The present invention relates generally to electronic identity management systems. More particularly, the present invention relates to authentication and security for data exchange in a distributed hierarchical identity management system.
In the field of identity management, there are a number of known systems for providing user identity services on the Internet. Microsoft's Passport™, and the Liberty Alliance identity management system are two such known examples, as are the identity management systems taught in Canadian Patent No. 2,431,311, and Canadian Patent Application Nos. 2,458,257, 2,468,351, and 2,468,585.
Many known identity management systems offer secure logins, allowing a user to visit a site in the network (membersite) and obtain a secure login to that site using an identity store to authenticate the user identity over a secure channel. The use of a secure channel allows an identity store to provide the membersite with user login information and/or confidential user information.
However, the reliance on secure channels increases the barrier to entry for membersites. Under a secure setup, lightweight, or simple, login is encumbered by the overhead of a secure channel.
In an identity management system that relies upon homesites to act as an identity store which stores user identity information, it may be advantageous to provide a form of graduated security to allow a membersite to obtain identity information, including authentication, using a number of different channels, each with different security features.
There is a further need for a mechanism through which a webservice provider can obtain user authentication and authorization for a third party to receive information. At present, if a third party wishes to aggregate information from a number of webservice providers for the user, or if a third party requires information from a webservice provider to further process before providing the results to a user, the third party and the webservice must be heavily linked. Typically, the third party must become associated with the webservice, and have its services bundled by the webservice provider. Thus a financial institution can use an aggregation service to perform analysis on a client's holdings, but a client cannot easily obtain an aggregation across a number of financial institutions. There is therefore a need for a mechanism for third parties to provide authentication of a user authorization for release of information provided by a webservice.
There are at present a number of contact management services that allow a user to provide a list of known contacts. If the contacts provided a user subscribe to the same service, when one of the users updates a segment of a profile, the change is automatically reflected in the other users contact list. However, at present, these services are highly centralized. There is no automated mechanism to obtain information about users that have not subscribed. There is a plurality of these services, and at present there is no convenient mechanism for data exchange between them. This results in users forming small collective islands of contact sharing. There is a need for a distributed contact management system that allows users to share information with people in a vast identity management system that allows for automated updating of contact information.
It is, therefore, desirable to provide an identity management system that can provide at least one of improved gradations in the security levels, support for third party webservices and support for distributed contact management.
It is an object of the present invention to obviate or mitigate at least one disadvantage of previous identity management systems.
In a first aspect of the present invention, there is provided a method of selecting a security level for transmitting identity information from a homesite in an identity management network to a membersite in the identity management network. The method comprises the steps of receiving a request from a membersite; determining, in accordance with a security level associated with the received request, the security level for transmitting the response to the request and transmitting the response to the received request over a channel selected in accordance with the determined security level.
In an embodiment of the first aspect of the present invention, the received request is a request for identity information, a request for authentication of a user identity, or a combination of the two. In another embodiment, the security level associated with the received request is selected from a list including an authentication security level, a channel security level and a time sensitivity security level. In other embodiment, s the step of determining includes selecting a security level at least as secure as a level associated with the received request. In other embodiments, the step of determining includes one of selecting a security level specified in the received request, selecting a security level in accordance with information specified in the received request and selecting a security level in accordance with user preferences, that predefined and are associated with the information requested in the received request. The security level can also be selected in accordance with homesite policies.
In another aspect of the present invention, there is provided a homesite, in an identity management system, for receiving information requests from a membersite in the identity management system, and for determining a security level for transmitting a response to received information requests. The homesite comprises an input, an authentication engine, and a response engine. The input receives an information request from a membersite. The authentication engine authenticates a user associated with the information request. The response engine assembles information associated with the user in accordance with the received authentication request, and transmits the assembled information to the membersite over a channel selected in accordance with a security level determined in accordance with the received information request.
In an embodiment of the second aspect of the present invention, the response engine includes a security level determining engine for selecting one of an authentication security level, a channel security level and a time sensitivity security level. IN another embodiment, the response engine includes a security level determining engine for selecting a security level at least as secure as a level associated with the received request, for selecting a security level specified in the request or for selecting a security level in accordance with information specified in the received request. In another embodiment, the security level determining engine determines the security level in accordance with user preferences or a homesite policy.
Other aspects and features of the present invention will become apparent to those ordinarily skilled in the art upon review of the following description of specific embodiments of the invention in conjunction with the accompanying figures.
Embodiments of the present invention will now be described, by way of example only, with reference to the attached Figures, wherein:
Generally, the present invention provides a method and system for identity management supporting graduated security levels, third party web services and contact management.
In the following discussion, a hierarchical distributed identity management system is assumed, though one skilled in the art will appreciate that a number of these techniques can be utilized in other identity management networks or other environments where transactional security is of importance.
In view of the need for a graduated security mechanism, the system of the present invention can provide a series of different levels of security. As noted with regard to the prior art, a mechanism for providing a series of graduated security levels provides membersites with the ability to determine the degree of security that they require. For sites that relied upon identification by the presence of a cookie, as many news based website do, or sites that relied upon simple username password combinations transmitted in cleartext prior to joining the identity management network, there is little need for requiring a very secure user identification channel. For such sites, requiring a secure login with signature verification for exchanged data serves as a barrier for entry. On the other side of the equation, financial service websites or websites providing medical histories are best served by very secure logins, with a mechanism that reduces the ability of malicious parties to perform man-in-the-middle type attacks. To provide such a varied login, the system of the present invention allows for a graduated security login. The graduated security login can use both differentiated levels of user authentication and differentiated levels of channel security.
In prior art identity management systems, users are authenticated by providing a user identifier, such as a username, and a shared secret, such as a password. In other systems, typically reserved for specialty uses, other information was used in place of a shared secret, including fingerprint or biometric data. If the provided information was sufficiently unique, as it is with fingerprint and biometric data, the provision of this information was sufficient, and a user identifier was not required. Thus, depending on the level of security required for the authentication, different information has been required. However, in the prior art, login information has been globally set, so that regardless of what a user may want to do the same authentication test was applied. In the context of a membersite requesting user authentication, this is particularly cumbersome. A user, who is being authenticated by a news site so that a particular presentation layout can be selected based on user preference, does not need to be bothered with a request to authenticate using a user name and password, especially if the user has been recently authenticated. Additionally, the news site does not necessarily want the user to be authenticated by a username and password combination, or an even stronger authentication mechanism, as it makes the process too cumbersome for the user and diminishes the likelihood that the user will visit the site. Conversely, a financial institution may want the user to be authenticated by a homesite regardless of when the user was last authenticated, and may demand that that authentication. Similarly, a medical database may want to force the user to authenticate with the homesite and use a particularly robust authentication mechanism, such as a biometric scan, so that there is confidence that the user has been properly authenticated.
To service the varied needs of different membersites, the homesite can support a series of different authentication levels. By supporting the plurality of different authentication mechanisms, the homesite can receive requests from a membersite to authenticate at a certain level of security. Additionally, a user can set a preference that when certain information, such as a credit card number, is requested, the homesite will only release it if authentication at a predefined level has been obtained. Thus, when a homesite receives a request for user information or user authentication, it can determine from both the request, and the requested information, the level of user authentication that is required. If the request for authentication and the requested information specify different levels of security, the homesite can use the higher of the two for the maximum security.
One skilled in the art will appreciate that different dimensions of security can be applied independently of each other. Differing levels of user authentication security can be applied, so that users can be required to provide different complexities of authentication information, as can differing levels of security in the communication channel formed between the membersite and homesite through the user's browser. As a further dimension to the security level, a time sensitivity factor can be required of the user authentication, so that differing levels of user authentication security can be combined with a staleness factor that allows authentication of a user within a fixed period of time to be varied.
