ECM people hate SSO? Not quite...

James McGovern kindly linked to my screed against REST, but I think he misunderstood me when I talked about SAML. No problem... if I read as many blogs per day as he does, I'd do the same.

His quote was this:

Bex Huff provides an interesting perspective on REST within the ECM domain. His comment: you could "punt" and rely on wacky SAML, but that just seems to complicate things beyond necessity... seems as if folks in the ECM domain don't believe in the notion of SSO and would rather force complexity in other ways such as making folks log into different systems of course using different passwords, making enterprise administrators duplicate identity stores instead of leveraging an existing one such as Active Directory and so on.

Now... everybody I know in the ECM space cares about Single Sign On (SSO). In fact, Stellent/Oracle supports Active Directory and LDAP out of the box, a few minor tweaks gets you SSL certificates, plus we've made dozens of customizations for Site Minder, and custom/exotic SSO system. I even made an ANT script that could build a custom security integration with just about anything with a few lines of C++.

Trust me, we all know and love SSO.

The problem I have is more specific to SAML. I just don't like it. In fact, I hate SAML. Nothing personal, I just start out hating all technology. I have to. Otherwise, I find it difficult to discover its flaws. If I don't know the flaws, I can't effectively recommend when to use it. There is no silver bullet, and after working with computers for 20 years I've learned to distrust almost everything.

So, I started out hating SAML four or five years ago, when I first heard of it. Guess what? Thus far I've encountered no reason whatsoever to reduce my dislike.

Most of the cool stuff in identity management seems to be with OpenID and SXIP. SAML has been around forever, and who is using it? Its not saying "here's some useful technology," its saying "here's how things should be done." It feels like something from the peaks of the XML ivory tower that makes the claim (yet again) that the entire world would magically be better if we took all information and put <angle brackets> around it... Where's the evidence? Where's the proof?

I get why people are hot about Active Directory, SXIP, and OpenID... I just don't believe SAML has proven it deserves any hype. It might make somebody's job easier, but at what cost? I'm totally open to the possibility that I'm wrong, or that SAML 2.0 is a million times better... but I'll believe that when I see it.

Comments

SSO

Using AD as the authentication source is not the same thing as having SSO. Difference: in SSO scenario, you enter your password once for all applications under SSO umbrella. In the "everyone is using AD/LDAP/etc as my authentication scenario", you have the same password but you have to enter it every time you sign on into one of these apps. SAML, while quite heavyweight, solves one of the challenges with SSO - that of propagating security context to backend systems. People in glass houses... ;-)

sort of...

The point is that the Stellent/Oracle ECM's architecture assumes a separate repository for the users. See ECMs Store Content Not Users for more info.

Whether the customer uses ordinary LDAP, or adds the extra layer of SSO is up to them. Stellent has done plenty of custom integrations with true SSO systems -- like Site Minder -- with relative ease.

Turning it into a SAML PEP wouldn't be much harder, provided there's a C++ API for it. Its just that nobody has wanted one enough to pay for it.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This form prevents comments spam...