|
Yes |
No |
In the process of creating one |
---|---|---|---|
UBC |
|
|
|
Michigan |
|
|
|
Cornell |
|
|
|
Georgetown |
|
|
|
Ohio State |
|
|
|
UMUC |
|
|
|
UofT |
|
|
|
MIT |
|
|
|
UW-Madison |
|
|
|
Washington |
|
|
|
UC-Irvine |
|
|
|
Colorado |
|
|
|
Indiana |
|
|
|
|
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-Madison |
|
|
|
|
|
Washington |
|
|
|
|
|
UC-Irvine |
|
|
|
|
|
Colorado |
|
|
|
|
|
Indiana |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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-Madison |
|
|
|
Washington |
|
|
|
UC-Irvine |
|
|
|
Colorado |
|
|
|
Indiana |
|
|
|
|
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-Madison |
|
|
|
|
|
Washington |
|
|
|
|
|
UC-Irvine |
|
|
|
|
|
Colorado |
|
|
|
|
|
Indiana |
|
|
|
|
|
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
Indiana
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.