to a user id.
-
-It is assumed that access control will not interact with scheduling that is currently based on users not projects.
-
-It is assumed that access control will not need to interact with cost accounting.  It is assumed that any denial of access to overdrawn users will be enforced by user authentication.  If it is required to enforce project-level denial of access due to cost considerations it might be possible to enforce it when an already authorized user attempts to select that project or when he or she accesses an object with a cost associated with it.
+It seems to be a good idea to choose the server-pull architecture because of temporal constraints and to avoid certificate revocation issues.
 
 Does hierarchical RBAC solve the seeming need to have per-project instances of each role for per-project resources like its results files?