Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8117459B2/en
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 06:52:06+00:00

Document:
A digital identity system includes a principal including an identity selector programmed to receive a security policy from a relying party, review a plurality of digital identities associated with the principal, and request one or more claims related to an identity of the principal from an identity provider. The principal is further programmed to receive one or more security tokens including the claims from the identity provider, and to forward the security tokens to the relying party.
This application is a continuation-in-part of a U.S. patent application entitled, “IDENTITY PROVIDERS IN DIGITAL IDENTITY SYSTEM,” Ser. No. 11/361,281 by inventors Cameron et al., and filed Feb. 24, 2006 and is hereby incorporated by reference.
Identity is an important component enabling interactions in everyday life. For example, an individual's credit card enables merchants to identify and allow the individual to purchase products and services on credit. The same is true in the digital world, where digital identities enable digital interactions. For example, digital identities can be used to authenticate parties to each other in the digital environment. Knowing with whom one is interacting is an important element in deciding whether or not to trust and provide information to a party.
An entity can use a digital identity to authenticate a party's identity or other personal information about the party. A digital identity can be issued by another entity, such as a trusted third party, and can include information about the party. Examples of such information include the party's name, address, social security number, age, telephone number, etc. A party can have multiple digital identities issued by one or more other entities, similar to that of an individual having a driver's license, a credit card, and a frequent flyer card.
In the online environment, a third party, such as an online service, can require that a party authenticate its identity before the third party allows the party to access goods or services. In order to authenticate its identity, the party can forward to the third party a digital identity in the form of a security token issued by another entity trusted by the third party. Once authentication is complete, the third party can provide access to the goods or services requested by the party.
In typical systems, it is necessary for the party to manually collect all of the security tokens required by the third party and then provide the information to the third party for authentication. In many cases, the party has little or no ability to control the contents of a security token issued by another entity. When the party shares a security token with a third party during authentication of the party's identity, the party's privacy can become a concern. For example, the party can unknowingly share personal information in the security token with the third party that the party does not need to share for authentication. In addition, the party can unknowingly provide personal information that the party does not want to share with the third party (e.g., social security number, telephone number, etc.).
One aspect relates to a digital identity system including a principal and an identity selector programmed to receive a security policy from a relying party, review a plurality of digital identities associated with the principal, and request one or more claims related to an identity of the principal from an identity provider. The principal is further programmed to receive one or more security tokens including the claims from the identity provider, and to forward the security tokens to the relying party.
Another aspect relates to method for providing a digital identity, the method including: receiving a request for one or more claims related to an identity of a principal; providing the claims; transforming the claims; and generating a security token including the claims.
Another aspect relates to a computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions for performing steps including: receiving a request for one or more claims related to an identity of a principal; providing the claims; transforming the claims; and generating a security token including the claims.
FIG. 14 illustrates an exemplary method for providing a digital identity data structure, such as the digital identity data structure of FIG. 10.
Example embodiments will now be described more fully hereinafter with reference to the accompanying drawings. These embodiments are provided so that this disclosure will be thorough and complete. Like numbers refer to like elements throughout.
Example embodiments disclosed herein relate generally to digital identity systems including digital identities that can be exchanged between a first party and a second party to authenticate an identity and/or information related to the first party. In example embodiments herein, the first party can be an individual, a company, an organization, a computer or other device, a service, or any other type of entity. The first party is referred to herein as the principal. In example embodiments, the second party can be an individual, a company, an organization, a computer or other device, a service, or any other type of entity. The second party has goods, services, or other information that the principal desires to access and/or obtain. The second party is referred to herein as the relying party.
transformation—the ability to translate claims between technologies and semantically.
One or more of these attributes can be found in the digital identity systems described below.
Referring now to FIG. 1, an example digital identity system 100 is shown including a principal 110 and a relying party 120. Principal 110 and relying party 120 can communicate with each other over one or more networks, such as the Internet 112. In example embodiments, principal 110 can request goods, services, or other information from relying party 120. Relying party 120 can require authentication of the identity of or information about principal 110 before or in conjunction with providing the requested goods, services, or information to principal 110.
Also shown in FIG. 1 is an example identity provider 115 including a claims transformer 130 and a claims authority 140. The claims transformer 130 is sometimes referred to as a “security token service.” In the example shown, identity provider 115 can provide one or more claims about principal 110. A claim is a statement or assertion made about the principal related to the principal's identity or information about the principal such as, for example, name, address, social security number, age, etc. As described further below, identity provider 115 can provide claims to principal 110 and/or relying party 120 in the form of a signed security token. In example embodiments, identity provider 115 is in a trusted relationship with relying party 120, so that relying party 120 trusts the claims in the signed security token from identity provider 115.
Although claims transformer 130 and claims authority 140 of identity provider 115 are shown as separate entities in FIG. 1, in alternative embodiments claims transformer 130 and claims authority 140 can be the same entity or different entities.
In example embodiments disclosed herein, system 100 is implemented as an InfoCard system provided in the WINDOWS operating system developed by MICROSOFT Corporation of Redmond, Wash. The InfoCard system allows principals to manage multiple digital identities from various identity providers.