Thus, a homesite can use any of a number of authentication methods, and preferably uses the one specified by the membersite. To allow for authentication methods to be properly specified, each authentication method can be assigned a security level, allowing the membersite to request authentication at a desired level. The homesite can then use any authentication method at, or above, that level to authenticate the user.
From the perspective of a membersite, when a user visits, the membersite can determine that the user has a homesite, through any number of known mechanisms, including looking for a cookie in a shadow domain. The user can be redirected to the homesite with a request for authentication, possibly including an information request. This request includes an indication of the security level, preferably for both the authentication and the time sensitivity, required. When a response from the homesite is received, the response can include a statement, preferably signed by the homesite, that authentication was performed at a given level either at or in excess of the one specified by the membersite.
As an example of the above described authentication security levels, consider the scenario of a news server that provides users with specified layout and content filtering based on saved user profiles. When a user visits the news server, the server sends the user to the homesite for authentication, and specifies that the lowest form of authentication is required, which in this scenario is that the user possesses a cookie from the homesite indicating that an authentication has occurred in the last 30 days. The homesite receives the user authentication request, determines that the user identifier, such as a globally unique persona identifier or a pairwise unique identifier, can be released without obtaining further user authentication as the user has previously authenticated. The user's identifier, along with a statement that authentication has been performed at or above the desired level, is then provided to the news server in a response signed by the homesite. The news server can then cross reference the user identifier with a set of preferences to display the news content in the desired format. Upon reading a story, the user clicks on a link to purchase a photo associated with one of the news stories. The purchase will be done on a credit card, whose information is stored by the homesite. The news server sends a request for user information to the homesite and requests the user's credit card number and a shipping address. The news server requests that the homesite authenticate the user using at least a username and password combination. The homesite receives the request for user information, and checks the user preferences related to the release of information. These preferences indicate that though the user will release a shipping address from a username and password challenge, a stronger challenge, such as a username and a response to two personal identification questions selected from a pool of questions, must be used to release a credit card number. The homesite then randomly selects two questions from a pool of questions, including information such as birthdate, place of birth, mother's maiden name, a favorite color, and a pet's name. These questions are provided to the user as a challenge. Upon successful completion of the challenge, the information is released to the news server in a signed response that includes an indication that a challenge at least as rigorous as the username password was obtained. Other levels of security can include a biometric or fingerprint scan, an out of band challenge such as a telephone call placed to a designated phone number, an out of band challenge including a password request in the out of band connection, automated token generation systems, and other known authentication mechanisms. One skilled in the art will appreciate that the above list is intended to be exemplary and not limiting in any manner.
As a companion to the above authentication security levels, the present invention can optionally provide a series of different channel configurations so that the channel between the membersite and homesite can have different levels of security itself. These two systems can be implemented independently of each other, though in combination they provide a large number of security options.
In certain attacks on secure servers a “man in the middle” is used, so that requests for information are intercepted, modified, and then passed along. If a man in the middle type attack of this sort is attempted on the system of
To offer the different gradients of channel security, the present invention provides for both membersites and homesites to communicate to each other, preferably through browser 114, using a channel selected from a channel listing. The following listing is meant to be exemplary and is not necessarily exhaustive. The list is not strictly ordered to show increasing security, as certain features of some channels offer security in a different manner than others. At a first level an open channel, with no encryption, can be used between the MS and the HS. To increase the security, and open channel can be used with HS signing the response to show that the content has not been modified in transit. A secure channel can be used, so that transit between the HS and B, and B and MS is secure. A secure channel with a signed response allows HS to have a secure connection to B, and then have a secure channel from B to MS, and allows MS to see that the response has not been modified in transit. An open channel can be used, with both the request and the response signed. This allows HS to know that the request for information has not been tampered with, and allows the MS to know that the response has not been tampered with. If HS passes the signed request back to MS along with the signed response, MS can also verify that the request was not tampered with. The same signed request and response can also be transmitted over a secure channel.
By offering a series of these security levels the identity management system of the present invention allows membersites to use the most appropriate security for their needs, and does not force a one size fits all solution upon membersites. Homesites include input ports to receive requests for information and authentication. Prior to release of the information or authentication, a homesite can examine the information to be released and compare it to specified user conditions for the release of that information. Thus, a user can specify a channel security level at which information can be released, similar to the authentication security level settings on information described above. This allows a membersite to make a low security request, and a user preference or homesite policy to override it, and inform the membersite that the requested information can only be released using secure channels. The use of redirect commands allows the HS and MS to pass these messages to each other transparently to the user. Thus, the homesite input ports receive membersite requests, while an authentication engine obtains user authentication, and optionally obtains user authorization for the release of requested information. A homesite response engine then prepares the response to the received request and transmits it to the membersite over either the requested channel, or over a channel required by user preferences or homesite policies.
MS 118 is always guaranteed that the message from HS 116 has not been modified when a signed response is sent. The signature can be verified against a signature signed by a trusted third party, such as a network root as described in other references, or by a certificate authority.
One skilled in the art will appreciate that the above described channel and authentication security levels can be provided either separately from each other or in tandem. They both rely upon a membersite issuing a user identity request with a defined security level, and the membersite receiving a response that is checked to ensure that it meets the defined security level. From the perspective of the homesite, both methods involve receiving user identity requests, determining a security level in accordance with the received request and sending a response that meets the specified security levels.
One skilled in the art will appreciate that the various systems of the present invention can be implemented using standard computing hardware controlled by software to receive information, analyze it and provide a response appropriate to the method of the present invention. Applicant notes that the homesite of the present invention preferably includes an input, and authentication engine and a response engine. The input receives membersite request, preferably via the user, the authentication engine determines the requested authentication and authenticates the user, while the response engine sends an appropriate reply to the membersite. A membersite of the present invention can include an input for receiving a user, an authentication request engine, for transmitting a user authentication request with specified a security level, and a response analyzer for analyzing the response to the authentication request to ensure that the security level of the response either matches or exceeds the specified security level.
When the user of browser 114 establishes a session with MS 118, over connection 168, an authentication with HS 116 takes place (not shown as part of the data flow). After authentication, the user may request a feature provided by MS 118 that requires access to a webservice, such as WS 166. As an illustrative example, not intended to limit the scope of the invention, MS 118 may offer a financial portal service to the user of browser 114, whereby MS 118 collects financial information from a number of other servers and presents it to the user in a consolidated format. WS 166 can match a globally unique persona identifier (GUPI) with the user of browser 114 and the services to which the user is subscribed. MS 118 provides a request to WS 166 over datapath 170. WS 166 sends a request 172 to MS 118. This request typically includes a request for user authentication and a set of information to allow WS 166 to identify the user. The request from WS 166 can also include requests for assertions from third parties that are held by the homesite 116. Such assertions can include verifiable statements that a user is a member of an organization, such as a reward program, and even that the user has obtained a status level in the organization. Other assertions may be issued by governmental organizations indicating that a user has a geographical location. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that any number of third party assertions can be provided to WS 166. This request is preferably accompanied with a nonce or other form of session identifier so that MS 118, or another system, is prevented from using the user authentication as part of a replay attack. MS 118 forwards the request for authentication to HS 116 by redirecting the user along logical datapath 174, one skilled in the art will appreciate that datapath 174 can include multiple channels established between different nodes on a point-to-point basis. The request from MS 118 to HS 116 may simply be the WS 166 request, or it may include a series of requests, including an aggregation of requests from the number of other web services (not shown). Furthermore, the request sent along datapath 174 may include other information needed by MS 118. The request relayed to HS 116 preferably contains a request for a set of information about the user, user authentication, and an explanation of what information is being provided and why it is being requested. In a presently preferred embodiment, the explanation is provided both as plaintext so that HS 116 can easily display it to the user, and as a programmatic explanation, so that HS 116 can obtain one-time authorization for the release of the information to WS 166. The programmatic explanation, if provided, allows HS 116 to simply perform a compare operation on existing authorizations, reducing the number of times that the user must interact with HS 116, increasing the appearance of a seamless experience.
