This invention pertains to performing on-line transactions, and more particularly to managing information cards used in performing on-line transactions.
When a user interacts with sites on the Internet (hereafter referred to as “service providers” or “relying parties”), the service provider often expects to know something about the user that is requesting the services of the provider. The typical approach for a service provider is to require the user to log into or authenticate to the service provider's computer system. But this approach, while satisfactory for the service provider, is less than ideal to the user. First, the user must remember a username and password for each service provider who expects such information. Given that different computer systems impose different requirements, and the possibility that another user might have chosen the same username, the user might be unable to use the same username/password combination on each such computer system. (There is also the related problem that if the user uses the same username/password combination on multiple computer systems, someone who hacks one such computer system would be able to access other such computer systems.) Second, the user has no control over how the service provider uses the information it stores. If the service provider uses the stored information in a way the user does not want, the user has relatively little ability to prevent such abuse, or recourse after the fact.
To address this problem, new systems have been developed that allow the user a measure of control over the information stored about the user. Windows CardSpace™ (sometimes called CardSpace) is a Microsoft implementation of an identity meta-system that offers a solution to this problem. (Microsoft, Windows, and CardSpace are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries.) A user can store identity information with an identity provider the user trusts. When a service provider wants some information about the user, the user can control the release of information stored with the identity provider to the service provider. The user can then use the offered services that required the identity information.
But even with new systems such as Microsoft Windows CardSpace, the concern exists that information cards can increase in numbers to levels difficult to manage. A single card store might include any number of cards that could be accepted by a single relying party—for example, if the card store is shared among a number of users, as might occur on a family computer. In addition, a single user might have a number of information cards, issued by different issuers—such as federal and state agencies and private organizations (e.g., Visa)—all of which could be accepted by any number of different relying parties.
A need remains for a way to provide users with the ability to manage their information cards in accordance with user preferences that addresses these and other problems associated with the prior art.
In an embodiment of the invention, a machine stores at least one information card. Associated with the information card is metadata. This metadata can be used to manage the information cards stored on the machine.
The foregoing and other features, objects, and advantages of the invention will become more readily apparent from the following detailed description, which proceeds with reference to the accompanying drawings.
Before explaining the invention, it is important to understand the context of the invention.
In
Relying party 130 is a machine managed by a party that relies in some way on the identity of the user of computer system 105. The operator of relying party 130 can be any type of relying party. For example, the operator of relying party 130 can be a merchant running a business on a website. Or, the operator of relying party 130 can be an entity that offers assistance on some matter to registered parties. Relying party 130 is so named because it relies on establishing some identifying information about the user.
Identity provider 135, on the other hand, is managed by a party responsible for providing identity information (or other such information) about the user for consumption by the relying party. Depending on the type of information identity provider 135 stores for a user, a single user might store identifying information with a number of different identity providers 135, any of which might be able to satisfy the request of the relying party. For example, identity provider 135 might be a governmental agency, responsible for storing information generated by the government, such as a driver's license number or a social security number. Or, identity provider 135 might be a third party that is in the business of managing identity information on behalf of users.
The conventional methodology of releasing identity information can be found in a number of sources. One such source is Microsoft Corporation, which has published a document entitled Introducing Windows CardSpace, which can be found on the World Wide Web at http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa480189.aspx and is hereby incorporated by reference. To summarize the operation of Windows CardSpace, when a user wants to access some data from relying party 130, computer system 105 requests the security policy of relying party 130, as shown in communication 140, which is returned in communication 145 as security policy 150. Security policy 150 is a summary of the information relying party 130 needs, how the information should be formatted, and so on.
Once computer system 105 has security policy 150, computer system 105 can identify which information cards will satisfy security policy 150. Different security policies might result in different information cards being usable. For example, if relying party 130 simply needs a username and password combination, the information cards that will satisfy this security policy will be different from the information cards that satisfy a security policy requesting the user's full name, mailing address, and social security number. The user can then select an information card that satisfies security policy 150.
