[Verse 1] When you write a simple rule in XACML's way Pages of nested XML fill up your day What should be clean becomes a maze Of tags and attributes that nobody can phrase The specification needs explanation just to read A basic policy becomes a complex deed [Chorus] Three weaknesses holding XACML down Verbose and complex, hard to come around Narrow scope, just access control alone While newer solutions have clearly grown XML verbosity, complexity's weight Limited domain makes it second-rate [Verse 2] It's narrowly focused on one control domain Authorization decisions are all it can claim Can't express risk management or incident response Change control policies get no correspondence Like Cedar it serves just one single need While comprehensive controls require more to succeed [Chorus] Three weaknesses holding XACML down Verbose and complex, hard to come around Narrow scope, just access control alone While newer solutions have clearly grown XML verbosity, complexity's weight Limited domain makes it second-rate [Bridge] Dozens of combining algorithms to learn Function types and profiles at every turn The barrier to entry keeps people away While OPA Rego wins the modern day Performance concerns at enterprise scale Make XACML's promise often fail [Verse 3] It's lost its mindshare to approaches new Cedar and Rego offer cleaner view XML feels dated in our JSON age Cloud-native systems turn a different page Remote attribute calls can slow things down High-throughput systems avoid its crown [Chorus] Three weaknesses holding XACML down Verbose and complex, hard to come around Narrow scope, just access control alone While newer solutions have clearly grown XML verbosity, complexity's weight Limited domain makes it second-rate [Outro] From verbose XML to narrow scope Complex standards give little hope Three weaknesses clear as day Why XACML fades away
← 1 Defense in Depth | Personal Priority 3 — URGENT (0–12 months) →