Upon obtaining user authorization and authentication, HS 116 prepares a response, signs the response and includes its public signature, signed by root 164. If the request from MS 118 is an aggregation of requests from multiple webservices, HS 116 can sign each corresponding response separately so that each webservice is provided with only the information that it requested. In an alternate embodiment, to reduce the computational overhead on HS 116 imposed by signing multiple data blocks, the entire response is signed, and each web service is provided the whole response. The response is sent to MS 118 via browser 114 over datapath 176. MS 118 preferably breaks the response into the separately signed segments and forwards each segment to the respective WS. WS 166 then receives its request on datapath 178. WS 166 can then authenticate that the data has not been modified in transit by examining the homesite signature and knowing the root signature. The use of a nonce, as described above, provides WS 166 the ability to track when the request was issued if a timeout value is to be applied. WS 166 can match information in the response from HS 116 to information held, such as bank account information, to determine which information to release to MS 118. Upon validating the authorization and gathering the information to release to MS 118, WS 166 sends the information to MS 118 over datapath 180. Upon receipt of the information from WS 166, MS 118 can act on the information as required. Depending on the content of the response, WS 166 may select the elements of the signed response that it needs and then examine the authorization it has received. If authorization has been received WS 166 will either provide a token to MS 118 that permits multiple access without further authentication, or will provide the requested information to MS 118 without a token to provide one-time access only. For the purposes of an example, not intended to limit the scope of the present invention, the following scenario is presented. A user directs browser 114 to MS 118, where a session has already been established. MS 118 provides the ability to aggregate information, such as travel information, for a user. MS 118 has knowledge of the user's upcoming travel itinerary, and proceeds to connect to an airline travel webservice, WS 166. WS 166 upon receiving the initial contact from MS 118 provides a request for authentication of the user, using datapath 172, and requests the user's full name, address and frequent flier information. This request is forwarded to HS 116, possibly along with other information requests, following datapath 174 through MS 118, and browser 114. Upon receipt of the request, HS 116 requests that the user re-authenticate. The request from WS 166 is accompanied by both a text explanation outlining the information that is going to be released and a programmatic explanation; so that at a later date the user does not need to interact with HS 116, and HS 116 can simply send the response. After authentication and acceptance of the release of the information, the user authorizes HS 116 to release the information to WS 166. HS 116 then prepares a response including a user identifier, such as a GUPI, the requested information, and a nonce provided with request. The response is signed by HS 116, and a root-signed copy of HS 116's public signature is appended to the signed response. This response is forwarded to MS 118 via browser 114 by redirecting the browser, along the continuation of datapath 176, using any of a number of known techniques. MS 118 then forwards the segment of the signed response corresponding to the request from WS 166 to WS 166 over datapath 178. After verifying the nonce and the requested information, WS 166 obtains the flight information for the user, provides it to MS 118, and allows any of a number of functions to be provided including seat selection and advance check-in with electronic boarding pass provisions. One skilled in the art will appreciate both that other services can be provided, and that MS 118 can connect to a plurality of webservices to aggregate data from each of them. In one embodiment of the present invention, MS 118 requests sessions with a plurality of webservice providers, and aggregates their information requests. The aggregated requests are then provided en masse to HS 116, and user authorization for all requests is obtained at once. This allows HS 116 to provide a series of responses to MS 118, at which time MS 118 then separates the responses and sends each of the individual responses to the respective webserivce providers. The severing of the concatenated responses from HS 116 can easily be managed using the session identifiers issued by each webservice provider as a key. In alternate embodiments, HS 116 obtains user approval for the release of the information to each of the webservice providers, and then sends the responses one at a time to MS 118, which after receiving a response simply redirects browser 114 to HS 116 to obtain the next response until all responses are obtained and forwarded to the webservice providers. One skilled in the art will appreciate that the actual mechanism used for the supporting of multiple webservice providers can vary without affecting the scope of the present invention.
Webservice providers, such as WS 166, can relate the information that they requested to their database, and at the same time be assured that they are allowed to release the information, as HS 116 can be proven to be authoritative for the user's identifier by following a signature key chain through any number of delegations until a trusted source is used to show that HS 116 is authoritative for the information released.
Some of the information housed by HS 116 may be provided to it by an outside authoritative source as described in detail in related applications, such as Canadian Application Numbers 2,468,351, and 2,468,585, which are hereby incorporated by reference. In cases where the information, such as a frequent flier number, is housed by an external authoritative site, HS 116 can provide the externally signed assertion to WS 166, allowing WS 166 to determine both that the information provided is authentic, and that HS 116 is authoritative for the user associated with the information.
One skilled in the art will appreciate that MS 118 may always connect to WS 166. As a result, MS 118 can, upon receiving an indication that the user is part of the identity management system, initiate the connection to WS 166 to request a session over datapath 170. When MS 118 requests information required by WS 166, it can include its own user authentication request. Thus, authentication of the user at HS 116 can be done at the same time that the user authorizes the release of information to WS 166.
As illustrated in
A rich client can be provided that interacts with WS 166 on the user's behalf without having to interact with MS 118, as illustrated in
To facilitate the interaction of RC with the rest of the network, RC can use a public API to interact with network nodes such as HS 116 and WS 166. As new standards for connection are defined, or new node types arise, the API can be changed by a public administrator, and then provided to the users of RC. By replacing the API, the ability to connect either to new node types or to existing nodes in a new manner can be provided without requiring the rewriting of the code base for RC.
As described above, the network root administers admission to the network, and provides signed assertions that a homesite is authoritative for a user. Each user is uniquely identified by both a GUPI and an email address. By leveraging the trust model of this network, a distributed contact management network is provided. At present contact management networks require a single database of contacts that are maintained by a sole provider. The distributed nature of the network of the present invention bypasses the drawbacks to that model. A distributed contact management system in the network of the present invention is illustrated in
Root 164 maintains a database 204 mapping email addresses to associated GUPI's and homesite identifiers used to identify the homesite that is authoritative for the GUPI. HS 116 is authoritative for a GUPI associated with the user of browser 114. The user of browser 114 provides to HS 116 a listing of known contacts over datapath 206. HS 116 extracts the email addresses from the contact listing and provides the email addresses to root 164 over datapath 208. Root 164 then identifies the GUPI and homesite associated with each submitted email address, and provides this information to the HS 116 over return datapath 210. HS 116 can then contact HS2212, which is authoritative for a GUPI associated with one of the submitted email addresses over connection 214. When HS 116 contacts HΩ 212 over datapath 214, it can request additional contact information stored by HS2212. HS2212 can release this information, if authorized by the relevant user, or can ask the relevant user for authorization at the next login. When providing the information, HS2212 can provide a URI to HS 116 allowing HS 116 to obtain updated information at other times, so that the contact information can be updated periodically. Conversely, HS 116 can provide HS2212 with a URI so that when the requested information changes, or at fixed intervals, HS 116 will receive updated information over datapath 214. After receiving the user information over datapath 214, HS 116 can forward the information to browser 114 over datapath 216. One skilled in the art will appreciate that a number of other software applications, other than a standard internet web browser, can be used by the user to communicate with HS 116 including email and contact management clients. In the above scenario the contact information can be transmitted in any of a number of formats including the virtual card (vcard) standard.