Once the user has selected an acceptable information card, computer system 105 uses the selected information card to transmit a request for a security token from identity provider 135, as shown in communication 155. This request can identify the data to be included in the security token, the credential that identifies the user, and other data the identity provider needs to generate the security token. Identity provider 135 returns security token 160, as shown in communication 165. Security token 160 includes a number of claims, or pieces of information, that include the data the user wants to release to the relying party. Security token 160 is usually encrypted in some manner, and perhaps signed and/or time-stamped by identity provider 135, so that relying party 130 can be certain that the security token originated with identity provider 135 (as opposed to being spoofed by someone intent on defrauding relying party 130). Computer system 105 then forwards security token 160 to relying party 130, as shown in communication 170.
In addition, the selected information card can be a self-issued information card: that is, an information card issued not by an identity provider, but by computer system 105 itself. In that case, identity provider 135 effectively becomes part of computer system 105.
In this model, a person skilled in the art will recognize that because all information flows through computer system 105, the user has a measure of control over the release of the user's identity information. Relying party 130 only receives the information the user wants relying party 130 to have, and does not store that information on behalf of the user (although it would be possible for relying party 130 to store the information in security token 160: there is no effective way to prevent such an act).
The problem with this model is, as noted above, that the system identifies all information card(s) that can be used to satisfy the needs of the relying party. Even with computer system 105 identifying only information cards that satisfy security policy 150, there might be still be a large number of information cards to consider.
This problem exists even for a single user: as discussed above, a user might have a number of information cards issued by federal or state agencies and private organizations, many of which might satisfy security policy 150. Thus, the user would need to select which information card to use in dealings with relying party 130. This problem can be compounded when the user has multiple identities—not in the sense of fraudulent identities, but in the sense of different mindsets. For example, a user might have some information cards used when the user is working, another set of information cards for personal use, a third set of information cards for use when gaming, and so on.
The picture can get even more complicated when multiple users use the same computer. For example, if a family shares a computer, all the information cards can be stored in a single card store. Because parents might want to have some control over their children's activities, parents may want to be able to review their children's information cards. Or parents might want to be able to apply policies to limit their children's use of their information cards.
Another situation in which information card management becomes more complicated occurs where one user needs to proxy for another user. For example, an administrator might need to be able to act on behalf of a user. Or a financial planner might need to be able to act on behalf of client (for example, to electronically file a tax return). In these situations, being able to manage information cards can simplify the use of information cards.
Now that the problem—managing information cards—is understood, a solution to the problem can be explained.
To manage the information cards, card selector 205 includes filter selector 225. Filter selector 225 can be used to select filters to be used in identifying information cards that can be used in satisfying the security policy from the relying party. Filter selector 225 offers the user the ability to select any desired filter. Examples of filters that can be used are discussed below with reference to
Icon 310 is an iconic representation that can be associated with information card 215. In
Policy 315 represents a policy that limits the use of the associated information card. Any desired policy can be used, without limitation. For example, policy 315 specifies a time range during which information card 215 is available. Policy 315 indicates that information card 215 is available between 5:00 PM and 10:00 PM. Such a policy might be applied by a parent to an information card used by a child (for example, to authenticate the child to their MySpace account). While policy 315 specifies just a time range, a person skilled in the art will recognize that policy 315 can be more complicated, if desired. For example, policy 315 could specify different time ranges for different days (for example, prohibiting use of information card 215 after 8:00 PM on weeknights, but permitting the child to use information card 215 during most hours of the weekend). Or policy 315 could permit use of information card 215 on certain days at all hours, but deny use of information card 215 on other days.
A person skilled in the art will also recognize that policy 315 can be defined specifically for information card 215, or it can be defined in the abstract and then specifically associated with information card 215. For example, a data structure can store the policy (in
Between co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/768,755, filed Jun. 26, 2007, and co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/323,177, filed Nov. 25, 2008, a person skilled in the art will recognize numerous different forms policy 315 can take. For example, policy 315 might specify that before a user is permitted to use information card 215, such use must be confirmed by a third party: a parent might want to know each time a child logs into his or her MySpace account, In that case, policy 315 would specify that the parent needs to be informed in-line of the attempt to log in and provide authorization before login is completed. This is similar to the audit capability described in co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/323,177, filed Nov. 25, 2008, but interposes the in-line audit capability before the information card can even be selected (an earlier point in the process than the audit capability).