The InfoCard system utilizes a web services platform such as the Windows Communication Foundation in the WINFX application programming interface. In addition, the InfoCard system is built using the Web Services Security Specifications propagated at least in part by MICROSOFT Corporation of Redmond, Wash. These specifications include a message security model WS-Security, an endpoint policy WS-SecurityPolicy, a metadata protocol WS-MetadataExchange, and a trust model WS-Trust. Generally, the WS-Security model describes how to attach security tokens to messages. The WS-SecurityPolicy model describes end point policy requirements, such as required security tokens and supported encryption algorithms. Such policy requirements can be conveyed and negotiated using a metadata protocol defined by WS-MetadataExchange. The WS-Trust model describes a framework for trust models that enables different web services to interoperate.
Example embodiments described herein refer to the Web Services Security Specifications described above. In alternative embodiments, one or more other specifications can be used to facilitate communications between the various subsystems in system 100.
In example embodiments, principal 110, relying party 120, and identity provider 115 can each utilize one or more a computer systems. Each computer system includes one or more of volatile and non-volatile computer readable media. Computer readable media includes storage media, as well as removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information such as computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data. The computer system also includes communication media that typically embodies computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data in a modulated data signal such as a carrier wave or other transport mechanism and includes any information delivery media. Communication media includes wired media such as a wired network or direct-wired connection, and wireless media such as acoustic, RF, infrared and other wireless media. Combinations of any of the above should also be included within the scope of computer readable media.
The computer system includes an operating system, such as the WINDOWS operating system from MICROSOFT Corporation, and one or more programs stored on the computer readable media. The computer system also includes one or more input and output communications devices that allow the user to communicate with the computer system, as well as allow the computer system to communicate with other devices. Communications between the computer systems used by principal 110, relying party 120, and identity provider 115 can be implemented using wired and/or wireless technologies.
Referring now to FIG. 2, example principal 110 and relying party 120 are again shown. In the example shown, principal 110 sends a request to relying party 120 for goods, services, or other information. For example, in one embodiment, principal 110 sends a request to relying party 120 for access to information from relying part 120 that principal 110 desires.
The request sent by principal 110 can include a request for the authentication requirements of relying party 120 using, for example, the mechanisms provided in WS-MetadataExchange. In response to the request, relying party 120 sends principal 110 requirements for relying party 120 to authenticate its identity or other information about principal 110. The requirements of relying party 120 for authentication are referred to herein as a security policy. The security policy defines the set of claims from a trusted identity provider that the principal 110 must provide to relying party 120 for relying party 120 to authenticate principal 110.
In one example, relying party 120 specifies its security policy using WS-SecurityPolicy, including both the claim requirements and type of security token required by relying party 120. A basic form for a security policy in accordance with WS-SecurityPolicy is illustrated in the example below.
Private Personal Identifier—indicates a private identifier that identifies the subject to a relying party.
The security policy can also be used to specify the type of security token required by relying party 120, or a default type can be used as determined by the identity provider. For example, the above-noted policy specifies a certain type of security token that is required by relying party 120 (see the “wst:TokenType” element).
In addition to specifying the required claims and token type, the security policy can specify a specific identity provider required by the relying party (see the “sp:Issuer” element), as shown below.
The policy can omit this element, leaving the determination of the appropriate identity provider up to principal 110. Other elements can be specified in the security policy as well such as, for example, the freshness of the required security token.
In some embodiments, principal 110 can require that relying party 120 identify itself to principal 110 so that principal 110 can decide whether or not to satisfy the security policy of relying party 120, as described below. In one example, relying party 120 identifies itself using an X509 certificate. In other embodiments, relying party 120 can identify itself using other mechanisms such as, for example, a Secure Sockets Layer (“SSL”) server certificate.
Referring now to FIG. 3, an example computer system 300 of principal 110 includes one or more digital identities 310 for principal 110. These digital identities 310 (sometimes referred to as “InfoCards” in the InfoCard system provided in the WINDOWS operating system developed by MICROSOFT Corporation of Redmond, Wash.) are artifacts that represent the token issuance relationship between principal 110 and a particular identity provider, such as identity provider 115. In the examples shown, each digital identity 310 corresponds to a particular identity provider, and principal 110 can have multiple digital identities 310 from the same or different identity providers.
Digital identities 310 can include, among other information, the identity provider's issuance policy for security tokens, including the type of tokens that can be issued, the claim types for which it has authority, and/or the credentials to use for authentication when requesting security tokens. In example embodiments, digital identities 310 are represented as XML documents that are issued by identity providers 115 and stored by principals 110 on a storage device such as computer system 300. An example format for a digital identity 310 is provided below.
/ic:InfoCard/ic:CardPolicy/ic:RequireAppliesTo—this optional empty element indicates that the service requester (InfoCard system) must submit the relying party identity to the identity provider.
An example digital identity is provided below.
In the example above, the digital identity is issued by “XYZ Identity Provider,” and the digital identity states that XYZ Identity Provider supports the Security Assertion Markup Language (“SAML”) token type (“SupportedTokenTypes” element) provided in accordance with the SAML standard promulgated by the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (“OASIS”). In addition, the digital identity states that XYZ Identity Provider can provide two claims (“SupportedClaims” element—including “givenname” and “surname”), requires the relying party's identity be included in the token request (“RequireAppliesTo” element), and requires authentication based on username/password when requesting security tokens (“UserNamePasswordAuthenticate” element).
Digital identities 310 can be issued to principal 110 using a variety of methods. For example, in some embodiments, principal 110 can request a digital identity 310 over a hypertext transfer protocol connection, or digital identities 310 can be emailed from identity provider 115 to principal 110. In example embodiments, identity provider 115 signs each digital identity 310 sent to principal 110 so that principal 110 can verify that the digital identity 310 is from identity provider 115.