The above-described scenario allows homesites to communicate to each other using URI's to update information. A similar network service is illustrated in
GUPI's are typically assigned by root 164 to a homesite, such as HS 116. Thus far in identity management systems, each identifier is linked to an email address. This removes the ability of a user to be anonymous, as the identifier can be associated with an email address that is easily traceable to a user. To satisfy the need for anonymous personas, root 164 can assign a series of GUPIs to HS 116 as an anonymous pool. This allows HS 116 to provide a user with a pool of anonymous GUPIs, so that if a user wishes to remain anonymous, HS 116 is the only site that can identify the user. Once again, this model is predicated upon the user of browser 114 having trust in HS 116, without which, HS 116 would never be able to server as a homesite that stores the user's identity information. With a sufficiently large pool of anonymous GUPIs, HS 116 can assign a different GUPI to each site that a user visits. Though this prevents the building of attributes that can establish a virtual reputation, the purpose of anonymous personas is to prevent the building of any reputation. Because no two sites will be given the same GUPI, the result is much the same as a pairwise unique identifier, however, HS 116 can, in one embodiment, economize on GUPI's in the unique pool by allowing the same GUPI to be used by two different users at two different sites. Because the GUPI has no attributes associated with it, and no user can build a reputation with it, if treated communally it further anonymizes the behaviour of the user. In non-shared embodiments, HS 116 must track the pairings of the membersite identifier and the user to determine the GUPI to be used. If the GUPI is not shared, it is still globally unique, and can be ported to another homesite. When transferring persona information to another homesite, the user can obtain a GUPI list from the homesite and can have the authoritativeness of that GUPI transferred to another homesite. For the embodiment where GUPIs are communally shared, the new homesite can be made authoritative for the GUPI, maintaining the same membersite identifier and user pairing to associate to the GUPI, without revoking the authoritativeness of the original homesite, as other people at other sites may use the GUPI.
One of the issues that arise from using multiple GUPI to allow a user to keep persona separate, is that when assertions are made, they are typically made for a single persona. Thus, for a user with home and office persona, an assertion may be made for the office persona regarding membership in an organization. If the user's home persona needs to make use of the membership assertion attached to the office persona there are two mechanisms provided by the present invention for this. Using a first mechanism, a user can direct HS 116 to contact AS which issued the assertion for the work persona. HS 116 then provides AS with multiple GUPIs, and the assertions for any of the provided GUPIs issued by AS and indicates that it is authoritative for all the submitted GUPIs, and all the submitted GUPIs are the same individual. AS, upon being informed that all the GUPIs are issued to the same individual, can then provide any GUPIs that do not have an assertion, with the assertion provided by HS 116. In an example, AS is a frequent flier program, and has provided an assertion indicating that the office persona of a user has obtained elite status. HS 116 provides the GUPIs for the user's office and home persona to AS along with the assertion that the office persona has obtained elite status. AS then verifies that HS 116 is authoritative for both GUPIs, and confirms that the office persona is certified as having elite status. AS then provides an assertion for the GUPI associated with the home persona indicating elite status. This allows for assertions to be shared between persona, but comes at the cost of having AS know that two GUPI are related to each other.
If a user wishes to avoid having two GUPI linked together by an AS, but one GUPI has an assertion needed by the other GUPI, the following method can be employed. When MS 118 requests an assertion about a first GUPI that is only held by a second GUPI, HS 116 can include in its signed response, both GUPIs, and the assertion held for the second GUPI. MS 118 can then determine from the response, that HS 116 is authoritative for both GUPIs, and sees that HS 116 states that both GUPIs are issued to the same person. MS 118 can then verify that the second persona has the required assertion, and apply the assertion to the first persona. As an example, a user with office and home persona has an assertion for the office persona that indicates elite status in a frequent flier program from AS. The user wants to use this assertion with the home persona when visiting MS 118. In response to MS 118's request for the assertion, HS 116 sends both office and home GUPI, and the assertion for the office persona GUPI. MS 116 can then verify that the GUPIs are related, and can transitively apply the assertion to the home persona. In contrast to the first embodiment, AS does not know that the persona are linked, but MS 118 knows. Because the operation, by default, includes moving attributes from one persona to another, HS 116 must reveal the link between 2 GUPIs to at least one of the two. By offering both mechanisms, the user is provided the opportunity to choose which node in the network is shown the link.
The above described method and system for sharing credentials between GUPIs can also be used in relation to anonymous GUPI, though it should be noted that this reduces the anonymity of a GUPI, so should preferably not be done with a GUPI shared among users. For a MS 118 that has only ever been presented with an anonymous GUPI, the above-described method provides a method of transferring history to an identifiable GUPI. If HS 116 provides MS 118 with both an anonymous GUPI and an identifiable, or non-anonymous, GUPI, MS 118 can transfer any history associated with the anonymous GUPI to the identifiable GUPI. This allows a user to interact with MS 118 in an anonymous fashion, and then, having reached a comfort level with MS 118, the user can present another GUPI and have any history and reputation transferred to the non-anonymous GUPI.
To increase the availability of homesite management capabilities, a homesite can be built-in to a browser. Such a homesite can be offered either as an integral part of a web browser, or can be offered using a plug-in architecture. Such a plug in, or integrated browser, can be used to simplify the communication with nodes in the network and reduce the redirection of previous embodiments.
At a first level, a browser can indicate that it understands extensions to HTML specific to the identity management network. When browsers make requests from web servers using the hypertext transfer protocol (http), they provide an indication of capabilities, including an HTML version. By indicating that the browser understands the identity management network extensions to HTML (or identity management HTML tags), MS 118 does not need to redirect the browser to the shadow domain to find out the homesite of the user. Instead, MS can simply send an HTML instruction to the browser to obtain user authentication. If the browser indicates that it is both identity management aware, and that a homesite has been configured, MS 118 need only provide authentication and information requests to the browser, and the browser will then handle any redirection needed. This allows MS 118 to avoid using redirections to shadow domains to find out what the user's homesite is, and avoids having to issue redirection requests to the browser. From the perspective of the user, fewer redirection requests are issued, and MS 118 never obtains the location of the users' homesite. If MS 118 simply instructs the enhanced browser to obtain authentication in an HTML tagged message, it does not need to tell the browser where to redirect to, and avoids using Javascript™ redirects and close window commands to make the user experience seamless. The MS only determines the user's HS, when a response is issued, which increases user privacy.
As an enhancement, an enhanced browser can also be provided with the ability to function as a homesite. As disclosed in the above-cited references, a homesite can be provided as a local application. By integrating the homesite within the web browser, redirection can be avoided. When the HS-enabled browser visits MS 118, it indicates that it supports identity management HTML tags. MS 118 then instructs the browser to obtain user authentication and return user information. HS-enabled browser no longer needs to redirect to an external site, and instead can provide user authentication using a locally controlled authentication tab or window. If the user his specified that use of the browser is a sufficient indication of authentication, HS-enabled browser can immediately return the requested information, having signed the response. This eliminates the user having to interact with an external homesite, and reduces the data transmission, which is especially important on low-bandwidth connections. The HS-enabled browser preferably does not have a homesite cookie, so that MS 118 will not know that the user is using a local homesite.
One skilled in the art will appreciate that when an identity management aware browser sends identity management information through http headers, it allows MS 118 to refrain from bouncing the browser to the shadow domain. This allows MS 118 to simplify its interaction with the browser, as the browser has indicated that it knows a homesite for the user. Instead of the MS being sent the HS identifying information, MS uses an http command to request authentication in a POST command. The browser will handle redirection if needed and will replace the request authentication command with the appropriate HTML if an external HS is used. If an external HS is used, it can identify that it does not need to use a redirect command to send the information to MS, and instead simply sends the response to the browser and tells the browser to send the information to the MS.
