On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Rich.Levinson <> wrote:
>
> The weakness I see here is that it seems to reduce a strong
> token (saml hok) to the level of a bearer token, because the
> inherent strength of the hok is not being used.
Not quite, since the IdP binds a name to the assertion, and that name
happens to be the same name bound to the certificate C2 that the RP
trusts. So there's a linkage between the authentication token (C2)
and the authorization token (signed SAML assertion), not quite as
strong as typical h-o-k, but stronger than bearer, I think. (I know,
I've used the words "strong" and "stronger" without defining what that
means, so you're welcome to throw stones :)
Tom