Computer system 300 also includes an identity selector 320. Generally, identity selector 320 selects between one or more digital identities 310 of principal 110 on computer system 300 to request and obtain security tokens from one or more identity providers, such as identity provider 115. For example, as described further below, when a security policy from relying party 120 is received by computer 300, identity selector 320 is programmed to identify one or more digital identities 310 that satisfy one or more of the claims required by the security policy using the information in digital identities 310. In one embodiment, identity selector 320 presents the one or more relevant digital identities 310 to principal 110, and principal 110 can decide whether or not to use digital identities 310.
Referring now to FIG. 4, once principal 110 receives the security policy from relying party 120, principal 110 can communicate with (using, for example, computer 300) one or more identity providers to gather the claims required by the policy. In the example shown, principal 110 communicates the requirements of the security policy to identity provider 115.
In example embodiments, principal 110 requests one or more security tokens from identity provider 115 using the issuance mechanism described in WS-Trust. In one example, principal 110 forwards the claim requirements in the policy of relying party 120 to identity provider 115. The identity of relying party 120 can, but need not, be specified in the request sent by principal 110 to identity provider 115 (see the “RequireAppliesTo” element in the example digital identity described above). The request can include other requirements as well, such as a request for a display token, as described further below.
An example of a request for a security token is provided below.
In another example below, instead of requesting specific claims from identity provider 115, principal 110 can simply provide a reference to one of its digital identities 310 issued by identity provider 115 in its request.
In example embodiments, identity provider 115 has its own security policy as specified in WS-SecurityPolicy and can require authentication of principal 110 before identity provider 115 forwards a security token to principal 110.
Generally, claims authority 140 of identity provider 115 can provide one or more of the claims required by the policy from relying party 120. For example, claims authority 140 is programmed to generate one or more claims request by principal 110. Claims transformer 130 of identity provider 115 is programmed to transform the claims and to generate one or more signed security tokens 150 that include the claims.
In example embodiments, claims transformer 130 is programmed to generate a security token that can be understood by relying party 120. As noted above, principal 110 can request a security token in a certain format (see the “wst:TokenType” element in the example request provided above) in its request to identity provider 115, based on requirements from relying party 120 (see the “wst:TokenType” element in the example security policy provided above). Claims transformer 130 can be programmed to generate security tokens in one of a plurality of formats including, without limitation, X509, Kerberos, SAML (versions 1.0 and 2.0), Simple extensible Identity Protocol (“SXIP”), etc.
For example, in one embodiment, claims authority 140 is programmed to generate claims in a first format A, and the security policy of relying party 120 requires a security token in a second format B. Claims transformer 130 can transform the claims from claims authority 140 from format A into format B before sending security token 150 to principal 110.
In addition, claims transformer 130 can be programmed to refine the semantics of a particular claim. In example embodiments, the semantics of a particular claim are transformed to minimize the amount of information provided in a particular claim and/or security token to reduce or minimize the amount of personal information that is conveyed by a given claim.
For example, in one embodiment, the security policy of relying party 120 requires a claim stating that principal 110 is over 21 years of age. When this requirement is communicated to identity provider 115, claims authority 140 is programmed to provide a claim of the actual age of principal 110 (e.g., “Birth Date=Jan. 1, 1966”). When this claim is provided to claims transformer 130, claims transformer 130 transforms the semantics of the claim from the actual birth date of principal 110 to a claim that principal 110 is over 21 years of age (e.g., “Age>21=TRUE”). In this manner, when this claim is packaged into security token 150 that is forwarded through principal 110 to relying party 120, less personal information about principal 110 is shared with relying party 120, while the requirements of relying party 120 are still met.
Once security token 150 is generated by claims transformer 130 of identity provider 115, security token 150 can be forwarded to principal 110. In example embodiments, claims transformer 130 forwards the security token 150 to principal 110 using the response mechanisms described in WS-Trust. In one embodiment, claims transformer 130 includes a security token service (sometimes referred to as an “STS”) such as that disclosed in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/436,880 filed on May 12, 2003, the entirety of which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Referring now to FIG. 5, an example security token 150 is shown. In the embodiment shown, security token 150 includes a computational token 152 and a display token 154. Computational token 152 includes the claims provided by identity provider 115 in an encrypted format. Claims transformer 130 generates computational token 152 in an encrypted format that can be understood (i.e., decrypted) by relying party 120.
Claims transformer 130 also generates display token 154. Generally, display token 154 includes at least a summary of the claims that are included in computational token 152 of security token 150. For example, in some embodiments, display token 154 includes a list of all of the claims included in computational token 152. Display token 154 can be generated in a format that can be reviewed by principal 110 using, for example, computer system 300. In some examples, display token 154 is generated in a plain text format or a hypertext markup language format. One example of a display token included as part of a security token response is shown below.
/ic:RequestedDisplayToken/ic:DisplayToken/ic:DisplayTokenText (not shown)—this optional element provides an alternative textual representation of the entire token as a whole when the token content is not suitable for display as individual claims.
In some embodiments, security token 150 including computational token 152 is issued in accordance with the SAML standard. For example, security token 150 can be issued in accordance with SAML 1.1 or SAML 2.0 standards. Other standards can also be used such as, for example and without limitation, an X.509 certificate and a Kerberos ticket.
In addition, security token 150 can be cryptographically signed or endorsed by claims transformer 130 using a known algorithm. In one embodiment, for example and without limitation, a 2048-bit asymmetric Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (“RSA”) key is used. In other embodiments, other encryption algorithms can be used such as, for example, a base64 encoded symmetric encryption key. In one embodiment, a symmetric key is used by default. In this manner, in the example shown, a party such as relying party 120 can cryptographically verify that security token 150 originated from identity provider 115.
