Pros and Cons of Idemix for NSTIC

This is the second of a series of posts on the prospects for using privacy-enhancing technologies in the NSTIC Identity Ecosystem.

In the previous post I discussed the pros and cons of U-Prove , so naturally I should now discuss the pros and cons of Idemix, the other privacy-enhancing technology thought to have inspired NSTIC. This post, like the previous one, is based on a review of the public literature. If I’ve missed or misinterpreted something, please let me know in a comment.

By the way, a link to the previous post that I posted to the Identity Commons mailing list triggered a wide-ranging discussion on NSTIC and privacy, which can be found in the mailing list archives .

Idemix is an open-source library implemented in Java. It is described in the Idemix Cryptographic Specification [1], and the academic paper [2]. It is mostly based on the cryptographic techniques of [3]. Curiously, although Idemix is provided by IBM, the main Idemix site is located at idemix.wordpress.com and disclaims to be an official IBM site.

There is also a smart card that implements a “light-weight variant of Idemix”. I discuss it at the end of this post.

Feature Coverage

Idemix provides all three privacy features alluded to in NSTIC documents [4] [5] and discussed in the previous post:

  1. Issuance-show unlinkability,
  2. Multi-show unlinkability, and
  3. Partial information disclosure.

The third feature includes both selective disclosure of attributes and the ability to prove inequalities such as the value of a birthdate attribute being less than today’s date minus 21 years without disclosing that birthdate attribute value.

Idemix also includes other features, such as the ability to prove that two attributes have the same value without disclosing that value, and the ability to prove that a certain attribute certified by the issuer has been encrypted under the public key of a third party, which may decrypt it under some circumstances. It could be argued that Idemix is over-engineered for the purpose of Web authentication, including features that add complexity but are not useful for that purpose.

Performance

The richer feature set of Idemix may come at a cost in terms of performance. From the data in Table 1 of [2], it follows that it would take about 12 seconds for the user to submit a credential with one attribute to a relying party that checks for expiration, and about 28 seconds to submit a credential with 20 attributes. The paper dates back to 2002, and the processor used was a relatively slow 1.1GHz Pentium III. (The authors say 1.1MHz but I assume they mean 1.1GHz.) But on the other hand the modulus size was 1024 bits, and Idemix currently uses a 2048 modulus [2]. The paper also promises optimizations that have no doubt been implememted by now. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find performance data in the Idemix site. A search for the word performance restricted to the site produces no results. If you know of any recent performance data, please let me know in a comment.

Revocation

We saw in the previous post that unlinkability makes revocation difficult. U-Prove credentials can be revoked by users because they do not have multi-show unlinkability, but cannot be revoked by issuers because they have issue-show unlinkability. Idemix credentials, which have both multi-show unlinkability and issue-show unlinkability, are revocable neither by users nor by issuers. I am not saying that unlinkability makes revocation impossible. Cryptographic techniques have been devised to allow revocation of unlinkable credentials, which I will discuss later in this series of posts. But those techniques are not used by U-Prove or Idemix.

Idemix has a credential update feature that can be used to extend the validity period of a credential that has expired. This facilitates the use of short-term credentials that may not need to be revoked. But the Idemix Cryptographic Specification [1] should not claim as it does that the credential-update feature can be used to implement credential revocation. Waiting for a credential to expire is not the same as revoking it. Short term credentials are an alternative to revocation. And, as an alternative, they have serious drawbacks: they are costly to implement for the issuer; they impose a logistic burden on the user agent; they may become unavailable if the issuer is down when the validity period needs to be extended; and the user agent may be overwhelmed by the need to renew many credentials at once if it has not been operational for an extended period of time. If a short-term credential is renewed on demand, just before it is used, renewal and use of the credential may be linkable by timing correlation.

The Idemix Java Card

The Idemix Java Card was intended as a smart identity card. Its implementation on the Java Card Open Platform (JCOP) is described in [6].

