...
| Yes | No | In the process of creating one |
---|---|---|---|
UBC | | ||
Michigan |
| ||
Cornell |
| ||
Georgetown |
| ||
Ohio State |
| ||
UMUC |
|
| |
UofT |
|
| |
MIT | |
|
|
UW-M Madison |
|
|
|
Washington UW |
|
|
|
UC-Irvine |
|
|
|
Colorado |
|
|
|
Indiana IU |
|
|
|
| This is not a goal | This is an architecture goal but it is only sometimes implemented | This is generally implemented for services in the local domain | This is generally implemented for services in the local domain and in the cloud | Other |
Ohio |
|
|
|
|
|
UMUC |
|
|
|
|
|
UofT |
|
|
|
|
|
MIT |
|
|
|
|
|
UW-M Madison |
|
|
|
|
|
UW Washington |
|
|
|
|
|
UC-Irvine |
|
|
|
|
|
Colorado |
|
|
|
|
|
Indiana IU |
|
|
|
|
|
| Locally developed solution for mutual authentication | An n-tier solution such as Shibboleth ECP or CILogon | Other |
---|---|---|---|
UMUC |
|
| WS-Security via SAML assertions |
UofT |
|
|
|
MIT |
|
|
|
UW-M Madison |
|
|
|
UW Washington |
|
|
|
UC-Irvine |
|
|
|
Colorado |
|
|
|
Indiana IU |
|
|
|
| This is not a goal | This is an architecture goal but it is only sometimes implemented | This is consistently implemented for services in the local domain | This is consistently implemented for services in the local domain and in the cloud | Other |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
UMUC |
|
|
|
|
|
UofT |
|
|
|
|
|
MIT |
|
|
|
|
|
UW-M Madison |
|
|
|
|
|
UW Washington |
|
|
|
|
|
UC-Irvine |
|
|
|
|
|
Colorado |
|
|
|
|
|
Indiana IU |
|
|
|
|
|
UofTOn an "as needed" basis. We have more work to do in this area.
MITpoint to point at the moment
UC IrvineSSL, system username/passwords, and PGP key exchange.
ColoradoCurrently application specific service accounts are created. Goal to move to Cert based AuthN and externalized AuthZ
IndianaIU
We manage trust between components using a combination of digitally signed web service messages using public-private key pairs and mutual trust. We also utilize oauth in certain cases when invoking services. Elsewhere we also use simple username/password authentication to services.
...