In example embodiments, computational token 152 is cryptographically bound to display token 154 using one or more known algorithms such as a digital signature over the entire response message from the claims authority containing both the computational token 152 and the display token 154.
In example embodiments, a display token is provided by default in each security token issued by a claims transformer. In other embodiments, a display token is provided only if the principal requests the display token. An example of such a display token request included in a security token request is as follows.
The optional attribute “LangId” indicates a language identifier for the display token using language codes specified in RFC 3066.
In example embodiments, a principal can review the display information from the display token and decide whether or not to forward the security token to a relying party. In other embodiments, the principal can review the display information, but does not have the option to stop the forwarding of the security token to the relying party. In other words, once the security token is requested by the principal, the security token is automatically forwarded to the relying party once the security token is received by the principal.
In example embodiments, if a security token lacks a display token, the principal is notified of the lack of the display token, and the principal can decide whether or not to forward the security token to the relying party. In other embodiments, if no display token is provided, no display information is presented to the principal.
In example embodiments, only the computational token portion of a security token is forwarded by the principal to the relying party. In other embodiments, the principal forwards the entire security token including both the computational token and the display token to the relying party.
Additional details about example embodiments of security tokens including display tokens can be found in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/312,920, filed on Dec. 19, 2005, the entirety of which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Referring now to FIG. 6, principal 110 can forward security token 150 to relying party 120 to satisfy all or a part of the security policy of relying party 120. In one example, principal 10 can forward security token 150 to relying party 120 by binding security token 150 to an to application message using the security binding mechanisms described in WS-Security.
Once relying party 120 receives security token 150, relying party 120 can cryptographically verify the origin of signed security token 150. Relying party 120 can also utilize the claims in the computational token 152 of security token 150 to satisfy the security policy of relying party 120 to authenticate principal 110. Once authentication is complete, relying party 120 can provide access to the goods, services, or other information requested by principal 110.
In exampled disclosed herein, communication between principal 10, relying party 120, and identity provider 115 can be conducted in a technology-neutral fashion. For example, the embodiments disclosed herein use the mechanisms provided in WS-MetadataExchange and WS-SecurityPolicy to facilitate communication between components using different technologies and communication protocol formats. In this manner, the various components in digital identity system 100 can communicate with one another.
Referring now to FIG. 7, an example method 400 for authenticating a principal is shown. Method 400 is described with reference to a non-limiting example in which the principal is Employee A. Employee A is an employee of a company referred to as “Company A,” and the relying party is a travel agency referred to as “Travel Agency A.” Company A has partnered with Travel Agency A for making travel arrangements for employees of Company A at discounted rates.
At operation 410 of method 400, a principal requests information from a relying party. In the example embodiment, Employee A utilizes an application program on Employee A's computer to request travel arrangements from the web site of Travel Agency A. Next, at operation 420, Employee A's computer receives the security policy from the web site of Travel Agency A. This policy requires that Employee A submit a security token with a claim establishing that Employee A is an employee of Company A before Employee A can access the discounted travel arrangements on the web site of Travel Agency A.
At operation 430, Employee A's computer forwards a request based on the security policy to an identity provider, which in the present example is a security token service or STS operated by Company A. The STS of Company A can issue a security token with a claim establishing that Employee A is an employee of Company A. For example, the claim can be “Is Employee of Company A=True.” Next, at operation 440, Employee A's computer receives a signed security token from the STS of Company A. The security token includes a computational token and a display token, with the computational token including the claim establishing that Employee A is an employee of Company A.
Control is then passed to operation 450, and Employee A's computer presents the summary of the claims from the display token to Employee A for review. In some embodiments, Employee A is given the option to review the contents of the security token using the display token, and then decide whether or not to forward the security token to the web site of Travel Agency A based on the information in the display token presented to Employee A. In other embodiments, Employee A is not given the option regarding whether or not to forward the security token to Travel Agency A.
Next, at operation 460, the security token is forwarded to the web site of Travel Agency A. Control is then passed to operation 470, and Employee A gains access to the requested discounted travel arrangements on the web site of Travel Agency A.
Referring now to FIG. 8, operation 430 of method 400 related to forwarding of a request based on the security policy of a relying party to an identity provider is shown in greater detail. At operation 510, the security policy from relying party 120 is reviewed. At operation 520, digital identities 310 for principal 110 are reviewed to identify identity providers 115 that can provide the claims required in the security policy. Next, at operation 530, the relevant identity providers are identified based on the digital identities. Finally, at operation 540, a request is forwarded to the relevant identity providers for the requested claims.
For example, with reference to the non-limiting example provided above, once Employee A's computer receives the security policy from the web site of Travel Agency A, Employee A's computer reviews the digital identities on Employee A's computer to identify the identity providers that can provide the claims required in the security policy. Once the identity providers are identified, Employee A's computer sends requests one or more of the identified identity providers for security tokens including the required claims.
In some embodiments, relying party 120 identifies a particular identity provider for a particular claim or set of claims (see the “sp:Issuer” element in the example security policy provided above). In this case, principal 110 can forward a request to the appropriate identity provider for the required claims. In some embodiments, the process of selecting identity providers can be automated by, for example, computer 300. In other embodiments, principal 110 can be involved in the selection of identity providers.
