MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2798879067 · doi:10.1145/3409452

Comparative Analysis and Framework Evaluating Web Single Sign-on Systems

2020· preprint· en· W2798879067 on OpenAlexafffund
Furkan Alaca, Paul C. van Oorschot

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Computing Surveys · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUser Authentication and Security Systems
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto MississaugaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsSingle sign-onCredentialUsabilityPasswordIdentity managementComputer scienceService providerAuthentication (law)Software deploymentComputer securityWorld Wide WebWeb serviceInternet privacyService (business)BusinessSoftware engineeringHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We perform a comprehensive analysis and comparison of 14 web single sign-on (SSO) systems proposed and/or deployed over the past decade, including federated identity and credential/password management schemes. We identify common design properties and use them to develop a taxonomy for SSO schemes, highlighting the associated tradeoffs in benefits (positive attributes) offered. We develop a framework to evaluate the schemes, in which we identify 14 security, usability, deployability, and privacy benefits. We also discuss how differences in priorities between users, service providers, and identity providers impact the design and deployment of SSO schemes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.138
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Computing SurveysSame topicUser Authentication and Security SystemsFrench-language works237,207