The above-described enhancement to a browser can either be integrated into the browser code, or can be provided as a plug in. One skilled in the art will appreciate that either embodiment can communicate with a root node to obtain updated schema, or can obtain the updated schema from a central service used to ensure that the browser has been updated to the most recent patches and bug-fixes.
The above-described embodiments of the present invention are intended to be examples only. Alterations, modifications and variations may be effected to the particular embodiments by those of skill in the art without departing from the scope of the invention, which is defined solely by the claims appended hereto.
This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 16/417,361, filed May 20, 2019 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,567,391), which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 15/172,008, filed Jun. 2, 2016 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,298,594), which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 14/622,722, filed Feb. 13, 2015 (U.S. Pat. No. 9,398,020), which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 14/015,813, filed Aug. 30, 2013 (U.S. Pat. No. 8,959,652), which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/039,885, filed Jan. 24, 2005 (U.S. Pat. No. 8,527,752), which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/579,890, filed Jun. 16, 2004 and U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/605,150, filed Aug. 30, 2004, which are all incorporated herein by reference in their entireties.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3837501 | Pielkenrood | Sep 1974 | A |
4067813 | Pielkenrood | Jan 1978 | A |
4437988 | James | Mar 1984 | A |
4713753 | Boebert et al. | Dec 1987 | A |
4759063 | Chaum | Jul 1988 | A |
4759064 | Chaum | Jul 1988 | A |
4780821 | Crossley | Oct 1988 | A |
4799156 | Shavit et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
4914698 | Chaum | Apr 1990 | A |
4949380 | Chaum | Aug 1990 | A |
4991210 | Chaum | Feb 1991 | A |
5487826 | Back et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
5644723 | Deaton et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5677955 | Doggett et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5737701 | Rosenthal et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5774551 | Wu et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5781629 | Haber et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5794207 | Walker et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5794259 | Kikinis | Aug 1998 | A |
5815665 | Teper et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5855007 | Jovicic et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5872850 | Klein et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5875296 | Shi et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5903721 | Sixtus | May 1999 | A |
5911141 | Kelley et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5930479 | Hall | Jul 1999 | A |
5953710 | Fleming | Sep 1999 | A |
5983208 | Haller et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5995965 | Experton | Nov 1999 | A |
6005939 | Fortenberry et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6009410 | LeMole et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6012044 | Maggioncalda et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6026166 | LeBourgeois | Feb 2000 | A |
6029141 | Bezos et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6052710 | Saliba et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6061790 | Bodnar | May 2000 | A |
6073106 | Rozen et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6073241 | Rosenberg et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6092196 | Reiche | Jul 2000 | A |
6125352 | Franklin et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6131096 | Ng et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6154768 | Chen et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6192380 | Light et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6199079 | Gupta et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6208659 | Govindarajan et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6233608 | Laursen et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6243688 | Kalina | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6247029 | Kelley et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6253203 | O'Flaherty et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6266692 | Greenstein | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6285983 | Jenkins | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6289333 | Jawahar et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6298347 | Wesley | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6308203 | Itabashi et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6321339 | French et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6327578 | Linehan | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6353852 | Nestoriak, III et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6356905 | Gershman et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6381597 | Lin | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6385596 | Wiser et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6401085 | Gershman et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6421768 | Purpura | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6442696 | Wray | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6491217 | Catan | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6496855 | Hunt et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6571279 | Herz et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6571285 | Groath et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6584448 | Laor | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6605224 | Aymong | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6606643 | Emens et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6609198 | Wood et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6629081 | Cornelius et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6651090 | Itabashi et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6665704 | Singh | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6668322 | Wood et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6708205 | Sheldon et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6714916 | Robertson et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6725050 | Cook | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6751735 | Schell et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6845370 | Burkey et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6865426 | Schneck et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6879965 | Fung et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6907401 | Vittal et al. | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6944677 | Zhao | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6957334 | Goldstein et al. | Oct 2005 | B1 |
7016875 | Steele et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7016877 | Steele et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7054906 | Levosky | May 2006 | B2 |
7076558 | Dunn | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7089208 | Levchin et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7100195 | Underwood | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7133846 | Ginter et al. | Nov 2006 | B1 |
7197539 | Cooley | Mar 2007 | B1 |
7216292 | Snapper et al. | May 2007 | B1 |
7257581 | Steele et al. | Aug 2007 | B1 |
7257843 | Fujita | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7260724 | Dickinson | Aug 2007 | B1 |
7277546 | Dhawan | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7289971 | O'Neil et al. | Oct 2007 | B1 |
7333942 | Cowles | Feb 2008 | B1 |
7343351 | Bishop et al. | Mar 2008 | B1 |
7380271 | Moran et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7391865 | Orsini | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7454623 | Hardt | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7467141 | Steele | Dec 2008 | B1 |
7487130 | Steele | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7496751 | de Jong et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7546349 | Cooley | Jun 2009 | B1 |
7610391 | Dunn | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7694335 | Turner | Apr 2010 | B1 |
7783741 | Hardt | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7793095 | Hardt | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7827115 | Weller | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7836490 | Smith | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7941669 | Foley | May 2011 | B2 |
8117649 | Hardt | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8260806 | Steele | Sep 2012 | B2 |
8296825 | Leone | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8504704 | Hardt | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8527752 | Hardt | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8566248 | Steele | Oct 2013 | B1 |
8782405 | Okunseinde | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8959652 | Hardt | Feb 2015 | B2 |
9245266 | Hardt | Jan 2016 | B2 |
9398020 | Hardt | Jul 2016 | B2 |
10298594 | Hardt | May 2019 | B2 |
10567391 | Hardt | Feb 2020 | B2 |
