The PlainID Platform

Policy-Based Access Control (PBAC) is an authorization model that allows access decisions to be made based on predefined policies.

In PBAC, access control policies are centrally managed and applied across applications, APIs, and data services. This approach ensures consistency, compliance, and visibility across the enterprise, allowing organizations to fine-tune access controls with high granularity.

PBAC supports both coarse- and fine-grained authorization, providing flexibility to align access control with dynamic business requirements.

Attribute-based access Control (ABAC) makes access decisions based on the attributes of the user, the resource, and environmental conditions.

This model uses policies that specify which attributes (e.g., department, role, security clearance) are required for access to a given resource. ABAC is more dynamic than role-based models because it considers a wider variety of contextual factors.

PBAC is a subset of ABAC, often seen as a more manageable implementation due to its centralized policy management approach.

PBAC focuses on the policies themselves as the central method of access control, whereas ABAC is broader, relying on user attributes, resource properties, and environmental conditions to govern access.

PBAC solutions, like PlainID’s platform, often offer simplified management, visibility, and enforcement capabilities that make it easier to integrate across multiple systems and applications.

Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) is an authorization model that grants access to resources based on a user’s role within an organization.

Roles are predefined and associated with a set of permissions, which are then assigned to users. For example, a user in an “Administrator” role might have full access to a system, while a user in a “Viewer” role may only have read-only access.

RBAC is widely used for its simplicity and ease of management, especially in environments where roles are well-defined and relatively static.

Both PBAC and RBAC are used to manage access control, they differ significantly in flexibility and scope:

RBAC: Relies on static role definitions. Permissions are granted to roles, and users are assigned one or more roles. This can lead to “role explosion” as organizations grow and require more nuanced access controls.

PBAC: Focuses on centrally managed policies that can incorporate multiple factors, including roles, user attributes, environmental conditions, and resource types. PBAC is more dynamic and context-aware, allowing for real-time access decisions that go beyond static roles.

In summary, while RBAC is sufficient for simpler environments, PBAC offers greater flexibility and granularity, making it more suitable for complex, dynamic systems where access needs change frequently based on user context and business policies.

Relationship-Based Access Control (ReBAC) is an authorization model that makes access decisions based on the relationships between entities such as users, resources, and contextual elements.

ReBAC considers not only the roles or attributes of the user but also their relationships to other users or resources within a system. For example, a user may only be granted access to certain data if they have a specific relationship (e.g., manager, collaborator) with the resource owner or if a hierarchical relationship exists between departments.

ReBAC is especially useful in environments like social networks, collaboration platforms, and systems with complex relationship structures where traditional role- or attribute-based models may fall short. It allows organizations to define access control policies that mirror real-world relationships, providing a more flexible and accurate model for dynamic access control.

The main difference between Policy-Based Access Control (PBAC) and Relationship-Based Access Control (ReBAC) lies in how access decisions are made:

PBAC: Focuses on predefined policies that govern access based on roles, attributes, and environmental factors. It centralizes the management of policies, allowing fine-grained or coarse-grained control across applications and resources. PBAC is ideal for ensuring consistency, compliance, and visibility across the enterprise, particularly in environments with complex access requirements.

ReBAC: Centers around the relationships between users, resources, and contextual entities. Access is granted based on the nature of these relationships, rather than just user attributes or roles. ReBAC is well-suited for environments where relationships, like supervisor-employee or collaboration between peers, dictate who can access specific resources.
PBAC emphasizes policy management and enforcement across resources, while ReBAC is designed to reflect real-world relationships, offering more flexibility in dynamic and social environments.

Both Policy-Based Access Control (PBAC) and XACML aim to provide centralized, policy-driven access control, but they differ in their approach, flexibility, and ease of use:

Policy Language:
PBAC: Uses simpler, more intuitive policy definitions that can be easily managed through a centralized interface. PBAC focuses on streamlining the process of policy creation and enforcement, making it more accessible to administrators, security teams, and business users.
XACML: Is a standards-based, XML-driven language for defining access control policies. While powerful and flexible, XACML’s XML format can be complex and harder to manage, often requiring specialized expertise to write and maintain policies.

Simplicity and Usability:
PBAC: Designed for ease of use, with user-friendly interfaces that allow both technical and non-technical stakeholders to define and manage policies. PBAC platforms like PlainID offer a straightforward approach to managing access control policies across a variety of resources, applications, and APIs.
XACML: Although highly flexible, XACML’s complexity can make it challenging for organizations to implement and manage, especially at scale. Its XML-based format is not as intuitive and may require extensive customization and configuration.

Policy Management:
PBAC: Offers centralized management of policies through graphical user interfaces and APIs. It simplifies policy lifecycle management, including creation, approval, and auditing, with built-in tools to simulate and analyze access decisions.
XACML: Manages policies through decentralized XML files, which can lead to more cumbersome policy administration. While XACML supports granular access control, its management can be more fragmented and difficult to scale without additional layers of abstraction.
Deployment and Integration:
PBAC: Typically offers more out-of-the-box integrations with enterprise applications, APIs, and microservices. It supports modern, cloud-native architectures and can easily be integrated with identity providers, data services, and other components of the IT ecosystem.
XACML: Often requires more custom integration efforts, especially in modern or hybrid environments. While XACML is flexible and adaptable, integrating it across distributed systems can be more complex and time-consuming.

Performance:
PBAC: Often optimized for real-time, dynamic access decisions and high performance in cloud and distributed environments.
XACML: While flexible, it may introduce performance challenges in dynamic environments due to its complexity and the need for XML parsing during policy evaluation.
PBAC is designed for simplicity, usability, and scalability, with a focus on centralized policy management that is accessible to both technical and non-technical users. XACML, while offering robust and flexible access control capabilities, can be more complex to implement, manage, and integrate, particularly in dynamic and modern enterprise environments.

Policy as Code refers to the practice of managing access control policies using versioned and auditable code, similar to software development practices. This approach brings automation, repeatability, and governance to the process of creating, updating, and deploying access policies. By adopting Policy as Code, organizations can embed security policies directly into their CI/CD pipelines, ensuring that authorization is tightly coupled with the development lifecycle.