Given the impending shutdown of Persona and the lack of a clear alternative to it, I decided to write about some of the principles that guided its design and development in the hope that it may influence future efforts in some way.

Permission-less system

There was no need for reliers (sites relying on Persona to log their users in) to ask for permission before using Persona. Just like a site doesn't need to ask for permission before creating a link to another site, reliers didn't need to apply for an API key before they got started and authenticated their users using Persona.

Similarly, identity providers (the services vouching for their users identity) didn't have to be whitelisted by reliers in order to be useful to their users.

Federation at the domain level

Just like email, Persona was federated at the domain name level and put domain owners in control. Just like they can choose who gets to manage emails for their domain, they could:

run their own identity provider, or

delegate to their favourite provider.

Site owners were also in control of the mechanism and policies involved in authenticating their users. For example, a security-sensitive corporation could decide to require 2-factor authentication for everyone or put a very short expiry on the certificates they issued.

Alternatively, a low-security domain could get away with a much simpler login mechanism (including a "0-factor" mechanism in the case of http://mockmyid.com!).

Privacy from your identity provider

While identity providers were the ones vouching for their users' identity, they didn't need to know the websites that their users are visiting. This is a potential source of control or censorship and the design of Persona was able to eliminate this.

The downside of this design of course is that it becomes impossible for an identity provider to provide their users with a list of all of the sites where they successfully logged in for audit purposes, something that centralized systems can provide easily.

The browser as a trusted agent

The browser, whether it had native support for the BrowserID protocol or not, was the agent that the user needed to trust. It connected reliers (sites using Persona for logins) and identity providers together and got to see all aspects of the login process.

It also held your private keys and therefore was the only party that could impersonate you. This is of course a power which it already held by virtue of its role as the web browser.

Additionally, since it was the one generating and holding the private keys, your browser could also choose how long these keys are valid and may choose to vary that amount of time depending on factors like a shared computer environment or Private Browsing mode.

Other clients/agents would likely be necessary as well, especially when it comes to interacting with mobile applications or native desktop applications. Each client would have its own key, but they would all be signed by the identity provider and therefore valid.

Bootstrapping a complex system requires fallbacks

Persona was a complex system which involved a number of different actors. In order to slowly roll this out without waiting on every actor to implement the BrowserID protocol (something that would have taken an infinite amount of time), fallbacks were deemed necessary:

client-side JavaScript implementation for browsers without built-in support

centralized fallback identity provider for domains without native support or a working delegation

centralized verifier until local verification is done within authentication libraries

In addition, to lessen the burden on the centralized identity provider fallback, Persona experimented with a number of bridges to provide quasi-native support for a few large email providers.

Support for multiple identities

User research has shown that many users choose to present a different identity to different websites. An identity system that would restrict them to a single identity wouldn't work.

Persona handled this naturally by linking identities to email addresses. Users who wanted to present a different identity to a website could simply use a different email address. For example, a work address and a personal address.

No lock-in

Persona was an identity system which didn't stand between a site and its users. It exposed email address to sites and allowed them to control the relationship with their users.

Sites wanting to move away from Persona can use the email addresses they have to both:

notify users of the new login system, and

allow users to reset (or set) their password via an email flow.

Websites should not have to depend on the operator of an identity system in order to be able to talk to their users.

Short-lived certificates instead of revocation

Instead of relying on the correct use of revocation systems, Persona used short-lived certificates in an effort to simplify this critical part of any cryptographic system.

It offered three ways to limit the lifetime of crypto keys:

assertion expiry (set by the client)

key expiry (set by the client)

certificate expiry (set by the identify provider)

The main drawback of such a pure expiration-based system is the increased window of time between a password change (or a similar signal that the user would like to revoke access) and the actual termination of all sessions. A short expirty can mitigate this problem, but it cannot be eliminated entirely unlike in a centralized identity system.