20010011250 | Paltenghe et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010018660 | Sehr | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010018675 | Blaze et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010039586 | Primak et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010047276 | Eisenhart | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020002684 | Fox et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020016721 | Mason et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020029201 | Barzilai et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020049912 | Honjo et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020062262 | Vasconi et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020078233 | Biliris et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020087641 | Levosky | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020091745 | Ramamurthy et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020091798 | Joshi et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020099671 | Mastin Crosbie et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020107807 | Ketonen et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020107972 | Keane | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020112083 | Joshi et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020112155 | Martherus | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020112185 | Hodges | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020116642 | Joshi et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020120599 | Knouse et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020138581 | MacIntosh et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020152179 | Racov | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020154157 | Sherr et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020165960 | Chan | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020174369 | Miyazaki et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020178365 | Yamaguchi | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020194138 | Dominguez et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020198818 | Scott et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020199095 | Bandini et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030018587 | Althoff et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030033528 | Ozog et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030074580 | Knouse et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030079123 | Mas Ribes | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030110397 | Supramaniam et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030130960 | Fraser et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030131232 | Fraser et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030135732 | Vaha-Sipila | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030149781 | Yared | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030154306 | Perry | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030158960 | Engberg | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030163733 | Barriga-Caceres | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030204725 | Itoi et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030208684 | Camacho et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030225841 | Song et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030229783 | Hardt | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040008666 | Hardjono | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040010697 | White | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040049677 | Lee et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040103324 | Band | May 2004 | A1 |
20040128558 | Barrett | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040143750 | Kulack et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040162786 | Cross et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040177110 | Rounthwaite et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040181665 | Houser | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040205243 | Hurvig et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040225883 | Weller et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040243823 | Moyer et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040255117 | Paater et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050005110 | Kim et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050010653 | McCanne | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050015340 | Maes | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050114453 | Hardt | May 2005 | A1 |
20050132189 | Katsube | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050171811 | Campbell | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050210107 | Mora | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050210244 | Stevens et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050283443 | Hardt | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050283614 | Hardt | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060005019 | Chao | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060005020 | Hardt | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060005263 | Hardt | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060031489 | Marcjan | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060106734 | Hoffman et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060179003 | Steele et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060200425 | Steele et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060229944 | Walker et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20070130460 | Pfitzmann et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070143860 | Hardt | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070277034 | LiVecchi | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070282733 | May | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080010298 | Steele et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20090125429 | Takayama | May 2009 | A1 |
20090157531 | Bui | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090210293 | Steele et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20100306830 | Hardt | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20150180879 | Hardt | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20160140582 | Steele et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
20170006042 | Hardt | Jan 2017 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2003240323 | Dec 2003 | AU |
2222480 | Jul 1998 | CA |
2245293 | Sep 1999 | CA |
2431311 | Sep 2003 | CA |
2458257 | Sep 2003 | CA |
2447121 | Jan 2004 | CA |
2468351 | Aug 2004 | CA |
2468585 | Aug 2004 | CA |
2493897 | Apr 2005 | CA |
2494225 | Apr 2005 | CA |
1289974 | Apr 2001 | CN |
1089516 | Apr 2001 | EP |
1089518 | Apr 2001 | EP |
1223527 | Jul 2002 | EP |
1316016 | Jun 2003 | EP |
1316028 | Jun 2003 | EP |
1316041 | Jun 2003 | EP |
1388986 | Feb 2004 | EP |
1520217 | Apr 2005 | EP |
1766840 | Mar 2007 | EP |
1766852 | Mar 2007 | EP |
1766853 | Mar 2007 | EP |
1766863 | Mar 2007 | EP |
1098155 | Jul 1955 | FR |
11282804 | Oct 1999 | JP |
2001186122 | Jul 2001 | JP |
2003071960 | Mar 2003 | JP |
2003323408 | Nov 2003 | JP |
2005529392 | Sep 2005 | JP |
0067415 | Nov 2000 | WO |
0146783 | Jun 2001 | WO |
0167364 | Sep 2001 | WO |
0205092 | Jan 2002 | WO |
0205103 | Jan 2002 | WO |
0205139 | Jan 2002 | WO |
0205185 | Jan 2002 | WO |
0205487 | Jan 2002 | WO |
2002001462 | Jan 2002 | WO |
03046748 | Jun 2003 | WO |
03098898 | Nov 2003 | WO |
03104947 | Dec 2003 | WO |
2005048544 | May 2005 | WO |
2005125077 | Dec 2005 | WO |
2005125086 | Dec 2005 | WO |
2005125087 | Dec 2005 | WO |
2005125096 | Dec 2005 | WO |
200500060 | Mar 2006 | ZM |
Entry |
---|
Jau-Ji Shen; A Modified Remote User Authentication Scheme Using˜S mart Cards; IEEE, vol. 49, No. 2, May 2003; pp. 414-416. |
“724 Solutions—Products—Financial Services,” www.724.com, Sep. 25, 2001, 1 page. |
“724 Solutions—Products—m-Commerce,” www.724.com, Sep. 25, 2001, pp. 1-4. |
“724 Solutions—Products—Wireless Internet Platform,” www.724.com, Sep. 25, 2001, pp. 1-3. |
Affiliate Application,“How do Gator, Price Helper and Offer Companion Work?”, www.gator.com, Sep. 6, 2001, 1 page. |
“Choicepoint Unveils New Web-based Pre-Employment Screening Service,” Business Wire pp. 1287, May 17, 1999. |
“Co-Brand Partner Opportunities,” www.yodlee.com, Sep. 6, 2001, pp. 1-2. |
“Content Partner Opportunities,” www.yodlee.com, Sep. 6, 2001, 1 page. |
“Create Relationships,” www.digitalme.com, Sep. 6, 2001, pp. 1-2. |
“Digitaline™ Fact Sheet (www.digitalme.com)” www.digitalme.com, Sep. 6, 2001, pp. 1-3. |
“Ezlogin.Com Introduces Liveclips, Enabling Net Users To Clip Content From Anywhere On The Web And Paste It On A Custom Page, ” Java Industry Connection, Mar. 8, 2000, pp. 1-2. |
“FAQ”, www.digitalme.com, Sep. 6, 2001, pp. 1-2. |
“Free Password Manager—Store passwords—Desktop or Online,” www.passwordsafe.com, Oct. 10, 2001, 1 page. |
“Implementing Mobile Passport,” Copyright 1999-2001 Microsoft Corporation, Oct. 26, 2001, pp. 1-5. |
“Learn More,” www.digitalme.com, Sep. 6, 2001, pp. 1-2. |
“Liberty Architecture Overview,” Version 1.1, Internet Citation, Jan. 15, 2003, pp. 1-44. |
“LinkUall.com—About Us—LinkUall Technology” www.linkuall.com, Copyright 1999-2000 Sinpag Inc., 1 page. |
“LinkUall.com—Products—Calendars and Address books,” www.linkuall.com, Oct. 10, 2001, pp. 1-2. |
“Make it Convenient,” www.digitalme.com, Sep. 6, 2001, pp. 1-3. |
“Microsoft Passport Member Services. What is Passport,” www.passport.com, Aug. 3, 2001, pp. 1-12. |
“Microsoft Passport: A single name, password and Wallet for the web,” www.passport.com. Aug. 3, 2001, pp. 1-2. |
“Microsoft Passport: Streamlining Commerce and Communication on the Web,” www.passport.com, Oct. 11, 1999, pp. 1-3. |
“Online Businesses Use Microsoft Passport Single Sign-In and Wallet Services to Provide Customers with Secure and Convenient Shopping,” www.microsoft.com, May 17, 2000, pp. 1-2. |
“Security Overview,” www.yodlee.com, Sep. 6, 2001, pp. 1-2. |
“Spamgourmet: FAQ,” by Spamgourmet.com, Web Archive dated Aug. 29, 2003, 3 pages. |
“Spam-me-not Documentations,” Web Archive Dated Oct. 11, 2003, 5 pages. |
“Spoofed/Forged Email,” 2002 Carnegie Mellon University, pp. 1-7. |
“Sweet Enonymity,” www.enonymous.com, Sep. 6, 2001, pp. 1-2. |
“Take Control,” www.digitalme.com, Sep. 6, 2001, pp. 1-2. |
“Vision For An Enonymous infomediary,” www.enonymous.com, Sep. 6, 2001, pp. 1-3. |