As discussed above, a person can associate the same policy with multiple information cards. The user can also associate multiple policies with an individual information card. For example, a user might choose to establish one policy that applies to an information card during working hours, and another policy that applies to an information card during off hours. If the policies are identified in some manner (e.g., by names or some other description), the user can filter information cards based on policies.
Container 320 identifies a container with which information card 215 is associated. Information cards, like any other object in the computer system, can be stored somewhere on some storage of the computer system. The storage itself can be any desired form of storage: for example, a hard drive, a floppy disk, an optical disc (such as a compact disc (CD) or digital video disc (DVD)), flash memory, among other possibilities.
As with most computer systems, containers can be organized in a container hierarchy. Container hierarchy 325 is an example of such a container hierarchy. Different containers can be used to organize the contents of the folders. For example, in the Microsoft Windows operating system, a folder named Windows is often used to store the files that make up the operating system, using subfolders to store various components of the operating system. In a similar manner, container hierarchy 325 can be used to organize information cards into different containers. The user can select a particular container in which to store a particular information card. In
In the above description, the terms “folder” and “container” are both used. In this specification, a folder can be a form of container. But a person skilled in the art will recognize that containers can be structured in forms other than folders, if desired.
Although
One reason to use containers is to take advantage of containers that nest. For example, in container hierarchy 325, container 345 is nested within container 330 and containers 330 and 340 are both nested within container 335. (This has the added implication that container 345 is also nested within container 335.) Nesting containers does not mean that the contents of the nested container are directly stored within the outer container, but the contents can be considered part of the “hierarchy” of that outer container. For example, an object stored in container 340 is not in the hierarchy starting at container 330, but an object stored in container 345 is in the hierarchy of container 330. As a result, using a container as a filter enables locating not only objects stored directly in that container, but also objects nested within the container. For example, using container 330 as a filter would identify information card 215 based on its association with container 330, but could also identify information cards associated with container 345. (Whether a filter based on a container also identifies information cards associated with sub-containers can be an option that the user can control.)
Finally, hierarchy 350 enables filtering based on fields in the information cards. For example, identity provider 135, which stores the details (that is, the actual data) about information card 215, can store information card 215 in a hierarchical storage. The hierarchy used to store information card 215 can be used to filter information cards, in a manner similar to the containers in container hierarchy 325. But whereas container hierarchy 325 is stored on the user's computer system, hierarchy 350 is stored on identity provider 135 (or some other system separate from the user's computer system). Any folder in the hierarchy can be used to filter information cards, and as with container hierarchy 325, the selected folder can filter just information cards stored in that folder, or the selected folder can filter all information cards stored or nested in that container.
As mentioned above, in
Icon section 420 provide the user with options to filter based on icons. In
One alternative shown to using icon section 420 is to display the icons directly on the information cards, as shown by icon 425 on information card 215. While this embodiment is shown only with reference to icons, a person skilled in the art will recognize that the other filter options can also be displayed directly on the information cards. A person skilled in the art will also recognize that where filter options are displayed directly on the information cards, the corresponding filter option sections can be removed from display 405, if desired.
Policy section 430 enables the user to filter based on policies. As with icon section 420, only policies that would affect the filtering results can be shown, or all policies can be included with unused policies grayed out, among other possibilities.
Container section 435 enables the user to filter based on containers. As with icon section 420 and policy section 430, only containers that would affect the filtering results can be shown, or all containers can be included with unused containers grayed out, among other possibilities. For example, if information cards are only associated with one container and the user opts to filter based on container 2, the entry for container 1 would not affect the results, so that entry could be grayed out. But if information cards can be associated with multiple containers, then there might be an information card associated with both containers 1 and 2, and so the user's selecting container 2 would not necessarily mean that selecting container 1 would make no difference.
Hierarchy section 440 enables the user to filter based on hierarchy information. As discussed above with
The various filter options (search field 415, icon section 420, policies section 430, container section 435, and hierarchy section 440) can be combined in any manner desired. For example, the filter options can be combined disjunctively (where an information card that satisfies any of the filter options is included) or conjunctively (where an information card that satisfies all of the filter options is included).
