Third-Party Identity Management Usage on the Web
Many websites utilize third-party identity management services to simplify access to their services. Given the privacy and security implications for end users, an important question is how websites select their third-party identity providers and how this impacts the characteristics of the emerging identity management landscape seen by the users. In this paper we first present a novel Selenium-based data collection methodology that identifies and captures the identity management relationships between sites and the intrinsic characteristics of the websites that form these relationships. Second, we present the first large-scale characterization of the third-party identity management landscape and the relationships that makes up this emerging landscape. As a reference point, we compare and contrast our observations with the somewhat more understood third-party content provider landscape. Interesting findings include a much higher skew towards websites selecting popular identity provider sites than is observed among content providers, with sites being more likely to form identity management relationships that have similar cultural, geographic, and general site focus. These findings are both positive and negative. For example, the high skew in usage places greater responsibility on fewer organizations that are responsible for the increased information leakage cost associated with highly aggregated personal information, but also reduces the user’s control of the access to this information.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Armando, A., Carbone, R., Compagna, L., Cuellar, J., Pellegrino, G., Sorniotti, A.: From multiple credentials to browser-based single sign-on: Are we more secure? In: Camenisch, J., Fischer-Hübner, S., Murayama, Y., Portmann, A., Rieder, C. (eds.) SEC 2011. IFIP AICT, vol. 354, pp. 68–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Bonneau, J., Herley, C., van Oorschot, P.C., Stajano, F.: The quest to replace passwords: A framework for comparative evaluation of web authentication schemes. In: Proc. IEEE Symposium on S&P (May 2012)Google Scholar
- 3.Chari, S., Jutla, C., Roy, A.: Universally composable security analysis of oauth v2.0. Technical report, Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2011/526 (2011)Google Scholar
- 5.Gill, P., Arlitt, M., Carlsson, N., Mahanti, A., Williamson, C.: Characterizing organizational use of web-based services: Methodology, challenges, observations, and insights. ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB) 5(4), 19:1–19:23 (2011)Google Scholar
- 6.Lodderstedt, T., McGloin, M., Hunt, P.: Oauth 2.0 threat model and security considerations. Internet-Draft, IETF (October 2011)Google Scholar
- 7.Miculan, M., Urban, C.: Formal analysis of facebook connect single sign-on authentication protocol. In: Proc. SOFSEM (January 2011)Google Scholar
- 8.Pai, S., Sharma, Y., Kumar, S., Pai, R.M., Singh, S.: Formal verification of oauth 2.0 using alloy framework. In: Proc. CSNT (June 2011)Google Scholar
- 10.Sun, S.-T., Beznosov, K.: The devil is in the (implementation) details: an empirical analysis of oauth sso systems. In: Proc. ACM CCS (October 2012)Google Scholar
- 11.Sun, S.-T., Boshmaf, Y., Hawkey, K., Beznosov, K.: A billion keys, but few locks: The crisis of web single sign-on. In: Proc. NSPW (September 2010)Google Scholar
- 13.Wang, R., Chen, S., Wang, X.: Signing me onto your accounts through facebook and google: a traffic-guided security study of commercially deployed single-sign-on web services. In: Proc. IEEE Symposium on S&P (May 2012)Google Scholar