Referring now to FIG. 9, an example method 600 for an identity provider to generate a requested security token is provided. Once again, method 600 is described with reference to the non-limiting example provided above. At operation 610, the identity provider for Company A receives the request for claims forwarded by Employee A. Next, at operation 620, Company A generates the requested claims.
Control is then passed to operation 630, wherein any transformation of the claims is conducted. For example, Travel Agency A can require a claim specifying that Employee A is an employee of Company A. The claims authority of Company A provides a claim stating that Employee A is employee number “9999” of Company A (e.g., “Employee A=9999”). The claims transformer of Company A can transform this claim into a claim that simply indicates that Employee A is an employee of Company A (e.g., “Is Employee of Company A=True”), thereby minimizing the amount of personal information about Employee A contained in the security token.
Next, at operation 640, the security token including the claim is generated. As part of the formation of the security token, the claims transformer of Company A can transform the security token into one of plurality of formats, as required by the request or default. Finally, at operation 650, the security token is forwarded to Employee A.
Although in some of the embodiments disclosed herein the principal is an individual, in alternative embodiments, the principal can be a company, an organization, a computer or other device, a service, or any other type of entity. For example, in one alternative embodiment, the principal is a device that is part of a network. The device can request information, such as a software update, from another device on the network functioning as a relying party. The relying party can require authentication of the identity of the device before the relying party provides the requested update. The device can request one or more claims required by the security policy of the relying party from one or more claims transformers, and the claims transformers can provide one or more security tokens including display tokens to the device. The device can be programmed to review the contents of the display tokens and decide whether or not to forward the security token to the relying party based on its contents. If the device forwards the security token to the relying party, the relying party can then complete the authentication process and provide the requested update to the device.
Although example embodiments shown herein illustrate a security token that is forwarded by an identity provider to a principal and then on to a relying party, in alternative embodiments the security token can be forwarded directly from the identity provider to the relying party. For example, in some embodiments, one security token including a computational token (and possibly a display token) can be forwarded to the relying party, and another security token including a display token (and possibly the computational token) can be forwarded to the principal. Other configurations are possible.
Although the example embodiments shown herein illustrate a security policy requiring only a single claim and a single security token issued by one identity provider, in other embodiments a policy can require multiple claims, and one or more identity providers can issue one or more security tokens with one or more claims to satisfy the policy.
Exchanging digital identities provides a robust mechanism for identification of a principal to a relying party while limiting the information a relying party may utilize to the information allowed by the principal. Organizing digital identity into a data structure further improves data processing efficiency, standardization, platform independence, and usability.
In one embodiment, principal 10 retrieves claims from identity provider 115 in response to receiving a security policy from relying party 120. Once the claims have been obtained, subsequent requests for claims can be retrieved directly from principal 110 in the form a data structure. Identity provider need not be contacted again unless the claims expire or the security policy of relying party 120 is changed to require additional claims.
Referring now to FIG. 10, digital identity data structure 1000 encapsulates capability data structure 1002, connection data structure 1004, and cognitive data structure 1006. In one embodiment, in response to receiving a security policy from relying party 120, a digital identity data structure 1000 is sent from principal 110 to relying party 120. Relying party 120 may then evaluate the claims in digital identity data structure 1000 to determine the principal's 110 identity.
In an alternative embodiment, digital identity data structure 1000 comprises the InfoCard structure as described above. In a first further embodiment, capability data structure 1002 comprises the CardPolicy structure. In a second further embodiment, connection data structure 1004 comprises the KeyInfo structure. In a third further embodiment, cognitive data structure 1006 comprises at least one of the CardImage and CardName data elements.
Referring now to FIG. 11, capability data structure 1002 contains a number of capability records 1100. In another embodiment, at least one capability data record 1100 is a claim. In another embodiment, at least one capability record 1100 is a descriptor of the identity provider 115 that originated at least one claim. In other embodiments, capability records 1100 includes, without limitation, CardPolicy, SupportedTokenTypes, TimeIssued, IssuerName, and SupportedClaimTypes record types.
Referring now to FIG. 12, connection data structure 1004 contains connection records 1200. In one embodiment, at least one connection record 1200 links at least one claim back to the identity provider 115 fulfilling that claim. In another embodiment, at least one connection record 1200 contains cryptographic data elements. In other embodiments, connection records 1200 include, without limitation, network location, connection protocol, encryption key, encryption methodology, and authentication credential.
Referring now to FIG. 13, cognitive data structure 1006 contains cognitive records 1300. In one embodiment, at least one cognitive record 1300 identifies digital identity data structure 1000 to a human user. In another embodiment, at least one cognitive record 1300 identifies digital identity data structure 1000 to a machine executing instructions. In other embodiments, cognitive records 1300 include, without limitation, the name, a textual identifier and a graphic identifier of the data structure.
In one embodiment, the textual identifier provides principal 110 with a textual identifier of the data structure. Examples of text identifiers include, without limitation, “ABC Bank,” “XYZ Travel Agency,” and “My Retirement Account.” In another embodiment, a graphical image provides a graphical means to identify the data structure. Examples of graphical identifiers may include corporate logos or purpose-descriptive icons. Examples of purpose-descriptive icons include, without limitation, an airplane, such as to represent a travel agency or frequent flyer program; an automobile, such as to represent a rental car agency; and a currency symbol, such as to represent a bank account or other financial data.
Referring now to FIG. 14, a method for providing a digital identity is shown. Method 1400 may be initiated by relying party 120, which may in turn be initiated by principal's 110 request for access to goods, services, or information controlled by relying party 120. At operation 1402 of method 1400, a request is received for one or more claims. The claims identify principal 110.