Once the user has identified the filter options, main part 410 displays or otherwise identifies the information cards that satisfy the filter options. For example, information card 215 meets the filter options, and so is shown in main part 410 of display 405. In contrast, information card 445 does not meet the filter options, and so can be grayed out (shown by the dashed line to information card 445). A person skilled in the art will also recognize that information card 445, as not meeting the filter options, can simply be omitted from main part 410.
While
At block 725 (
If the user selects an information card, then at block 740, the system receives the user's card selection, and at block 745, the system uses the selected information card in satisfying the relying party's security policy.
The following discussion is intended to provide a brief, general description of a suitable machine in which certain aspects of the invention may be implemented. Typically, the machine includes a system bus to which is attached processors, memory, e.g., random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), or other state preserving medium, storage devices, a video interface, and input/output interface ports. The machine may be controlled, at least in part, by input from conventional input devices, such as keyboards, mice, etc., as well as by directives received from another machine, interaction with a virtual reality (VR) environment, biometric feedback, or other input signal. As used herein, the term “machine” is intended to broadly encompass a single machine, or a system of communicatively coupled machines or devices operating together. Exemplary machines include computing devices such as personal computers, workstations, servers, portable computers, handheld devices, telephones, tablets, etc., as well as transportation devices, such as private or public transportation, e.g., automobiles, trains, cabs, etc.
The machine may include embedded controllers, such as programmable or non-programmable logic devices or arrays, Application Specific Integrated Circuits, embedded computers, smart cards, and the like. The machine may utilize one or more connections to one or more remote machines, such as through a network interface, modem, or other communicative coupling. Machines may be interconnected by way of a physical and/or logical network, such as an intranet, the Internet, local area networks, wide area networks, etc. One skilled in the art will appreciate that network communication may utilize various wired and/or wireless short range or long range carriers and protocols, including radio frequency (RF), satellite, microwave, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 545.11, Bluetooth, optical, infrared, cable, laser, etc.
The invention may be described by reference to or in conjunction with associated data including functions, procedures, data structures, application programs, instructions, etc. which, when accessed by a machine, result in the machine performing tasks or defining abstract data types or low-level hardware contexts. Associated data may be stored in, for example, the volatile and/or non-volatile memory, e.g., RAM, ROM, etc., or in other storage devices and their associated storage media, including hard-drives, floppy-disks, optical storage, tapes, flash memory, memory sticks, digital video disks, biological storage, etc. Associated data may be delivered over transmission environments, including the physical and/or logical network, in the form of packets, serial data, parallel data, propagated signals, etc., and may be used in a compressed or encrypted format. Associated data may be used in a distributed environment, and stored locally and/or remotely for machine access.
Having described and illustrated the principles of the invention with reference to illustrated embodiments, it will be recognized that the illustrated embodiments may be modified in arrangement and detail without departing from such principles, and may be combined in any desired manner. And although the foregoing discussion has focused on particular embodiments, other configurations are contemplated. In particular, even though expressions such as “according to an embodiment of the invention” or the like are used herein, these phrases are meant to generally reference embodiment possibilities, and are not intended to limit the invention to particular embodiment configurations. As used herein, these terms may reference the same or different embodiments that are combinable into other embodiments.
Consequently, in view of the wide variety of permutations to the embodiments described herein, this detailed description and accompanying material is intended to be illustrative only, and should not be taken as limiting the scope of the invention. What is claimed as the invention, therefore, is all such modifications as may come within the scope and spirit of the following claims and equivalents thereto.
