Developers must balance security, user experience, and ease of implementation when creating and managing access control for their applications. The pressure to secure sensitive data while ensuring a seamless user experience can be overwhelming.
For a better understanding, we’ll explore two widely used authorization methods that help govern access control—through roles or attributes—providing insights on how to strike that perfect balance.
RBAC (Role-Based Access Control) simplifies access by assigning predefined roles to users. In contrast, ABAC (Attribute-Based Access Control) takes a more intricate approach, determining access based on various user traits, object features, action types, and beyond.
While both methods function similarly for end users, the underlying mechanisms that power them feature key differences that developers and adopters need to consider. Making an educated decision requires knowing how each access control system works, its pros and cons, and how it compares in capacity, applicability, and management requirements.
In this article, we’ll explore the nuanced world of ABAC vs. RBAC, breaking down everything you need to know to make the right choice for your next project. The video below provides a developer-focused introduction to authorization concepts.
Main points
RBAC assigns roles to manage access: Users are given predefined roles with specific access rights. This approach simplifies permissions management for smaller teams.
ABAC offers more customization: Access is based on user attributes, actions, and the environment, which allows for detailed control but requires more resources.
RBAC is simpler and easier to implement: It’s ideal for organizations with clear roles and responsibilities. IT teams can quickly troubleshoot and manage access.
ABAC suits complex access requirements: It’s perfect for organizations with evolving regulatory needs. However, it demands more attention and planning to set up and maintain.
What is RBAC?
Role-based access control is an approach to authorization that relies on pre-defined access permissions for the role (or roles) a user is given. Secure access control is automatic once roles and their respective privileges are established and assigned to every user.
How does this work in practice? Users are assigned one or more roles associated with their position, seniority, or other organizational function. When users attempt to access sensitive information or perform an action (i.e., editing, moving, deleting), the system will check if the action is permitted for their role(s).
There is a spectrum of flexibility available in RBAC.
In traditional RBAC, users may accumulate roles over time, gradually adding to their access permissions.
In constrained RBAC, there are limits on the number of roles users carry simultaneously.
In hierarchical RBAC, roles relate specifically to organizational stature, with greater access for executives and less for other staff.
Advantages and potential drawbacks of using RBAC
The most significant benefit of RBAC is simplicity. An RBAC system performs a more straightforward check, which is better than checking complex rules and relationships. For IT teams, account troubleshooting is simple. All access questions undergo basic checks. They include "Does the user have the correct role?" and "Should they?"
Another major advantage relates to the ecosystem in which a given app or program resides. An organization using Microsoft software may choose RBAC via Azure RBAC. It works across all connected software.
However, there are potential issues with RBAC. Roles are usually rigid and allow little customization for employees' needs. Users may be assigned many roles over time, which can cause a "role explosion," making managing access hard.
Attribute-based access control governs authorization through rules about more than just users’ roles. The system makes decisions using attributes. They are "if-then" statements that relate to:
Users and actions are attributes related to the user. These may include the role, along with more granular factors. Granular factors include location, IP address, and session length. The actions they are attempting are also considered. These actions may consist of type, frequency, and other relevant factors. We assess all this in real time.
Assets acted upon refer to the specific assets users are trying to access. You can configure a set of attributes for these assets in many combinations. For example, the file type, location, history, and specific content can all be focal points.
Environmental context refers to the surroundings of the action. This includes fit and necessity for daily operations and the broader threat environment. We compare the action against a defined security baseline (i.e., business as usual). These factors may determine whether the action receives authorization.
These factors create a more customizable system, but this also means higher implementation and maintenance costs. On the user side, the login process can be as seamless—if not more—than in comparable RBAC systems.
Advantages and potential drawbacks of using ABAC
ABAC systems offer unparalleled authorization customization. Any rule between a user, an asset, and the environment can be enough to allow access or trigger a restriction. That means organizations can tailor automation to increasingly complicated privacy needs (such as evolving regulatory requirements) when expanding within or across industries or locations.
As with RBAC, fitting with existing infrastructure can be a significant benefit. Organizations that run on Amazon Web Services (AWS) may need or want to use ABAC for AWS solely for compatibility.
There are also potential downsides to the complexity of ABAC. First and foremost, it requires greater attention to detail both during initial implementation and throughout the ongoing management process. In addition, adjustments to rules and relationships over time become increasingly complex and challenging as the number and diversity of assets scale up.
Try Descope’s CIAM solutions today for free to protect your users and keep your business secure.
RBAC vs. ABAC: Which one is right for you?
RBAC is a more straightforward, streamlined system. It works best for small teams with fewer variables. ABAC is more complex. It excels in mature environments that require high attention to detail for auth and may also have higher resource costs.
Here’s how the two approaches stack up and how they work for IT teams and users:
| RBAC | ABAC |
|---|---|---|
Methodology | Access is determined by an individual’s defined role(s). | Access is determined through a variety of attributes. |
Security Assurance | Streamlined roles make for tight but inflexible control. | Granular rule definitions allow for dynamic control. |
Implementation | Role definition, assignment, and management are key. | Complex rule and attribute mapping require careful planning and management. |
User experience | Users who understand their roles enjoy near-seamless access. | User access is seamless if rules and attributes are managed well. |
The deciding factors between these two approaches often come down to organizational structure. They also depend on the need to sell to enterprise customers.
RBAC might make the most sense if your organization has defined roles. These roles should outline staff access responsibilities. If you have complex access rules, then ABAC may be better.
Also, if you have a B2B product, it sells to other enterprises. Your access control should meet your customers' expectations for the products they use.
Can you use both RBAC and ABAC?
Yes! Many software projects can accommodate both RBAC and ABAC. Depending on the user base, two access models may help. For some accounts, use a simple RBAC model. For others, use ABAC.
A hybrid hierarchical system allows applying RBAC to lower-ranking employees, contractors, or clients. These users only access a small amount of sensitive data. You can apply ABAC to executives, IT staff, and other accounts. These users frequently access protected resources.
Supporting both approaches will make your software appealing to a broader market.
Fine-grained authorization with Descope
Implementing in-house access control can be daunting. Descope's no-code CIAM platform is for B2B app builders. It lets you integrate RBAC, ReBAC, and ABAC into your apps without the hassle.
Descope eliminates endless developer implementation cycles. It has Single Sign-On (SSO), SCIM, tenant management, and Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA).
Sign up for a Free Forever account to enhance your app-building with Descope. Have questions about fine-grained authorization or our platform? Book a time with our auth experts to learn more.