Next, at operation 1404 of method 1400, one or more claims are received. In one embodiment, identity provider 115 is the source of the claims. In another embodiment, the one or more claims are acquired, such as by accessing information available to principal 110. Next, at operation 1406 of method 1400, the claims are transformed. Next at operation 1408 of method 1400, a security token is generated which includes the claims. In another embodiment, such as when the transformation of claims is not required, operation 1406 is omitted. In still other embodiments, such as when the encryption of the claims is not required, operation 1408 is omitted.
At operation 1410 of method 1400, a computer-readable medium is encoded with digital identity data structure 1000. Digital identity data structure 1000 comprising capabilities data structure 1004. Capabilities data structure 1004, in turn, comprises the claim records. At operation 1412, the data structure is provided.
In another embodiment, one or more cognitive records 1300 are generated. Digital identity data structure 1000 comprises cognitive data structure 1006, which comprises the cognitive records 1300. In a further embodiment, at least one cognitive record 1300 identifies digital identity data structure 1000. In another further embodiment, at least one cognitive record 1300 identifying digital identity data structure 1000 is determined in response to a user's input. In another embodiment at least one cognitive record 1300 identifying digital identity data structure 1000 is a graphical image. In one embodiment, the user's input is text entered by a keyboard, touch-pad, mouse, selection box, check box, radio button, directory, speech-to-text processor, or other entry or selection device.
In another embodiment, one or more connection records 1200 are generated. Digital identity data structure 1000 comprises connection data structure 1006, which comprises connection records 1200. In one embodiment, at least one connection record 1200 is generated with encryption/decryption token data associated with the identity provider. In further embodiments, the encryption/decryption data is an encryption/decryption key or methodology. In another embodiment, at least one connection record is generated with server connection data associated with the source of the security token.
There can be various advantages associated with digital identities systems configured as disclosed herein. For example, example identity systems disclosed herein utilize various subsystems that communicate or facilitate communication using a variety of protocols and message formats. In addition, such identity systems can automate the process of gathering required authentication information. Further, such systems can increase user control and decrease personal information shared among subsystems of the system.
forward the security token to the relying party.
wherein execution of the computer executable instructions by the first computer system causes the first computer system to display the textual description of the first digital identity to the principal.
3. The digital identity system of claim 2, wherein the textual description provides indicia of use of the first digital identity.
4. The digital identity system of claim 1, wherein the first graphical image is a purpose-descriptive icon.
after storing the third digital identity, display the third graphical image to the principal.
wherein execution of the computer readable instructions by the first computer system causes the first computer system to decrypt the claims in the first claim list using the decryption methodology indicated by the connection record.
7. The digital identity system of claim 1, wherein the first capability data structure contains indicia of the first identity provider.
providing, by the first computer system, the security token to the second computer system.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein generating the digital identity comprises: generating, by the first computer system, the cognitive data structure such that the cognitive data structure contains information that identifies the digital identity.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein generating the digital identity comprises: generating, by the first computer system, the digital identity such that the cognitive data structure includes an identifier of the digital identity.
11. The method of claim 10, wherein the identifier is determined in response to a user input.
generating, by the first computer system, the digital identity to further comprise a connection data structure, the connection data structure comprising the one or more connection records.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein generating the one or more connection records comprises: generating, by the first computer system, at least one connection record with decryption data associated with the security token.
14. The method of claim 12, wherein generating the one or more connection records comprises: generating, by the first computer system, at least one connection record with server connection data associated with the identity provider.
after transforming the one or more requested claims, generate a security token that comprises the transformed claims.
"Strong Authentication on Mobile Devices Leveraging the OATH Open Framework" [online], Diversinet, May 10, 2005, http://conference.digitalidworld.com/2005/attendees/slides/Sea-C-0510-1330a.pdf, pp. 1-17.
"Strong Authentication on Mobile Devices Leveraging the OATH Open Framework" [online], Diversinet, May 10, 2005, http://conference.digitalidworld.com/2005/attendees/slides/Sea—C—0510—1330a.pdf, pp. 1-17.
"Valimo Mobile Identity Platform for Financial Services", [online], HP, Dec. 2006, http://h71028.www7.hp.com/ERC-/downloads/4AA0-9344ENW.pdf, pp. 1-4.
"Valimo Mobile Identity Platform for Financial Services", [online], HP, Dec. 2006, http://h71028.www7.hp.com/ERC—/downloads/4AA0-9344ENW.pdf, pp. 1-4.
About Authentication, http://www.Microsoft.com/windows2000/en/server/iis/default.asp?url=/windows2000/en/server/iis/htm/core/iiabasc.htm, pp. 1-5,last updated Feb. 28, 2000.
Audio-Visual Multimodal Fusion for Biometric PersonAuthentication and Liveness Verificationhttp://deliverFy.acm.org/10.1145/1160000/1151808/p17-chetty.pdf?key1=1151808&key2=9045972611&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=75919783&CFTOKEN=9279 1909.
Benjamin, Henry, CCIE Self-Study: Security Protocols,Extensible Authentication Protocol, Protected EAP, and Temporal Key Integrity Protocol, http://www.ciscopress.com/articles/article.asp?p=422947&seqNum=7&rl=1, pp. 1-4, Oct. 28, 2005.
Cameron, K., "The Laws of Identity," Architect of Identity, Microsoft Corporation, pp. 1-12 (May 12, 2005).
