Search results

• GGG-R-Z
  <center>'''National Security Telecom Advisory Comm.(NSTAC) Report to the President on Identity Managemen <center>'''Oasis: Glossary for the OASIS Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) V2.0'''</center>
  135 KB (15,051 words) - 04:00, 28 June 2018
• ICAM SAML 2.0 WB SSO Profile 1.0.2
  ...rity Assertion Markup Language (SAML) 2.0 Web Browser Single Sign-on (SSO) Profile '''Category''': Authentication Protocol Interoperability Profile
  2 KB (214 words) - 04:00, 28 June 2018
• Identity Model
  .../index.php?title=Baseline_Functional_Requirements_v1.0 Baseline Functional Requirements v1.0 (BFR)]. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Assertion_Markup_Language Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML)] based on XML was introduced in 2003 and w
  56 KB (9,154 words) - 00:16, 30 October 2020
• InCommon IAP 1.1
  '''Description''': Defines requirements for InCommon Silver and Bronze identity assurance certification. These prof Process,Levels of Assurance 1 and 2. The requirements are directly applicable to Identity Provider
  1 KB (156 words) - 04:01, 28 June 2018
• NIST SP 800-130
  '''Category''': Security Control Implementation Guide '''Description''': A set of documentation requirements that can be used to express the design of a cryptographic key
  3 KB (390 words) - 04:02, 28 June 2018
• Best Practices and Example for RP System
  # Provide in-line guidance in the example code of the IDEF requirements that a developer of any web site can apply. ...intent. This is in keeping with the [[Usable Best Practice A]] of the SALS requirements.
  24 KB (3,980 words) - 19:57, 13 November 2020
• Patient pull of information
  ...ll ensure this data is made available and follow certain interoperability, security, and privacy (HIPAAHIPPA) standards Both the patient EHR and data holder a Requirements:
  6 KB (949 words) - 18:39, 27 April 2019
• Phase II IDEF Registry
  ==Requirements Documents for Phase II== * Security [[file:Secure_Requirements_Update.docx]]
  2 KB (284 words) - 18:45, 7 January 2019
• Privacy Enhancing Technologies
  Privacy is considered as one of the core requirements of the IDESG and yet it has proven difficult to accommodate in the trust fr ...new framework is chosen, that may change the PET to meet those particular requirements.
  14 KB (2,167 words) - 01:45, 15 May 2021
• Trust Federation Membership Validation
  ...n certain assertions by other actors to fulfill their information security requirements." In this document the objective is simply to allow two digital entities (a ...e proven before an entry is accepted into the federation. That is good for security, but somewhat at odds with interoperability. On the other hand it does make
  21 KB (3,285 words) - 23:37, 15 January 2020
• Trustmark Evolving Design Pattern
  ...nternet. This section uses the "Entity" definition of the IDESG Functional Requirements as any organization providing or using identity services. Before all of thi ...utions that have been tried, but failed, to deliver on a promise of better security for privacy in the past. The latter items are those that violate accepted u
  24 KB (3,856 words) - 16:05, 16 December 2021
• User Choice Pattern
  ...of the user may be limited to a radius of miles, or feet, depending on the requirements of the app. Similarly the home address may be precise, or limited to just t ...new framework is chosen, that may change the PET to meet those particular requirements.
  17 KB (2,712 words) - 19:20, 28 November 2021
• User Consent
  ...dify the terms that apply to the [[User Private Information]] based on new requirements of either the RP or the user. *Legal requirements for user notification exist, for example for data breaches or due to other
  13 KB (2,151 words) - 00:14, 30 October 2020

View (previous 20 | next 20) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)