This patent application is a continuation-in-part of co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/323,141, filed Nov. 25, 2008, of co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/323,177, filed, Nov. 25, 2008, and of co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/402,782, filed Mar. 12, 2009, all of which claim the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/895,312, filed Mar. 16, 2007, of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/895,316, filed Mar. 16, 2007, and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/895,325, filed Mar. 16, 2007, all of which are incorporated herein for all purposes.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3614839 | Thomas | Oct 1971 | A |
3949501 | Andrews et al. | Apr 1976 | A |
4153931 | Green et al. | May 1979 | A |
4568403 | Egan | Feb 1986 | A |
4730848 | McCormick | Mar 1988 | A |
5073950 | Colbert et al. | Dec 1991 | A |
5485510 | Colbert | Jan 1996 | A |
5546471 | Merjanian | Aug 1996 | A |
5546523 | Gatto | Aug 1996 | A |
5594806 | Colbert | Jan 1997 | A |
5613012 | Hoffman et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5848412 | Rowland et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
6028950 | Merjanian | Feb 2000 | A |
6055595 | Tachibana et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6327578 | Linehan | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6363488 | Ginter et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6481621 | Herrendoerfer et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6513721 | Salmre et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6612488 | Suzuki | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6721713 | Guheen et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6880155 | Schwabe et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6913194 | Suzuki | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6970836 | Paltenghe et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
7003501 | Ostroff | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7103575 | Linehan | Sep 2006 | B1 |
7104444 | Suzuki | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7210620 | Jones | May 2007 | B2 |
7225156 | Fisher et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7231369 | Hirabayashi | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7343351 | Bishop et al. | Mar 2008 | B1 |
7353532 | Duri et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7360237 | Engle et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7416486 | Walker et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7444519 | Laferriere et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7487920 | Sato et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7494416 | Walker et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7500607 | Williams | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7529698 | Joao | May 2009 | B2 |
7537152 | Chakiris et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
RE40753 | Wang et al. | Jun 2009 | E |
7555460 | Barkan | Jun 2009 | B1 |
7565329 | Lapsley et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7591424 | Wang et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7594258 | Mao et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7610040 | Cantini et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7613659 | Hoffman et al. | Nov 2009 | B1 |
7620177 | Ibrahim et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7636941 | Blinn et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7661585 | Joao | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7664022 | Hu | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7747540 | Cameron et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7771273 | Walker et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7788499 | Cameron et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7797413 | Adelman et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7797434 | Blakley et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7831522 | Satish et al. | Nov 2010 | B1 |
7860883 | Hinton et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
20010007983 | Lee | Jul 2001 | A1 |
20020026397 | Ieta et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020029337 | Sudia et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020029342 | Keech | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020046041 | Lang | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020095360 | Joao | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020103801 | Lyons | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020106065 | Joyce et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020116647 | Mont et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020178370 | Gurevich et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030061170 | Uzo | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030126094 | Fisher et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030158960 | Engberg | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030172090 | Asunmaa et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030217140 | Burbeck et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030218062 | Noriega et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20040019571 | Hurwitz et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040034440 | Middlebrook | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040128392 | Blakley et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040162786 | Cross et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040199475 | Rivest et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040199787 | Hans et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040230831 | Spelman et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20050033692 | Jarman et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050044423 | Mellmer et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050091543 | Holtzman et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050097550 | Schwabe et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050124320 | Ernst et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050135240 | Ozugur | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050229005 | Le Saint