The cryptographic system in an Idemix card is described in the Idemix site as a “light-weight variant of Identity Mixer” (i.e. Idemix). But it is very different from the original Idemix system. According to [6], an implementation of the original system in a Java card would be impractical because credential submission could take 70 to 100 seconds. To make it less impractical, the issuer of a credential to a Java card certifies only that it trusts the Java card. The card is then free to present any attributes it wants to the relying party. (A different way of handling attributes is possible but not recommended, presumably because of the time it takes; see Footnote 5 of [6].) Security for the relying party depends on the issuer downloading the correct attributes and software to the card, and the user not being able to modify those attributes and software. The card must therefore be tamper resistant against the user. (Or at least tamper responsive, i.e. able to detect tampering and respond by zeroing out storage.)

Whereas a U-Prove smart card performs only a small portion of the cryptographic computations, the Idemix Java card is an autonomous system that performs all the cryptographic computations by itself, without help from the user’s computer. This takes time: 10.453 seconds for a transaction, i.e. for submitting a credential to a relying party, according to Table 2 of [6]; or 11.665 seconds according to Table 3. (In both cases, with a 1536-bit modulus, and not counting a 1.474 second revocation check; revocation is discussed below; the discrepancy between the two figures is not explained.) Some of the computations in Table 2 are labeled as precomputations, but no precomputations can take place if the card is not plugged in. The authors of [6] consider that a 10 second transaction time would be adequate. But I don’t think many Web users will be happy waiting 10 seconds each time they want to log in to a site.

Update. It is possible to implement full-blown privacy-friendly credentials systems very efficiently on a smart card. A non-Microsoft implementation of U-Prove on a MULTOS smart card [8], where all the cryptographic computations are carried out by the card, achieves credential-show times close to 0.3 seconds.

The Idemix card features a revocation mechanism. A card can be revoked by including its secret key in a revocation list. But the secret key is generated in the card when the card is “set up”, and it is not known to the party that sets up the card, nor to the issuers of credentials to the card, nor to the user who owns the card. The secret key can only be obtained by breaching the tamper pretection of the card, hence can only become known to an adversary. So the revocation feature seems useless.

Where does the peculiar idea of listing secret keys in a revocation list come from? It turns out that the cryptographic system of the Idemix card is derived from the cryptographic system of [7] which was designed for media copyright protection, e.g. to authenticate the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) in a DVD player before downloading a protected movie to the player. Apparently hackers extract secret keys of TPMs and publish them on the Web. Copyright owners find those secret keys and blacklist them. Blacklisting secret keys makes sense for copyright protection, but not as a revocation technique for smart cards.

Coming Next…

After reading this post and the previous post, you may be thinking whether privacy-enhanced technologies are really a good idea. I will try to answer that question in the next post.

References

[1] IBM Research, Zurich. Specification of the Identity Mixer Cryptographic Library Version 2.3.1. December 7, 2010. Available at http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~pbi/identityMixer_gettingStarted/ProtocolSpecification_2-3-2.pdf .
 
[2] Jan Camenisch and Els Van Herreweghen. Design and Implementation of the Idemix Anonymous Credential System. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM conference on Computer and Communications Security. 2002.
 
[3] J. Camenisch and A. Lysyanskaya. Efficient Non-Transferable Anonymous Multi-Show Credential System with Optional Anonymity Revocation. In Theory and Application of Cryptographic Techniques, EUROCRYPT, 2001.
 
[4] The White House. National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace. April 2011. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/NSTICstrategy_041511.pdf.
 
[5] Howard A. Schmidt. The National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace and Your Privacy. April 26, 2011. White House blog post, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/26/national-strategy-trusted-identities-cyberspace-and-your-privacy.
 
[6] P. Bichsel, J. Camenisch, T. Groß and V. Shoup. Anonymous Credentials on a Standard Java Card. In ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2009.
 
[7] E. Brickell, J. Camenisch and L. Chen. Direct anonymous attestation. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2004.
 
[8] Update. W. Mostowski and P. Vullers. Efficient U-Prove Implementation for Anonymous Credentials on Smart Cards. Available at http://www.cs.ru.nl/~pim/publications/2011_securecomm.pdf.
 

Pros and Cons of U-Prove for NSTIC

This is the first of a series of posts on the prospects for using privacy-enhancing technologies in the NSTIC Identity Ecosystem.

NSTIC calls for the use of privacy-friendly credentials, and NSTIC documents [1] [2] refer to the existence of privacy-enhancing technologies that can be used to implement such credentials. Although those technologies are not named, they are widely understood to be U-Prove and Idemix.