“Yodlee2Go: Web-enabled Phones”, www.yodlee.com, Sep. 6, 2001, I page. |
“Yodlee for Mobile: Simplify Your Life on the Road with Yodlee2Go,” www.yodlee.com, Sep. 6, 2001, I page. |
“Yodlee for Web: One-Click Access to All Personal Accounts,” www.yodlee.com, Sep. 6, 2001, I page. |
“Yodlee: e-Personalization Applications,” www.yodlee.com, Sep. 6, 2001, 1 page. |
“Yodlee: e-Personalization Platform,” www.yodlee.com, Sep. 6, 2001, 1 page. |
“Yodlee: e-Personalization Solutions,” www.yodlee.com, Sep. 6, 2001, 1 page. |
“Yodlee2Go: Palm OS Wireless,” www.yodlee.com, Sep. 6, 2001, I page. |
“Zkey—Corporate,” www.zkey.com, Oct. 10, 2001, 1 page. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Advisory Action before the Filing of an Appeal Brief for U.S. Appl. No. 09/988,811, dated Apr. 20, 2009, 3 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Advisory Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/933,567, dated Jul. 21, 2006. 3 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Advisory Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/455,438, dated Feb. 19, 2010, 3 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Advisory Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/867,768, dated Sep. 17, 2009, 3 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Advisory Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,885, dated Feb. 24, 2010, 4 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Advisory Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,886, dated Sep. 17, 2010, 3 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Advisory Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/327,176, dated Mar. 25, 2011, 2 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Advisory Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/824,358, dated Aug. 24, 2010, 3 pages. |
Alan Cohen and Walaika Haskins, “Grab and-Go Web,” PC Magazine, Oct. 19, 2000, pp. 1-5. |
Asaravala, A, “A Question of Identity Passport, Liberty and the Single Sign-On Race,” www.newarchitectmag.com, Jan. 31, 2003, pp. 22-24, XP009022582. |
Bennett, “NGWS—Microsoft's Dot Net Strategy,” PC_Buyer's_Guide.com, Jun. 22, 2000, pp. 1-5. |
Chu et al., “Web-Based Single Sign-On Solutions: An SSO Product Matrix,” Computer Security Journal, CSI—Computer Security Institute, XX, vol. 16, No. 1, 2000, pp. 39-49, XP008021056. |
Coulouris, “Secure Communication in Non-Uniform Trust Environment,” ECOOP Workshop on Distributed Object Security, Jul. 1998, 5 pages. |
Erdos et al., “Shibboleth—Architecture Draft v05 Online!”, May 2, 2002, pp. 5-9, XP002264221. |
European Patent Office, Examination Report, European Patent Application 05757655.5, dated Apr. 13, 2012, 6 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/933,567, dated Nov. 1, 2007, 13 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/933,567, dated May 11, 2006, 9 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/988,811, dated Jan. 27, 2010, 8 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/988,811, dated Dec. 30, 2010, 10 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/988,811, dated Feb. 2, 2009, 9 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/455,438, dated Oct. 30, 2008, 14 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/455,438, dated Dec. 2, 2009, 8 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/455,438, dated Jun. 26, 2007, 10 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/713,100, dated Oct. 28, 2008, 9 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/713,100, dated Oct. 30, 2009, 11 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/713,100, dated Jun. 14, 2007, 14 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/867,768, dated May 28, 2009, 7 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/867,768, dated Jun. 1, 2006, 8 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/867,768, dated Jun. 25, 2010, 8 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/867,768, dated Jul. 28, 2005, 7 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/867,768, dated Jul. 5, 2007, 10 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,885, dated Nov. 29, 2010, 19 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,885, dated Dec. 16, 2009, 14 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,885, dated Mar. 18, 2009, 12 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,885, dated Sep. 10, 2009, 14 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,886, dated Mar. 5, 2009, 16 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,886, dated Jul. 9, 2010, 20 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,886; dated Nov. 8, 2011, 56 pgs. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/327,160, dated Feb. 23, 2007, 10 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/327,160, dated Mar. 25, 2008, 11 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/327,176, dated Dec. 22, 2010, 11 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/327,176, dated Dec. 9, 2009, 11 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/824,358, dated Jun. 29, 2010, 15 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/824,358; dated Nov. 15, 2011, 35 pgs. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,886, dated Nov. 8, 2011, 29 pages. |
Gabber et al., “Curbing June E-Mail via Secure Classification,” FC-98: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Financial Cryptography, 1998, pp. 198-213. |
Gator Press Release “Gator Helps Consumers at More Than 25,000 E-Commerce and Registration Sites in First Month of Usage: Software an invaluable companion For more than 80,000 online consumers,” Aug. 3, 1999, pp. 1-2. |
Gator Press Release “Gator.Com Delivers on the Promise of the Electronic Commerce Modeling Language (ECML) Standard Today: Gator offers one click shopping at over 5,000 e-commerce sites today,” Jun. 14, 1999, pp. 1-2. |
Gator Press Release “Internet Start-up Gator.com Introduces Gator, the Web's First Smart Online Companion: New Internet product offers one-click login and express registration and checkout across the web,” Jun. 14, 1999, pp. 1-3. |
Gburzynski, “A Comprehensive Approach to Eliminating Spam,” Proceedings of Euromedia, Plymouth, UK, Apr. 2003, 5 pages. |
Gunnerson, “EZ Login,” PC Magazine, Mar. 14, 2000, pp. 1-2. |
Hall, “How to Avoid Unwanted Email,” Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, vol. 41. No. 3, Mar. 1, 1998, pp. 88-95. |
Hallam-Baker, “Security Assertions Markup Language. Core Assertion Architecture—Examples and Explanations,” Internet Citation, http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/security/docs/draft-sstc-core-phill-07.pdf, May 14, 2001, 24 pages. |
International Search Report for PCT/CA2003/000857; Applicant: Hardt, Dick, C., Filed on Jun. 6, 2003, dated Dec. 12, 2003, 7 pages. |
International Search Report for PCT/CA2003/01774, Applicant: Sxip Networks Srl, Filed on Nov. 17, 2003, dated Jul. 13, 2004, 3 pages. |
International Search Report for PCT/CA2005/000934; Applicant: Sxip Networks Srl, Filed on Jun. 16, 2005, dated Sep. 28, 2005, 4 pages. |
International Search Report for PCT/CA2005/000935, Applicant: Sxip Networks Srl, Filed on Jun. 16, 2005, dated Oct. 4, 2005, 3 pages. |
International Search Report for PCT/CA2005/000936, Applicant: Sxip Networks Srl, Filed on Jun. 16, 2005, dated Oct. 6, 2005, 3 pages. |
International Search Report for PCT/CA2005/000937; Applicant: Sxip Networks Srl, Filed on Jun. 16, 2005, dated Sep. 20, 2005, 3 pages. |
Kormann et al., “Risks of the Passport single sign on protocol,” Computer Networks, Elsevier Science Publishers S. V., vol. 33, No. 1-6, Jun. 2000, pp. 51-58, XP004304758. |
Lopez et al., “Ubiquitous Internet access control: the PAPI system,” Proc. of the 13th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA'02), Sep. 2, 2002, pp. 368-372, XP010612047. |
Marchiori, “Platform for Privacy Preference (P3P) Syntex Specification,” Internet Citation, http://classic-web.archive.org/web/20031207022324/www.w3.org/tr/1999/wd-p3p-19990826/syntax, Aug. 26, 1999, pp. 1-25. |
Menezes et al., “Handbook of Applied Cryptography,” Chapter 12, Section 12.5.2, pp. 509-512, 1997. |
Microsoft Press Release. “Microsoft Passport Offers Streamlined Purchasing Across Leading Web Sites,” Oct. 11, 1999, pp. 1-4. |
Microsoft PressPass, Microsoft.NET: “A Platform for the Next Generation Internet,” Jun. 22, 2000, pp. 1-7. |
“Microsoft.NET Passport Technical Overview,” Sep. 2001, 29 pages. |
Microsoft.NET Passport, “What's New,” Sep. 2001, 14 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action and Interview Summary for U.S. Appl. No. 09/933,567, dated Feb. 20, 2007, 16 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/923,285, dated Jul. 12, 2004, 11 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/933,567, dated Sep. 29, 2005, 9 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/974,766, dated Feb. 4, 2005, 14 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/988,811, dated Jan. 23, 2006, 12 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/988,811, dated Dec. 5, 2007, 7 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/988,811, dated Jul. 11, 2005, 5 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/988,811, dated Jul. 14, 2009, 9 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/988,811, dated Aug. 18, 2010, 8 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/455,438, dated Jan. 10, 2007, 12 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/455,438, dated Feb. 5, 2008, 11 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/713,100, dated Dec. 5, 2006, 15 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/713,100, dated Feb. 27, 2009, 8 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/713,100, dated Mar. 26, 2008, 8 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/867,635, dated Nov. 21, 2007, 5 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/867,768, dated Oct. 31, 2008, 7 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/867,768, dated Dec. 15, 2006, 