et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050247777 | Pitroda | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050247797 | Ramachandran | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050289080 | Rhiando | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060136990 | Hinton et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060200424 | Cameron et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060206931 | Dillaway et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060224611 | Dunn et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060235796 | Johnson et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20070016484 | Waters et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070016943 | M'Raihl et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070043651 | Xiao et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070061567 | Day et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070118449 | De La Motte | May 2007 | A1 |
20070143835 | Cameron et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070192245 | Fisher et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070203852 | Cameron et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070204168 | Cameron et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070204325 | Cameron et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070208869 | Adelman et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070208940 | Adelman et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070214079 | Mears | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070214429 | Lyudovyk et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070282951 | Selimis et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070294431 | Adelman et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080003977 | Chakiris et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080010675 | Massascusa et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080071808 | Hardt et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080098228 | Anderson et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080140576 | Lewis et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080141366 | Cross et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080162297 | Hershkovitz et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080178271 | Galjjala et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080178272 | Gajjala et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080184339 | Shewchuk et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080189778 | Rowley | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080196096 | Grynberg | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080222714 | Wahl | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080229410 | Felsted et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080235144 | Phillips | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080244722 | Satish et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080256594 | Satish et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080263644 | Grinstein | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080289020 | Cameron et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080301784 | Zhu et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080313567 | Sabin et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090013391 | Ernst | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090037920 | Brown et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090077118 | Doman et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090077627 | Doman et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090089625 | Kannappan et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090089870 | Wahl | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090089871 | Murphy et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090099860 | Karabulut et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090125558 | Suh | May 2009 | A1 |
20090131157 | Hedrick et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090138398 | Cole et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090178112 | Doman et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090186701 | Rowe et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090199284 | Sanders et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090204622 | Sanders et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090205014 | Doman et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090205035 | Semersheim et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090216666 | Antao et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090241178 | Burch et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090249430 | Buss et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090251749 | O'Boyle et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090254476 | Sharma et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090254483 | Barkan | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090260064 | McDowell et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090300512 | Ahn | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090300747 | Ahn | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090320095 | Nanda et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090328166 | Burch et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100037303 | Sharif et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100274691 | Hammad et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20110023103 | Dietrich et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0917120 | May 1999 | EP |
11003382 | Jan 1999 | JP |
11039540 | Feb 1999 | JP |
11154260 | Jun 1999 | JP |
WO9823062 | May 1998 | WO |
WO2008088945 | Jul 2008 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Computer Security Institute; “What InfoCard Is and Isn't”; May 2006, 4 pages. |
Microsoft Corporation, “Microsofts Vision for an Identity Metasystem” http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms996422.aspx. May 2005. |
Cameron, Kim, and Jones, M.B. Design Rationale behind the identity metasystem architecture, Feb. 2006. Microsoft Corporation. |
Computer Security Institute; “What InfoCard Is and Isn't”; http://web.archive.org/web/20060423133 805/http:/www.identityblog.com/wp-content/resources/alert.pdf, May 2006 (4 pages). |
