[ http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/XFIRE-752?page=all ]

Tomasz Sztelak reassigned XFIRE-752:
------------------------------------

    Assignee: Tomasz Sztelak  (was: Dan Diephouse)

> WSS4JInHandler.checkReceiverResults(Vector, Vector), requires that Vector 
> params are in the same order
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: XFIRE-752
>                 URL: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/XFIRE-752
>             Project: XFire
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 1.2.2
>         Environment: (Shouldn't be important but here it is anyway) Tomcat 
> 5.0.28, Windows XP SP 2, Java 1.5.0_09
>            Reporter: Nick West
>         Assigned To: Tomasz Sztelak
>         Attachments: ws-security_checkReceiverResults.zip
>
>
> WSS4JInHandler.checkReceiverResults(Vector, Vector) expects that the first 
> Vector, wsResult, of WSSecurityEngineResult are in the same order as the 
> passed in Vector, actions, Integers are in the same order.  This causes 
> problems when calling a WS from .NET which uses WSE2.0 as the timestamp isn't 
> always in the order that you would expect it to be causing a "WSS4JInHandler: 
> security processing failed (actions mismatch)" exception to be thrown.
> A related note, it appears someone else was/is having the same issue (see the 
> middle post)
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-wss4j-dev/200512.mbox/[EMAIL 
> PROTECTED]
> My proposed solution would be make the method checkReceiverResults not care 
> about the order of the vectors passed in, here is some code that fixes the 
> problem:
>       protected boolean checkReceiverResults(Vector wsResult, Vector actions) 
> {
>               int resultActions = wsResult.size();
>               
>               for (int i = 0; i < resultActions; i++) {
>                       int act = ((WSSecurityEngineResult) 
> wsResult.get(i)).getAction();
>                       if (act == WSConstants.SC) {
>                               continue;
>                       }
>                       
>                       if(!actions.contains(new Integer(act))){
>                               return false;
>                       }
>               }
>               return true;
>       }
> Also attached is a modified book security example found in the xfire examples 
> section.  If you run the main method it will demonstrate this bug, then 
> exercise the proposed bug fix

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: 
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email

Reply via email to