Silo Sync vs. Service Sync

Aha!  More fodder for discussion:

…the identity information needs to be synchronized before the user performs his first authentication.

Why?   Why must identity information be synchronized before the user performs the first authentication?  If a new employee has been provisioned an account at an IdP,  why shouldn’t that person be able to arrive at a Relying Party, and at that time have the IdP advise the Relying Party that (1) the user is valid, and (2) the user should be provisioned into the system?     I don’t see why my example from earlier can’t work in reverse — you batch update your incoming staff updates, but if they attempt to access the system before the batch job is accomplished, the IdP bundles a specific real-time provisioning request into the authentication, and the user is set up and granted access.

To me, real-time back-end data synchronization is needed between silos.  Once you have a single Identity authority with a reach across administrative domains, and once you are doing more than testing possession of a shared secret, you have alternatives.  Perhaps not in every case – but in some cases, perhaps many cases.  Imaginative exploration of these new usage models are what makes this technology so much fun!

2 Responses to “Silo Sync vs. Service Sync”

  1. Leon says:

    The whole thing about federated identity: one should keep ‘context’ in mind. The user *doesn’t authenticate* to the relaying party. The relying party get’s proof of ‘authenticated identity’. So in the context of the relying party there really never is a “first authentication”.

    With that in mind your example works well. And is, afaik, in accordance with european privacy law.

  2. bradturner32 says:

    Speaking from the view of one who deals with the replication of information between silo’s I couldn’t agree more. This is a legacy way of thinking based on current AuthN processes. There is no reason why the concept of AuthN/AuthZ will not/should not evolve such that valid identities are synchronized or provisioned on demand. However, this does bring up the subject of abuse as it would potentially expose a new attack surface if the appropriate controls are not in place. If I have the ability to flood the request channel with bad AuthN requests then I could compromise the channel between the RP and the IdP as the RP faithfully attempts to check for object that require on demand provisioning.