There is confusion regarding the capabilities of privacy-enhancing technologies and the contributions that they can make to NSTIC. For example, I sometimes hear the opinion that “U-Prove has been oversold”, but without technical arguments to back it up. To help clear some of the confusion, I’m starting a series of posts on the prospects for using privacy-enhancing technologies in the NSTIC Identity Ecosystem. This first blog is on the pros and cons of U-Prove, the second one will be on the pros and cons of Idemix, and there will probably be two more after that.

U-Prove is described in the U-Prove Cryptographic Specification V1.1 [3] and the U-Prove Technology Overview [4]. It is based on cryptographic techniques described in Stefan Brands’s book [5].

Privacy Feature Coverage

Three features of privacy-friendly credentials are informally described in NSTIC documents:

  1. Issuance of a credential cannot be linked to a use, or “show,” of the credential even if the issuer and the relying party share information, except as permitted by the attributes certified by the issuer and shown to the relying party.
  2. Two shows of the same credential to the same or different relying parties cannot be linked together, even if the relying parties share information.
  3. The user agent can disclose partial information about the attributes asserted by a credential. For example, it can prove that the user if over 21 years of age based on a birthdate attribute, without disclosing the birthdate itself.

Here I will not discuss how desirable these features are; I leave that for a later post in the series. In this post I will only discuss the extent to which U-Prove provides these features.

U-Prove provides the first feature, which is called untraceability in the U-Prove Technology Overview [4]. A U-Prove credential consists of a private key, a public key, a set of attributes, and a signature by the credential issuer. The signature is jointly computed by the issuer and the user agent in the course of a three-turn interactive protocol, the issuance protocol, where the issuer sees the attributes but not the public key nor the signature itself. Therefore the issue of a credential can be linked to a show of the credential only on the basis of the attribute information disclosed during the show.

U-Prove, on the other hand, does not provide the second feature, because all relying parties see the same public key and the same signature. Stefan Brands acknowledges this in Section 2.2 of [6], where he compares the system of his book [5] to the system of Camenisch and Lysianskaya, i.e. U-Prove to Idemix, acknowledging that the latter provides multi-show unlinkability but the former does not.

Unfortunately, the U-Prove Technology Overview [4] is less candid. It does discuss the fact that multiple shows of the same U-Prove credential (U-Prove token) are linkable, in Section 4.2, but the section is misleadingly entitled Unlinkability. It starts as follows:

Similarly, the use of a U-Prove token cannot inherently be correlated to uses by the same Prover of other U-Prove tokens, even if the Issuer identified the Prover and issued all of the Prover’s U-Prove tokens at the same time.

This is saying that different U-Prove tokens are not linkable! Which is a vacuous feature: why would different tokens be linkable? The section goes on to argue that that the issuer should issue many tokens to the user agent (the Prover) with the same attributes, one for each relying party (each Verifier). On the Web, this is utterly impractical. There are millions of possible relying parties: how many tokens should be issued? How can all those tokens be stored on a smart card? What if the user agent runs out of tokens? And how does the user agent know if two parties are different or the same? (Is example.com the same relying party as xyz.example.com?)

Update. Stefan Brands has pointed out that a U-Prove token does not take up any storage in a smart card if the private key splitting technique featured by U-Prove (which I refer to below) is used.

As for the third feature of privacy-friendly credentials, partial information disclosure, U-Prove provides it to a certain extent. When showing a credential, the user agent can disclose only some of the attributes in the credential, proving to the relying party that those attributes were certified by the credential issuer without disclosing the other attributes. However, U-Prove does not support the “age over 21” example found in several NSTIC documents. That would require the ability to prove that a value is contained in an interval without disclosing the value. Appendix 1 of the U-Prove Technology Overview [4] lists the ability to perform such a proof as one of the “U-Prove features” that have not been included in Version 1.1, suggesting that it could be included in a future version. In Section 3.7 of his book [5], Stefan Brands does suggest a method for proving that a secret is contained in an interval. However, it dismisses it as involving “a serious amount of overhead”, because it requires executing many auxiliary proofs of knowledge. (I believe that proving “age over 21” would require at least 30 auxiliary proofs, which is clearly impractical.)