Chappell, Introducing InfoCard, Apr. 2006, pp. 1-16, http://msdn.microsoft.com/winfx/reference/infocard/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dnlong/html/introinfocard.asp.
Chappell; "Introducing Windows CardSpace" [online], MSDN, [retrieved on Nov. 27, 2007], Apr. 2006, http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa480189.aspx#introinfocard-topic2, pp. 1-18.
Chappell; "Introducing Windows CardSpace" [online], MSDN, [retrieved on Nov. 27, 2007], Apr. 2006, http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa480189.aspx#introinfocard—topic2, pp. 1-18.
Chappell; "Introducing Windows CardSpace" Apr. 2006, 2010 Microsoft Corporation, http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa480189(printer).aspx), 13 pgs.
Chinese 2nd Office Action cited in Application No. 200880002607.6 dated Mar. 22, 2011, 26 pages.
Chinese Office Action cited in Application No. 200680047525.4 mailed Nov. 10, 2010.
Chinese Office Action cited in Application No. 200880002607.6 mailed Sep. 14, 2010.
Chinese Office Action cited in Application No. 200880003205.8 mailed Jun. 12, 2010.
Chinese Office Action cited in Appln. No. 200780006584.1, mailed Aug. 4, 2010, 22 pages.
Chinese Office Action mailed in Application No. 200880015890.6 mailed Jul. 20, 2011 10 pgs.
CN 1589446A, Mar. 2, 2005 (cited in Chinese OA dated Jan. 12, 2011), 39 pp.
Computations. (2001), In Chambers 21st Century Dictionary, London: Chambers Harrap., Retrieved May 26, 2009 from .
Computations. (2001), In Chambers 21st Century Dictionary, London: Chambers Harrap., Retrieved May 26, 2009 from <http://www.credoreference.com/entry/chambdict/computational>.
Costa et al. "E-Services in Mission-Critical Organizations: Identification Enforcement," ICEIS 2004-Software Agents and Internet Computing, http://www-lih.univ-lehavre.fr/Intranet/proceedings/ICEIS2004/ICEIS%202004/Area%204%20-%20Software%20Agents%20and%20Internet%20Computing/Oral%20Presentations/Short%20Papers/C4-727-Costa.pdf, [8 pages].
Costa et al. "E-Services in Mission-Critical Organizations: Identification Enforcement," ICEIS 2004—Software Agents and Internet Computing, http://www-lih.univ-lehavre.fr/Intranet/proceedings/ICEIS2004/ICEIS%202004/Area%204%20-%20Software%20Agents%20and%20Internet%20Computing/Oral%20Presentations/Short%20Papers/C4—727—Costa.pdf, [8 pages].
Daemen et al., "The Identity Metasystem: Towards a Privacy-Compliant Solution to the Challenges of Digital Identity"; Oct. 2006; Microsoft Corporation White Paper; 21 pgs.
Display; Collins English Dictionary, © Harper Collins Publishers 2000, 1 page.
Ernst, Johannes, "What is Microsoft InfoCard?" Johannes Ernst's Blog, May 18, 2005, 4 pages.
European Communication cited in Application No. 08 713 521.6 mailed Apr. 15, 2011, 4 pages.
European Communication cited in Application No. 08 713 522.4 mailed Apr. 15, 2011, 4 pages.
European Examination Report cited in EP 06 838 382 7 mailed Nov. 19, 2009.
European Search Report cited in Application No. 06838382.7 mailed Sep. 18, 2009.
Evans, D. et al., "Private key infrastructure: balancing computer transmission privacy with changing technology and security demans," Computer Standards & Interfaces, vol. 27, pp. 423-437 (2005).
Fahrenholtz et al., "Transactional Security for a Distributed Reputation Management System", Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2455, 2002, 2 pages.
Force, G., Sr., Portable data encryption approaches, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs-all.jsp?arnumber=485417, Nat. Semicond. Corp., (1995) 1-page.
Force, G., Sr., Portable data encryption approaches, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs—all.jsp?arnumber=485417, Nat. Semicond. Corp., (1995) 1-page.
Hunt, R., "Technological infrastructure for PKI and digital certification," Computer Communications, vol. 24, pp. 1460-1471 (2001).
International Search Report and Written Opinion cited in PCT/US2006/045386 mailed Apr. 20, 2007.
International Search Report and Written Opinion cited in PCT/US2007/001362 mailed Jun. 27, 2007, 8 pages.
International Search Report cited in PCT/EP 00/10284 mailed Aug. 20, 2001.
International Search Report cited in PCT/US2008/050204 mailed Jun. 12, 2008.
International Search Report cited in PCT/US2008/050205 mailed May 14, 2008, 12 pages.
International Search Report cited in PCT/US2008/051814 mailed Apr. 30, 2009.
International Search Report cited in PCT/US2008/062521 mailed Sep. 22, 2008, 10 pgs.
Jones, "The Identity Metasystem: A User-Centric, Inclusive Web Authentication Solution", [online], Microsoft, 2005, http://www.w3.org/2005/Security/usability-ws/presentations/28-jones-id-metasystem. pp. 1-27.
Josang, A. et al., "What You See is Not Always What You Sign," Proceedings of AUUG2002, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 1-13 (Sep. 4-6, 2002).
Lancaster, S. et al., "Public key infrastructure: a micro and macro analysis," Computer Standards & Interfaces, vol. 25, pp. 437-446 (2003).
