The document describes two versions of a Concurrent Distributed Authentication Model (CDAM) for authenticating online users. CDAM Version 1.0 involved checking username and password across multiple authentication database servers rather than one. Version 2.0 aimed to overcome the cons of Version 1.0 by using multiple strong encryption algorithms, an encrypted channel, and open standard hashing to address issues like denial of service and vulnerability to sniffing. Future work may include integrating CDAM with one-time passwords and smart card systems.

1. Concurrent Distributed Authentication Model
(CDAM)
Aladdin T. Dandis
Information Security Compliance Officer
Jordan eGovernment Program / MoICT
1Aladdin T. Dandis / SICE2011 - Algeria

2. Agenda
 Introduction
 CDAM Ver. 1.0
 Pros and Cons
 CDAM Ver. 2.0
 Pros and Cons
 Conclusions
2Aladdin T. Dandis / SICE2011 - Algeria

3. Introduction
 This project was originally concerned about applying
security and privacy considerations in school
systems.
 The system is a web-database application.
 The target client was a private school in Amman.
 Problem
 the old system lacks security and privacy considerations.
3Aladdin T. Dandis / SICE2011 - Algeria

4. Security
 A number of processes
and technologies applied
to prevent unauthorized
parties from accessing
sensitive resources
Privacy
 The human right to
control and manage data
about himself, without
being monitored by other
parties
4
Security Vs Privacy
Aladdin T. Dandis / SICE2011 - Algeria

5. CDAM Ver. 1.0
5Aladdin T. Dandis / SICE2011 - Algeria

6. Overview
 What?
 Concurrent Distributed Authentication Model
 Why?
 To authenticate online users.
 How?
 The username and password will be checked in many
separate authentication database servers rather than one.
6Aladdin T. Dandis / SICE2011 - Algeria

7. Architecture
7Aladdin T. Dandis / SICE2011 - Algeria
S1
Sender
Unit
Logging
Unit
Comparison
Unit
S2
S3
User
Legitimate
Login
False Login to
'Honey Pot'
Authentication
Servers Farm
The Object
System
False System

8. Characteristics
 Authentication model
 Built-in Authorization
 Authentication token is used:
 Token
 Role + Real User Name = Role User Name
 Example
 Student + Ahmad.d = SAhmad.d
8Aladdin T. Dandis / SICE2011 - Algeria

9. Authentication & Authorization Algorithms
9Aladdin T. Dandis / SICE2011 - Algeria
Enter UserName, Password and
Role
Check for the requested object
Extract Role from the Token
Check ACLs for
the Role
Authorize User
Deny user and direct to
HoneyPot
Authorization
Module
Calculate the Hash
Take the first 5 characters of the hash
Take integer values for username and password
and Role
Check the 5
characters hash
Server 1
Server 2
Server 3
Authentication
Server Farm
ASF
Authentication
Module
Y
Y
Y N
N

10. Pros
 Compromising one
authentication server will
not affect authentication
 Using Hashing
 Light authentication
Cons
 Repeated Cipher patterns
 No proof of origin
 Denial of service
 Vulnerable to sniffers
 Homemade hashing
algorithm
10
Pros and Cons
Aladdin T. Dandis / SICE2011 - Algeria

11. CDAM Ver. 2.0
11Aladdin T. Dandis / SICE2011 - Algeria

12. Overview
 Overcome Cons in CDAM Ver. 1.0
 Still under coding and testing
 Scalable for web applications
 Multiple open standard and strong encryption
algorithms
 M:N authentication acceptance
12Aladdin T. Dandis / SICE2011 - Algeria

13. Architecture
13Aladdin T. Dandis / SICE2011 - Algeria
S1
Sender
Unit
Logging
Unit
Comparison
Unit
S2
S3
User
Legitimate
Login
False Login to
'Honey Pot'
Authentication
Servers Farm
The Object
System
False System

14. Architecture
14Aladdin T. Dandis / SICE2011 - Algeria
S1
Sender
Unit
Logging
Unit
Comparison
Unit
S2
S3
User
Legitimate
Login
False Login to
'Honey Pot'
Authentication
Servers Farm
The Object
System
False System

15. Architecture
15Aladdin T. Dandis / SICE2011 - Algeria
S1
Sender
Unit
Logging
Unit
Comparison
Unit
S2
S3
User
Legitimate
Login
False Login to
'Honey Pot'
Authentication
Servers Farm
The Object
System
False System
Hashing Algorithm 1
Hashing Algorithm 2
Hashing Algorithm 3

16. Pros
 Compromising
one
authentication
server will not
affect
authentication
 Using Hashing
 Light
authentication
Cons
 Repeated Cipher
patterns
 No proof of
origin
 Denial of service
 Vulnerable to
sniffers
 Homemade
hashing
algorithm
16
Evaluation
Remedy
 Full cipher is
written
 SSL Certificate
 M:N
 Encrypted
channels
 Open standard
hashing
algorithms
Aladdin T. Dandis / SICE2011 - Algeria

17. Future Work
 Integration with OTP
 Integration with Smart Card Systems
17Aladdin T. Dandis / SICE2011 - Algeria

18. Thank You
aladdin.d@moict.gov.jo
18Aladdin T. Dandis / SICE2011 - Algeria