An interesting feature of U-Prove is the ability to split the private key of a credential between the user agent and a device such as a smart card. The device must then be present for the credential to be usable, thus providing two-factor authentication; but the device only has to perform a limited amount of cryptographic computations, most of the cryptographic computations being carried out by the user agent. This makes it possible to use slower, and hence cheaper, devices than if all the cryptographic computations were carried out by the device (as is the case, for example, in an Idemix smart card).

Update. A non-Microsoft implementation of U-Prove on a MULTOS smart card, where all the cryptographic computations are carried out by the card with impressive performance (close to 0.3 seconds in some cases), can be found in [8].

Revocation

The ability to revoke credentials is usually taken for granted. In the case of privacy-friendly credentials, however, it is difficult to achieve. An ordinary CRL (Certificate Revocation List) cannot be used, since it would require some kind of credential identifier known to both the issuer and the relying parties, which would defeat unlinkability.

U-Prove credentials have a Token Identifier, which is a hash of the public key and the signature. Because U-Prove does not provide multi-show unlinkability, the Token Identifier, like the public key and the signature, is known to all the relying parties. The user agent could therefore revoke the credential by including the Token Identifier in a CRL. However, because U-Prove provides issue-show unlinkability, the credential issuer does not know the Token Identifier, nor the public key or the signature, and therefore cannot use it to revoke the credential.

Section 5.2 of the U-Prove Technology Overview [4] says that an identifier could be included in a special attribute called the Token Information Field for the purpose of revocation, and “blacklisted using the same methods that are available for X.509 certificates”; this, however, would destroy the only unlinkability feature of U-Prove credentials, viz. issuance-show unlinkability (which [4] calls untraceability).

Section 5.2 of [4] also suggests using on-demand credentials. However that does not seem practical: the user agent would have to authenticate somehow to the issuer, then conduct a three-turn interactive issuance protocol with the issuer to obtain the token, then conduct a presentation protocol with the relying party. The latency of all these computations and interactions would too high; and since the issuance computations would have to be carried out each time the credential is used, the cost for the issuer would be staggering. Furthermore, on-demand credentials may allow linking of issuance to show by timing correlation.

A workaround to the revocation problem is suggested in Section 6.2 of [4], for cases where the credential is protected by a device such as a smart card by splitting the private key between the user agent and the device. In those cases the Issuer could revoke the device rather than a particular credential protected by the device, by adding an identifier of the device to a revocation list. However this would require downloading the revocation list to the device in a Device Message when the credential is used, so that the device can check if its own identifier is in the list. Since a revocation list can have hundreds of thousands of entries (e.g. the state of West Virginia revokes about 90,000 driver licenses per year [7]), downloading it to a smart card each time the smart card is used is not a viable option.

Update. Stefan Brands has pointed out that only a revocation list increment needs to be downloaded to the card.

Appendix 1 of [4] includes an “issuer-driven revocation” feature in a list of U-Prove features not yet implemented:

An Issuer can revoke one or more tokens of a known Prover by blacklisting a unique attribute encoded in these tokens (even if it is never disclosed at token use time).

How this can be achieved is not explained in the appendix, nor in Brands’s book [5]. However it is explained in [6], where Brands proposes a new system and compares it to his previous system of [5], i.e. to U-Prove. He says that [5] “allows an issuer to invisibly encode into all of a user’s digital credentials a unique number that the issuer can blacklist in order to revoke that user’s credentials” adding that the blacklist technique “consists of repeating a NOT-proof for each blacklist element”. In other words, the idea is to prove a formula stating that the unique number is NOT equal to the first element of the blacklist, and NOT equal to the second element, and NOT equal to the third element, etc., without revealing the unique number. That can be done but, as Brands further says in [6], it is “not practical for large blacklists”. Indeed, based on Section 3.6 of [5], proving a formula with multiple negated subformulas requires proving separately each negated subformula. So if the blacklist has 100,000 elements, 100,000 proofs would have to be performed each time a credential is used.

By the way, the system of [6] is substantially different from U-Prove and not well suited for use on the Web, since it requires the set of relying parties to be known at system-setup time.

