Talk:Windows CardSpace

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Microsoft: .NET Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject .NET (assessed as Mid-importance).

Microsoft Windows: Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Software: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Example Websites?

I have created a dummy card with random, made-up data to see what the CardSpace technology is like. However -- does anyone here actually know of a website that makes use of the technology and so would invoke it?

Would it be possible to list some examples here? 194.116.198.179 (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i've been looking for a few days. i don't think there are any web-sites anywhere that use Windows Cardspace (which is slightly less than the number of sites that use OpenID). Pauladin (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

This page is more like a stub. It doesn't say how is InfoCard used, or how it works. This page is a stub and should be expanded. --Soumyasch 09:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the expand template needed? The article is a stub, that, I feel, is enough to let people know that this page is a work in progress and that contribution is sought. --Soumyasch 14:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

eCode webCards

I have removed the additions made by 67.161.26.31. The similarity between webCards and InfoCard is entirely superficial and the wording of the edits doesn't seem NPOV to me. Aapo Laitinen 19:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internet User Identity

I think it is extremely rude & detrimental to the wiki project that anyone should remove another contributors's additions WITHOUT ANY KNOWLEDGE/RESEARCH of the matter. On Googling eCode, enough information is avaliable to establish that it is almost exactly the same thing - a different incarnation without any mumbo-jumbo buzzwords. Nothing superficial. Anyways it seems the company is non-existant at this point much like digitalMe from Novell, that was championed under Eric Schmidt but never took off at all.

I will not add the eCode stuff back in, perhaps the person that made the deletions would like to reasearch it, and then add it back himself. I would like to believe that he was well intentioned, just uninformed. :)

Response to 67.161.26.31's concern

Instead of accusatory and condescending remarks you might want to explain why you think eCode WebCard is similar to InfoCard. The thing is, eCode is a particular identity provider whereas InfoCard is system that allows identity providers and relying parties (e.g. websites and desktop applications) to communicate if authorized by the identity holder (i.e. the user). Though both involve virtual cards and can alleviate the need to remember usernames and passwords, that is, they share a metaphor and a goal, they also don't seem to share any technology or implementation ideas. I'll email Kim Cameron and see if responds and what he has to say. Aapo Laitinen 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got a reply from Kim Cameron, the InfoCard mastermind. He says he had never heard of eCode or WebCards before, and that the concepts are entirely unrelated. Aapo Laitinen 16:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you think the "InfoCard mastermind" wants to give credit for 'his work' to someone else - especially after people like you brand him "mastermind." Here is an independent study from University of Texas & Cisco Systems that validates the earlier claims. See for yourself http://momentumresearchgroup.com/downloads/reports/internet-indicators-1999.pdf

Now you explain why you think InfoCard is not inspired by eCode? :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.161.26.31 (talk • contribs) .

If the creator of a thing says he didn't know about some other thing which he has created something similar to, then he was clearly not inspired by it. That's all there is to it. You're attempting to draw a connection between these two products where one doesn't necessarily have to exist. Warrens 07:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CardSpace

I heard InfoCard has been renamed Windows CardSpace (WCS) [1]. A move...perhaps? --Cumbiagermen 09:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it needs to move to Windows CardSpace, and this page (InfoCard) should redirect there. I would do this if knew how to. Keithmahoney 15:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I belive that only the Windows client using the Infocard system has been named Windows CardSpace. The Identity metasystem still carries the working title InfoCards. See Kim Cameron's take on that. (Christoph)

Indeed, this article clearly misstates "Windows Cardspace" as the new name for Infocard. This is not correct, Windows Cardspace is the name of the Microsoft implementation of the Infocard standard. Bderidder

As usual, Microsoft has created this bit of misdirection as one can see in this direct quotation from their website: "Windows CardSpace, originally code-named "InfoCard," lets any Windows application, including Microsoft technologies such as the next release of Internet Explorer and those created by others, give its users a common way to work with digital identities." [2]

Others are working on InfoSpace implementations as we can see in John Fontana (NetworkWorld) March 26th 2007 article where he states that, "CardSpace, which shipped in November with Windows Vista, is Microsoft’s implementation of its own InfoCard technology."[3] The article is about Novell's implementation of the InfoCard technology. Phil Windley over at ZDNet posted a March 23rd 2007 article showing how this process works.

So what does this mean? That, in an ideal world, InfoCard would have retained it's place as a separate article; defining that which is intrinsically InfoCard (ie, format, implementation rules, etc., etc., etc.). But, it didn't. Tante pis. 216.144.250.148 16:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

InfoCard is no longer a name that MS officially uses. The official name is Windows CardSpace, and there's no need for a separate InfoCard article. Oren0 16:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breached?

There's at least a serious claim to having breached CardSpace. Jim Carr, Researchers breach Microsoft's CardSpace ID technology, SC Magazine, May 30, 2008, which I think qualifies as a reliable source. But I don't know much about CardSpace, so I leave it to someone else to work out what belongs in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'd view myself as reliable, if only because I work with it a lot. It's not a credible threat really; it relies on 1) Bad relying party code for reply attacks - not a CardSpace problem, 2) DNS hacks (possible with open wireless points or some trickery), 3) Installation of a new root certificate, or for a reliable certificate provider to mess up and issue a certificate where they shouldn't, and not to revoke it. It's a badly researched, unlikely "hack" --Blowdart | ^talk 07:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]