Google Zanzibar V.s. Cedar

Cedar and Google Zanzibar are both systems designed to manage access control within software applications or systems, but they may have different architectures, features, and capabilities.

1. Architecture:
   1. Cedar Authorization: The architecture of Cedar authorization would depend on the specific implementation and design choices made by its developers. Depending on the application’s requirements, it could be a centralized or decentralized system.
   2. Google Zanzibar: Zanzibar is a centralized system for managing access control in distributed systems, developed by Google. It uses a global namespace and relies on a centralized policy decision point for access control decisions.
2. Scalability:
   1. Cedar Authorization: Scalability would depend on the scalability features and design decisions implemented within Cedar. It may be scalable depending on its architecture.
   2. Google Zanzibar: Zanzibar is designed for scalability and manages access control at Google’s scale, handling millions of authorization requests per second.
3. Features and Capabilities:
   1. Cedar Authorization: Features and capabilities would depend on the specific implementation of Cedar. It may offer features such as role-based access control (RBAC), attribute-based access control (ABAC), and fine-grained access control policies.
   2. Google Zanzibar: Zanzibar provides features for managing authentication, authorization, and auditing in large-scale distributed systems. It offers a global namespace for managing access control policies, supports complex access control rules, and provides auditing capabilities.
4. Usage and Adoption:
   1. Cedar Authorization: The usage and adoption of Cedar would depend on factors such as its availability, ease of integration, and suitability for different types of applications.
   2. Google Zanzibar: Zanzibar is used internally by Google to manage access control across its various services and applications.

In summary, while both Cedar authorization and Google Zanzibar are systems for managing access control, they may differ in their architecture, scalability, features, and usage. The specific differences would depend on the details of each system’s implementation.