7 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/867,768, dated Dec. 19, 2005, 8 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/867,768, dated Dec. 30, 2009, 8 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/867,768, dated Mar. 24, 2008, 6 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/867,768, dated Mar. 30, 2005, 8 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,885, dated Jun. 17, 2008, 11 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,885, dated Jun. 3, 2010, 17 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,886, dated Feb. 9, 2009, 20 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,886, dated Jun. 24, 2008, 14 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,886, dated Jun. 8, 2011, 33 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/327,160, dated Oct. 4, 2007, 9 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/327,160, dated Jul. 12, 2006, 12 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/327,176, dated May 28, 2009, 12 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/327,176, dated Jun. 9, 2010, 12 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/824,358, dated Jan. 29, 2010, 13 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/824,358, dated Oct. 8, 2010, 12 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/824,358, dated Mar. 18, 2011, 8 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action U.S. Appl. No. 10/007,785, dated Mar. 2, 2005, 26 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/988,811; dated Oct. 13, 2011, 34 pgs. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,885, dated Aug. 26, 2011, 36 pgs. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Notice of Allowance and Interview Summary for U.S. Appl. No. 09/974,766, dated Nov. 22, 2005, 10 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Notice of Allowance and Interview Summary for U.S. Appl. No. 10/713,100, dated Apr. 16, 2010, 12 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 09/923,285, dated Apr. 12, 2007, 13 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 09/933,567, dated Aug. 11, 2008, 9 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 10/007,785, dated Nov. 22, 2005, 10 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 10/007,785, dated Feb. 10, 2006, 3 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 10/455,438, dated Apr. 30, 2010, 10 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 10/867,635, dated Jun. 20, 2008, 4 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 11/327,160, dated Sep. 10, 2008, 12 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 12/851,464, dated Oct. 5, 2011, 41 pgs. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 09/988,811, dated Aug. 11, 2006, 4 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/455,438, dated Mar. 25, 2009, 11 pages. |
Papadimitratos, P. et al., “Secure Routing for Mobile Ad hoc Networks,” In Proceedings of the SCS Communication Networks and Distributed Systems Modeling and Simulation Conference, San Antonio, TX, Jan. 2002, pp. 1-13. |
Rauschenberger, Secure Your Web Site With Passport, “Simplify Your Web Site Visitors'Experience By Authenticating Them,” Visual Studio Magazine, Apr. 4, 2002, pp. 1-3. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Restriction Requirement for U.S. Appl. No. 09/933,567, dated Jun. 17, 2005, 5 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Restriction Requirement for U.S. Appl. No. 09/988,811, dated Mar. 7, 2007, 4 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Restriction Requirement for U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,886, dated Sep. 14, 2009, 4 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Restriction Requirement for U.S. Appl. No. 11/327,176, dated Feb. 17, 2009, 6 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Restriction Requirement for U.S. Appl. No. 11/327,176, dated Mar. 20, 2008, 6 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Restriction Requirement for U.S. Appl. No. 11/327,176, dated Jul. 9, 2008, 7 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Restriction Requirement for U.S. Appl. No. 12/434,803; dated Nov. 14, 2011, 7 pgs. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Restriction Requirement for U.S. Appl. No. 11/824,358, dated Aug. 3, 2009, 7 pages. |
Secure Your Web Site With Passport, “Implement Passport,” Visual Studio Magazine, Apr. 4, 2002, pp. 1-3. |
Secure Your Web Site With Passport, “Passport Key to HallStrom's Success,” Visual Studio Magazine, Apr. 4, 2002, pp. 1-2. |
Secure Your Web Site With Passport, “Sign In, Please,” Visual Studio Magazine, Apr. 4, 2002, pp. 1-3. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Supplemental Advisory Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,885, dated Apr. 1, 2010, 3 pages. |
Supplementary European Search Report for PCT/CA2005/000934, Applicant: Sxip Networks Srl, Filed on Jun. 16. 2005, dated May 27, 2011, 3 pages. |
Supplementary European Search Report for PCT/CA2005/000935, Applicant: Sxip Networks Srl, Filed on Jun. 16, 2005; dated Apr. 4, 2011, 3 pages. |
Supplementary European Search Report for PCT/CA2005/000936, Applicant: Sxip Networks Srl, Filed on Jun. 16, 2005, dated Jul. 19, 2010, 3 pages. |
Supplementary European Search Report for PCT/CA2005/000937, Applicant: Sxip Networks Srl, Filed on Jun. 16, 2005, dated Jul. 19, 2010, 4 pages. |
Tenebaum et al. “Commercenet Consortium,” AFRL-ML-WP-TR-1999-4147. Air Force Materiel Command, Wright-Patterson AFB, Jul. 1999, 79 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Advisory Action, U.S. Appl. No. 10/867,768, dated Aug. 14, 2014, 3 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Advisory Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/434,803, dated Nov. 29, 2013, 3 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 10/867,768, dated Jun. 6, 2014, 9 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/327,176, dated Oct. 27, 2014, 15 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 10/867,768, dated Oct. 7, 2013, 10 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/327,176, dated Mar. 21, 2014, 16 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/434,803, dated Mar. 18, 2014, 17 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 14/015,813, dated Apr. 21, 2014. 15 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 14/015,813, dated Sep. 26, 2014, 8 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Advisory Action, U.S. Appl. No. 10/867,768, dated Nov. 9, 2012, 2 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Advisory Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/434,803, dated Oct. 23, 2012, 3 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 09/988,811, dated May 14, 2012, 16 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 10/867,768, dated Aug. 30, 2012, 13 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,885, dated Aug. 15, 2012, 16 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,886, dated Jan. 14, 2013, 31 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/434,803, dated Aug. 14, 2012, 11 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/434,803, dated Aug. 28, 2013, 12 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 10/867,768, dated Feb. 6, 2012, 40 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,885, dated Nov. 9, 2012, 17 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,886, dated Aug. 21, 2012, 27 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/434,803, dated Dec. 7, 2012, 15 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/434,803, dated Mar. 1, 2012, 12 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 09/988,811, dated May 24, 2013, 19 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,885, dated Apr. 29, 2013, 15 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,886, dated Apr. 5, 2013, 8 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/824,358, dated May 1, 2012, 9 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Supplemental Notice of Allowability, U.S. Appl. No. 11/824,358, dated Jun. 18, 2012, 6 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/434,803, dated Aug. 14, 2015, 13 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 10/867,768, dated Sep. 17, 2015, 16 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 14/622,722, dated Feb. 29, 2016, 35 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/327,176, dated Sep. 2, 2016, 15 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/327,176, dated Apr. 6, 2017, 12 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Advisory Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/327,176, dated Jul. 12, 2017, 3 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 11/327,176, dated Nov. 16, 2017, 9 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 14/941,528, dated Jan. 26, 2018, 10 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 15/172,008, dated Jul. 14, 2017, 15 pages. |
Erdos, Marlena et al. “Shibboleth—Architecture Draft v05”, MACE, May 2, 2002, pp. 1-44. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 15/172,008, dated Jan. 24, 2018, 13 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Non-Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 15/172,008, dated Aug. 28, 2018, 4 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 15/172,008, dated Jan. 3, 2019, 8 pages. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 16/417,361, dated Sep. 24, 2019, 9 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20200186536 A1 | Jun 2020 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60605150 | Aug 2004 | US | |
60579890 | Jun 2004 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 16417361 | May 2019 | US |
Child | 16790071 | US | |
Parent | 15172008 | Jun 2016 | US |
Child | 16417361 | US | |
Parent | 14622722 | Feb 2015 | US |
Child | 15172008 | US | |
Parent | 14015813 | Aug 2013 | US |
Child | 14622722 | US | |
Parent | 11039885 | Jan 2005 | US |
Child | 14015813 | US |