+8.1.2.2 User Perspectives of Trust and Benefits

8.1.2.2 User Perspectives of Trust and Benefits

Many factors can influence user adoption of federated identity systems. As with any technology, users may value some factors more than others. Users often weigh perceived benefits versus risks before making technology adoption decisions. It is critical that IdPs and RPs provide users with sufficient information to enable them to make informed decisions. The concepts of trust and tiers of trust are fundamental principles in federated identity systems that can drive user adoption. Finally, a positive user experience may also result in increased user demand for federation, triggering the increased adoption by RPs.

To encourage user adoption, IdPs and RPs need to establish and build trust with users and help them understand the benefits and risks of adoption. The following factors should be considered:

Allow users to control their information disclosure and provide explicit consent through the appropriate use of interactive user interfaces and notifications (see Sec. 7.2). Considerations such as balancing the content, size, and frequency of notifications and tailoring notifications to specific communities are necessary to avoid users clicking through without fully understanding the implications of their consent.

For attribute sharing, consider the following:
Provide a means for users to verify those attributes and attribute values that will be shared. Follow good security practices (see Sec. 3.11.2 and Sec. 6).
Enable users to consent to a partial list of attributes rather than an all-or-nothing approach. Allow users some degree of online access, even if the user does not consent to share all information.
Clearly convey to the user what they are sharing, particularly when the user has a choice to selectively disclose their attributes.
Allow users to update their consent to their list of shared attributes, and provide a means to convey the updated consent to concerned parties, such as affected RPs.
Minimize unnecessary information presented to users. For example, do not display system-generated attributes (e.g., pairwise pseudonymous identifiers), even if they are shared with the RP as part of the authentication response.
Minimize user steps and navigation. For example, build attribute consent into the federation protocols, such as commonly found in OAuth or OpenID Connect.
Provide effective redress methods such that a user can recover from invalid attribute information claimed by the IdP or collected by the RP. See Sec. 3.6 of [SP800-63] for more requirements on providing redress.
Minimize the number of times that a user is required to consent to attribute sharing, particularly for requests for the same attributes. Limiting the frequency of consent requests avoids user frustration.
Allow users to see where their data has been used, particularly within subscriber-controlled wallets.

Collect information for constrained usage only, and minimize information disclosure (see Sec. 7.3). User trust is eroded by unnecessary and superfluous information collection and disclosure or tracking without explicit consent. For example, only request attributes from the user that are relevant to the current transaction, not for all possible transactions that a user may access at the RP.

Clearly and honestly communicate the potential benefits and risks of using federated identity to users. Benefits that users value include time savings, ease of use, reduced number of passwords to manage, and increased convenience.

User concern over risk can negatively influence their willingness to adopt federated identity systems. Users may have concerns about trust, privacy, security, and single points of failure perceived in federated systems. For example, users may be fearful of losing access to multiple RPs if a single IdP is unavailable, either temporarily or permanently. Additionally, users may be concerned or confused about learning a new authentication process. In order to foster the adoption of federated identity systems, the perceived benefits must outweigh the perceived risks.

1. Přehled

1.1 Odkazy

1.2 Identifikované požadavky

1.3 Související regulace

2. Identifikované požadavky

Požadavky

3. Související regulace

Regulace
  • NIST -

    EN: Publications of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), U.S. Department of Commerce, https://www.nist.gov/, from their electronic versions (OSCAL; SP 800-63-4 from its HTML version, https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-4/). Works of NIST employees are not subject to copyright protection in the United States (17 U.S.C. § 105); the OSCAL content is dedicated to the public domain worldwide (CC0 1.0); outside the United States NIST grants the right to reprint its technical series publications in all formats (NIST copyright statement). Republished courtesy of the National Institute of Standards and Technology; each document names its citation. Divided into sections and converted into the GRCA format, the wording unchanged. Only the versions published by NIST are authoritative.

    DE: Veröffentlichungen des National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), U.S. Department of Commerce, https://www.nist.gov/, aus ihren elektronischen Fassungen (OSCAL; SP 800-63-4 aus ihrer HTML-Fassung, https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-4/). Werke von NIST-Beschäftigten sind in den USA urheberrechtlich nicht geschützt (17 U.S.C. § 105); die OSCAL-Inhalte sind weltweit gemeinfrei gestellt (CC0 1.0); außerhalb der USA räumt das NIST das Recht ein, seine Technical-Series-Publikationen in allen Formaten neu zu veröffentlichen (Copyright-Hinweis des NIST). „Republished courtesy of the National Institute of Standards and Technology“; jedes Dokument nennt seine Zitierangabe. In Abschnitte aufgeteilt und in das GRCA-Format umgewandelt, der Wortlaut unverändert. Maßgeblich sind allein die vom NIST veröffentlichten Fassungen.