Research Article
Decentralized, Privacy-Preserving, Single Sign-On
Table 4
Comparison of single sign-on schemes.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Anonymity: NextLeap relies on unlinkable credentials. However, blinded credentials should be stored at IDP, which allows IDP to perform user tracking. Also, in PRIMA, signon across multiple SPs can be linked. Other schemes do not support unlinkable credentials. —Offline attacks ◐: the related schemes only fulfilled offline attack if IDP is honest. In IRMA, the user's device (i.e., IRMA app) should be secure to provide OA and anonymity. Otherwise, any adversary who gets these can simply impersonate the user (we addressed this open problem in IRMA). —Selective disclosure: PRIMA supports proving statements about attributes, particularly when they are displayed as extra attributes signed by IDP. — Passive verification ≈ : In IRMA, SPs still require to interact with an IRMA API server during the authentication. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||