Update. Stefan Brands has told me that the cryptosystem described in [6] is considered part of the U-Prove technology, and that the revocation technique of [6] could be integrated into the existing U-Prove implementation to provide issuer-driven revocation.

Conclusions

I will save my conclusions for the last post in the series, but of course any comments are welcome now.

References

[1] The White House. National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace. April 2011. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/NSTICstrategy_041511.pdf.
 
[2] Howard A. Schmidt. The National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace and Your Privacy. April 26, 2011. White House blog post, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/26/national-strategy-trusted-identities-cyberspace-and-your-privacy.
 
[3] Christian Paquin. U-Prove Cryptographic Specification V1.1 Draft Revision 1. February 2011. No http URL seems to be available for this document, but it can be downloaded from the Specifications and Documentation page, which itself is available at http://www.microsoft.com/u-prove.
 
[4] Christian Paquin. U-Prove Technology Overview V1.1 Draft Revision 1. February 2011. No http URL seems to be available for this document, but it can be downloaded from the Specifications and Documentation page, which itself is available at http://www.microsoft.com/u-prove.
 
[5] Stefan Brands. Rethinking Public Key Infrastructures and Digital Certificates: Building in Privacy 2000. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2000. ISBN 0262024918. Available for free download at http://www.credentica.com/the_mit_pressbook.php
 
[6] Stefan Brands, Liesje Demuynck and Bart De Decker. A practical system for globally revoking the unlinkable pseudonyms of unknown users. In Proceedings of the 12th Australasian Conference on Information Security and Privacy, ACISP’07. Springer-Verlag, 2007. ISBN 978-3-540-73457-4. Preconference technical report available at http://www.cs.kuleuven.be/publicat ies/rapporten/cw/CW472.pdf.
 
[7] West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Motor Vehicles. Annual Report 2010. Available at http://www.transportation.wv.gov /business-manager/Finance/Financial%20Reports/DMV_AR_2010.pdf.
 
[8] Update. W. Mostowski and P. Vullers. Efficient U-Prove Implementation for Anonymous Credentials on Smart Cards. Available at http://www.cs.ru.nl/~pim/publications/2011_securecomm.pdf.
 

Pomcor’s Comments on the Cybersecurity Green Paper

We have written a response to the Call for Comments on the report entitled Cybersecurity, Innovations and the Internet Economy, written by the Internet Policy Task Force of the US Department of Commerce.

In the response we call for research and development efforts aimed at improving and broadening the scope of the TLS protocol (formerly known as SSL). This would benefit NSTIC and the many IETF protocols that rely on TLS for their security.

If you have any comments on our response, please leave then below.

Pomcor’s Response to the NSTIC Notice of Inquiry

We’ve just sent to NIST Pomcor’s response to the NSTIC Notice of Inquiry with answers to questions 2.2 and 2.3.

NOI responses will eventually be posted at the NSTIC Web site. In the meantime, you can find ours here. Comments are very welcome. Please leave them below.

BrowserID and NSTIC

This post is in response to a tweet by @francesIDexpert who asked: “For those of you following #NSTIC, what do you think about this http://t.co/zUErAzZ”, where the shortened link refers to an article on BrowserID.

Here is my take on BrowserID and the Verified Email Protocol that it is based on. The functionality provided by an “IDBrowser Primary Authority” is equivalent to the functionality that would be provided by a certificate authority (CA) that would issue to a user a PKI certificate binding a public key to an email address, the CA being the email service providing the address.

I see two positives and one negative in BrowserID. The positives are:

  1. Having an email service provider issue email-address certificates, and
  2. Having the certificates issued automatically.

The negative is that BrowserID reinvents the wheel. There is no need for a new type of certificate, a new certificate store in the browser and a Javascript API for submitting certificates to a relying party, when an email address can be carried in an ordinarly PKI certificate, which a browser can store and present to a relying party as a TLS client certificate.

Now to NSTIC.

An explicit privacy goal of NSTIC is that colluding relying parties should not be able to use the user’s credentials to track the user. That is, two different relying parties should not be able to tell that the same user has logged in to both of them by comparing their login logs. Using an email address as an identifier is incompatible with this goal.