Cameron, Kim et al; “Design Rationale behind the Identity Metasystem Architecture”; http://www.identityblog.com/, http://research.microsoft.com/˜mbj/; Mar. 16, 2006, pp. 1-11. |
Hoang et al.; “Secure Roaming with Identity Metasystems”; ACM 978-1-60558-006-1; http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1373297; 2008, pp. 36-47. |
“The Resource STS: R-STS, RP-STS, A-STS . . . the other face of token issuing”; Vibro.NET; http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:mFlf-sZFBLsJ:blogs.msdn.comlvbertocci/arch ive/2007/09/24/the-resource-sts-r-sts-rp-sts-a-sts-the- other-face-of-token-issuing.aspx+microsoft+age+STS+RP&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a; MSDN Blogs; 2007, pp. 1-7. |
“Identity Selector Interoperability Profile specification and companion guides”; Microsoft Download Center; http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?DisplayLang=en&FamilyID=b94817fc-3991-4ddO-8e85-b73e626f6764; Microsoft Corporation; 2007. |
Nanda, Arun; Identity Selector Interoperability Profile V1.0; Microsoft Download Center, http://download.microsoft. com/down load/1/1/a/11 ac6505-e4cO-4e05-987c-6f1 d31855cd2/Identity-Selector-Interop-Profile-v1 .pdf; Microsoft Corporation; Apr. 2007, pp. 1-52. |
Microsoft Corporation, Ping Identity Corporation, “An Implementer's Guide to the Identity Selector Interoperability Profile V1.0”; Microsoft Download Center, http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/1/a/11ac6505-e4cO-4e05-987c-6f1d31855cd2/Identity-Selector-Interop-Profile-v1-Guide.pdf; Microsoft Corporation; Apr. 2007, pp. 1-74. |
Jones, Michael B.; “A Guide to Using the Indentity Selector interoperability Profile V1.0 within Web Applications and Browsers”; Microsoft Download Center; http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/1/a/11ac6505-e4cO-4e05-987c-6f1 d31855cd2/Identity-Selector-Interop-Profile-v1-Web-Guide.pdf; Microsoft Corporation; Apr. 2007, pp. 1-14. |
Jones, Michael B., “Michael B. Jones Homepage”; http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um-people/mbj; Aug. 12, 2009, pp. 1-4. |
Jones, Michael B., “Mike Jones: self-issued”; http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um-people/mbj; Aug. 12, 2009, pp. 1-45. |
Just, Mike; “Designing Authentication Systems with Challenge Questions”; Security and Usability, Lorrie Faith Cranor and Simson Garfinkel (eds.); O'Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol, CA; Aug. 5, 2005; Chapter 8, pp. 147-160. |
“PwdHash From Stanford—Generate Passwords by Hashing the URL”; Don't Learn to Hack—Hack to Learn, http://www.darknet.org.uk/2007/03/pwdhash-from-stanford-generate; Darknet; Mar. 13, 2007, pp. 1-8. |
“Microsoft's Vision for an Identity Metasystem”; http://www.identityblog.com/stories/2005/07/05/IdentityMetasystem.htm; Microsoft Corporation; May 2005, pp. 1-10. |
Gnucitizen, “Attacking Password Recovery Facilities”; http://www/gnucitizen.org/blog/attacking-password-recovery-facilities; Jul. 6, 2007, pp. 1-4. |
Sol, S., “The Display (GUI) Layer” Intro to the Web Application Development Environment, http://web.archive.org/web/20001119171800/http://extropia.com/tutorials/devenv/gui.html>, Nov. 19, 2000, pp. 1-10, XP002517142. |
Cambridge, “Cambridge Dictionary Online”, Internet Article, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=11419&dict=CALD>, Feb. 26, 2009, XP002517143. |
Harjanto, A., “InfoCard and Browser Integration”, Internet Article, http://blogs.msdn.com/andyhar/archive/2006/02/20/535333.aspx>, Feb. 20, 2006, XP002517147. |
Dingle, P., “Identity Selectors & Browser Detection”, Internet Article, http://eternallyoptimistic.com/2006/11/05/identity-selectors-browser-detection/>, Nov. 5, 2006, XP002517148. |
Techtree News Staff, “Infocard Spells End of Passwords”, Internet Article, http://www.techtree.com/techtree/jsp/article.jsp?print=1&article—id=71396&cat—id=582>, Feb. 16, 2006, XP002517144. |
Tewfiq El Maliki et al.; A Survey of User-centric Identity Management Technologies; Emerging Security Information Systems, and Technologies, 2007, pp. 12-17. |
Sanders, T., “IBM/Novell unveil rival to Microsoft Infocard”, Internet Article, http://www.vnunet.com/articles/print/2151060>, Feb. 26, 2006, XP002517145. |
Cameron, K., “Bill Gates, Inforcards and the Identity Metasystem”, Internet Article, http://www.identityblog.com/?p=374>, Feb. 19, 2006, XP002517146. |
Darknet (2007), “Don't Learn to Hack—Hack to Learn”. Retrieved from http://www.darknet.org.uk/2007/03/pwdhash-from-stanford-generate-passwords-by-hashing-the-url, pp. 1-7. |
Allan, A. (2003), “Best Practices for Managing Passwords: Self-Service Q&A”. Published by Garner, Inc. at Tutorials, TU-20-2040, pp. 1-5. |
Microsoft Corporation, Ping Identity Corporation (Aug. 2005), “A Guide to Integrating with InfoCard v1.0”, XP007908505, pp. 1-62. |
David Chappell, “Introducing Windows CardSpace”, Windows Vista Technical Articles, http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa480189(d=printer).aspx, Apr. 2006, pp. 1-13. |
The Higgins Foundation, “Higgins FAQ”, http://www.eclipse.org/higgins/faq.php, printed Aug. 13, 2007, pp. 1-2. |
“Components—Eclipsepedia”, http://wiki.eclipse.org/Components, printed Aug. 13, 2007, pp. 1-8. |
“Architecture—Eclipsepedia”, http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Architecture, printed Aug. 13, 2007, pp. 1-2. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/395,725, filed Mar. 31, 2006, entitled “Methods and Systems for Multi-Factor Authentication”. This is a commonly owned application that is in the same general field as the invention. |
Gralla, Preston; “How the Internet Works”; Millennium Ed. Que, Aug. 1999. |
Nagarkar, V., “How to Drag Drop in javascript (Part I)”, Internet Article, http://www.codeproject.com/KB/scripting/DragDrip—Part—1—.aspx, Jun. 11, 2006 (12 pages). |
Alrodhan, et al., “Addressing privacy issues in CardSpace”, 2007, IEEE, pp. 285-291. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20080229383 A1 | Sep 2008 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60895312 | Mar 2007 | US | |
60895316 | Mar 2007 | US | |
60895325 | Mar 2007 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12323141 | Nov 2008 | US |
Child | 11843591 | US |