Lee et al., A Flexible Remote User Authentication Scheme Using Smart Cards, Chaoyang University of Technology, pp. 46-52, http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/570000/567335/p46-lee.pdf?key1=567335&key2=8102952511&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=912131&CFTOKEN=21372357; Jul. 2002.
Liberty Alliance Project Whitepaper: Personal Identity, Mar. 23, 2006, 13 pages.
Maximilien et al., "Conceptual Model of Web Service Reputation", © 2002, 6 pages.
Maximilien et al., "Reputation and Endorsement for Web Services", ACM Inc. printed Dec. 9, 2005, 8 pages.
Menezes et al., "Handbook of Applied Cryptography", Chapter 11 included, CRC Press, 1996, 65 pages.
Party from Roget's II The New Thesaurus, @ 2003, 1 page.
Q&A: Microsoft's Kim Cameron Wins ‘Balancing Innovation and Reality’ Award for Contributions to Digital Identity, Microsoft PressPass, 3 pages (May 12, 2005).
Q&A: Microsoft's Kim Cameron Wins 'Balancing Innovation and Reality' Award for Contributions to Digital Identity, Microsoft PressPass, 3 pages (May 12, 2005).
Resnick et al., "ACM Portal, the ACM Digital Libray", Reputation Systems, vol. 43, No. 12, 2000, 1 page.
Response to European Communication re EP Application No. 06838382.7, filed Mar. 29, 2010, 14 pp.
Supplementary European Search Report and Opinion cited in Application No. PCT/US2007001362 mailed Oct. 7, 2009, 1 page.
Techtree News Staff, "Infocard Spells End of Passwords." Techtree.com, India, Feb. 16, 2006, 2 pages.
The fusion framework in a person identity verification system based on face and speech data http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/srchabstract.jsp?arnumber=1557132&isnumber=33117&punumber=10384&k2dockey=1557132@ieeecnfs&query=%28++identity+verification%3Cin%Ede%29&pos=14.
Token from Collins English Dictionary, © Harper Collins Publishers 2000, 1 page.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/749,020, Office Action mailed Oct. 5, 2011, 18 pgs.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/856,636, Office Action mailed Oct. 14, 2011, 15 pgs.
U.S. Final Office Action cited in U.S. Appl. No. 11/312,920 mailed Sep. 8, 2009.
U.S. Non-Final Office Action cited in U.S. Appl. No. 11/312,920 mailed Apr. 15, 2009.
U.S. Non-Final Office Action cited in U.S. Appl. No. 11/312,920 mailed Dec. 31, 2009.
U.S. Non-Final Office Action cited in U.S. Appl. No. 11/361,281 mailed Aug. 16, 2010.
U.S. Non-Final Office Action cited in U.S. Appl. No. 11/361,281 mailed Jun. 23, 2009.
U.S. Office Action cited in U.S. Appl. No. 11/361,857 mailed Mar. 31, 2010, 13 pages.
U.S. Office Action cited in U.S. Appl. No. 11/361,857 mailed May 29, 2009, 11 pages.
U.S. Office Action cited in U.S. Appl. No. 11/361,857 mailed Nov. 10, 2008, 22 pages.
U.S. Office Action cited in U.S. Appl. No. 11/361,857 mailed Oct. 14, 2009, 12 pages.
U.S. Office Action cited in U.S. Appl. No. 11/495,826 mailed Jul. 15, 2009.
U.S. Office Action cited in U.S. Appl. No. 11/495,826 mailed Mar. 30, 2010.
U.S. Office Action cited in U.S. Appl. No. 11/749,020 mailed Dec. 27, 2010, 17 pages.
U.S. Office Action cited in U.S. Appl. No. 11/856,617 mailed Sep. 13, 2010 24 pages.
U.S. Office Action cited in U.S. Appl. No. 11/856,636 mailed May 4, 2011, 25 pages.
U.S. Office Action cited in U.S. Appl. No. 11/856,636 mailed Oct. 7, 2010 19 pages.
U.S. Office Action cited in U.S. Appl. No. 11/952,890 mailed Apr. 8, 2011, 22 pages.
U.S. Office Action cited in U.S. Appl. No. 11/952,890 mailed Oct. 7, 2010.
U.S. Office Action Response cited in U.S. Appl. No. 11/856,636 mailed Feb. 1, 2011, 16 pgs.
US Final Office Action cited in U.S. Appl. No. 11/361,281 mailed Jan. 21, 2010.
US Patent Application No. 11/361,281, Notice of Allowance mailed Aug. 18, 2011, 10 pgs.
US Patent Application No. 11/495,826, Notice of Allowance mailed Aug. 4, 2011, 8 pgs.
What is Microsoft InfoCard?, Johannes Ernst's Blog, pp. 1-4 (May 18, 2005).
Wireless Application Forum, Ltd. "WAP Provisioning Smart Card," Jul. 10, 2001, http://simon.dehartog.nl/datasheets/protocols/WAP/WAP-186-PROVSC-20010710-a.pdf, [37 pages].
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority cited in PCT/US2007/013310 mailed Dec. 4, 2007.
You, Mobile Card Architecture for User Mobility and VHE in Heterogeneous Network Environments, University of New Brunswick (2003) http://www.ensr.info/Download/PDF/poster1. pdf, 2 pages.

References: Application No. 200880002607
 Application No. 200680047525
 Application No. 200880002607
 Application No. 200880003205
 Application No. 200880015890
 Application No. 08
 Application No. 08
 Application No. 06838382
 Application No. 06838382
 Application No. 11
 Application No. 11