One could argue that relying parties need the user’s email address anyway. That’s true today, because email is often used to recover from forgotten passwords. But another goal of NSTIC is to provide alternatives to passwords. Without passwords, many relying parties will have no valid reason to ask for an email address. (And there will consequently be less spam.)

So an email-address certificate is a good way of demonstrating ownership of an email address to a relying party with a legitimate need to know the address. Actually, I will incorporate that idea into our proposed NSTIC architecture (with proper credit, of course) at the very next revision of the white paper. But an email address is not a good idea as a universal identifier for the Web.

Thoughts about NSTIC after NIST IDtrust Workshop

I’m back from participating in the NIST IDtrust workshop with Karen Lewison. This was the 10th in a series, but the first I’ve attended. I learned a lot. Presentations and panels can be found online at http://middleware.internet2.edu/idtrust/2011/program.html.

Jeremy Grant made a presentation on the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC). He said the President will make an announcement on April 15, and there will soon be workshops to solicit ideas from the private sector; we are looking forward to that. There was interesting follow up during the workshop. A participant from a financial institution told us in a private discussion that he doubted his institution would be able to delegate authentication to an external identity provider, due to security and liability concerns. Paul Donfried gave a talk about Verizon’s Universal Identity Services. Asked about the business model for providing identity services he said that the identity provider could charge the relying party for a high level of assurance. Elaine Newton, in one of her presentations, talked about NSTIC, and about the Multi-Factor Authentication Initiative.

In the long flight back to San Diego, Karen and I did some brainstorming about all this and we came up with three thoughts.

The first thought is that double redirection would help solve many of the technical challenges of NSTIC. By double redirection I mean the following: instead of the Relying Party (RP) relying on a certificate signed by an Identity or Attribute Provider (IAP) and submitted by the browser, the RP redirects the browser (via a 302 redirect or a form submission) to the IAP, which authenticates the user and redirects the browser back to the RP, passing a token or handle that the RP can use to obtain identity and attribute information from the IAP. Thus the RP relies on the IAP not only to provide credentials to the user, but also to verify credentials presented by the user.

This provides a lot of flexibility. Any RP can gain the high level of assurance provided by complex credentials (e.g. multi-factor authentication including one-time passwords or revocable biometrics) without having to implement verification procedures for those credentials. The user can control what attributes the IAP will disclose to the RP without having to juggle many attribute certificates. The RP can use multiple IAPs, providing different attributes, in the same transaction. And last but not least, Paul Donfried’s business model becomes possible, since the IAP is aware of the transaction.

There have been quite a few double redirection protocols: MS Passport (now Windows Live ID), SAML Browser SSP Profile, Shibboleth, OpenID, OAuth, etc. Some of them have serious security issues, but the PKAuth protocol that we presented in our poster provides strong security, without requiring the IAP and the RP to have prior knowledge of each other. PKAuth is designed for social login, so it has the potential to unify the goals of NSTIC with the requirements of social networks.

The second thought is to use what we could call “vacuous certificates”. By a vacuous certificate I mean a certificate that contains no information about the subject of the certificate. It contains only a public key and CA information, including revocation information. The CA that issues the certificate is not an identity provider, it is just, so-to-speak, a revocation provider. The user acquires a vacuous certificate, and registers it with any number of identity providers, which associate identity data or attributes with the certificate. In other words, the identity data and attributes are metadata external to the certificate, rather than data internal to the certificate.

This provides the obvious benefit that the user only needs to keep track of one private key and certificate. Also, no certificates need to be revoked and reissued when identity data or attributes change. And this also seems to solve the liability problem: the user can register the vacuous certificate with his or her bank, so that the bank can be the identity provider for its own transactions. In a transfer of funds between two banks, both banks would be identity providers for the same transaction.

The third thought goes back to double redirection. NSTIC emphasizes both security and privacy. For some transactions, the IAP must authenticate the RP, for security reasons. For other transactions, the IAP must not know the identity of the RP, for privacy reasons. Direct presentation of credentials by the browser to the RP ensures the latter; but it might be possible to enjoy the benefits of double redirection while keeping the RP anonymous. That would require an extension of the HTTP protocol to support a form of double redirection where the browser hides the identity of the initiator of the transaction (the RP).