Hi all, I'm not 100% sure of the right way to go with this one. On one hand, the SecurityToken object that the security manager gives to the Sandesha layer is basically opaque, so if the security layer wants to use it to map to a series of 'real' short-lived tokens then that would be ok. Of course, if you are doing that then you'd need to have a fairly sophisticated checkProofOfPossesion method to work out if the tokens used in the message are acceptable. I think this can work ok for the case where you use a series of (quite short lived) keys derived from an initial (long lived) key.
On the other hand, I think Paul may be right too. If the security token expires, the RM layer is all out of luck. Perhaps it's nice to give it a warning that this is about to happen (at few minutes early?) and let it clean up as best it can. That, or add a "willExpireSoon()" method to SecurityToken. It would help me out quite a lot if we could get the current code into the codebase. I think that the current state of play is that I should restructure the SecurityManager to pass OMElements around instead of assuming anything about the STR. I'll try and do that today, and if I do I'd really appreciate it if we could check it in. We can improve things later. Sound ok? Thanks Matt "Paul Fremantle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 31/07/2006 10:01:27: > I don't think the latest spec should say that anymore. I don't know > how Rampart and WSS4J manage the length of a security session anyway. > > So as to Jaliya's point, maybe there needs to be a notification system > for other MARs..... that a security session is about to be closed. > Then the RM sequence manager could request it to stay open until the > sequence is properly terminated. > > Paul > > On 7/31/06, Chamikara Jayalath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Jaliya, Matt, All, > > > > The RM Spec says > > > > "Security contexts are independent of reliable messaging Sequences. > > Consequently, security contexts can come and go independent of the lifetime > > of the Sequence. In fact, it is recommended that the lifetime of a security > > context be less than the lifetime of the Sequence unless the Sequence is > > very short-lived." > > > > So it seems like Jaliya's point is correct. Matt, can we do some changes to > > ur patch and provide this. > > > > Chamikara > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Jaliya Ekanayake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Jul 28, 2006 7:16 PM > > Subject: Re: RM+Security > > To: Ruchith Fernando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Lovett > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: Chamikara Jayalath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jaliya Ekanayake > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [email protected], Sanjiva Weerawarana > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > Hi Matt, > > > > Could you please explain how can we handle long running RM sequences with > > multiple SecurityTokens from the way you have suggested? > > > > Thanks, > > -Jaliya > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Matthew Lovett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Ruchith Fernando" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: "Chamikara Jayalath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Jaliya Ekanayake" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >; <[email protected]>; "Sanjiva Weerawarana" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 8:08 AM > > Subject: Re: RM+Security > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Thanks for your time, we seem to be having a useful discussion here. > > > > > > "Ruchith Fernando" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 28/07/2006 > > > 12:29:03: > > > > > >> Hi Matt, > > >> > > >> Yes ... I agree with this flow. > > >> > > >> But I was wondering why it is necessary to sandesha to add the > > >> placeholder since anyway the security module will have to be aware of > > >> the CreateSequence message? > > >> > > > I don't think that the security layer should be aware of the create > > > sequence, and this design doesn't require it to. > > > > > >> For example the security module will have to block a create seqence > > >> message and will have to establish a SecConv context and add the STR > > >> in the CreateSeq msg to point to the SecConv context that was > > >> established. At this point we can use the message context to share the > > >> toke info with sandesha. > > > > > > No, you create the SecConv context when I ask you for a token. If you go > > > and get it right away then there is no need to interrupt the create > > > sequence as it passes through the security handlers. > > > > > >> > > >> In this case all the information for the STR is with the security > > >> module. Therefore why do we need the placeholder? > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Ruchith > > >> > > > > > > The point of the placeholder is that it tries to allow the security module > > > to compose with RM without requiring the security layer to provide special > > > processing for RM messages. If we follow this approach, then other WS-* > > > specs that take a similar approach to security can be implemented without > > > change in the security module. My security team are more inclined to go > > > for the more general approach, and don't want to put special RM handling > > > into their code. After all, what if sandesha is not even engaged, or > > > applied to the current message? You are doing processing that could be > > > bypassed completely. > > > > > > Of course, if the group really wants to do it your way then I can fix it > > > up by adding another IBM handler after sandesha and before security - and > > > I can emulate the processing you describe there. I'd just rather not ;) > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > -- > Paul Fremantle > VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair > > http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
