On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 9:21 PM, Jaliya Ekanayake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>  Hi Amila,
>
> I am not sure what we can achieve by only checking the security token
> header of the message.
> To verify the message is sent by the person who has the security token, the
> entire message should be verified for the signature.
>
yes. Actually these checks are depends on the policy.xml user has given. But
that verification is done by the Rampart handler.
What I thought was at RM level, it is enough to check  whether  the message
has used the security token used when creating the sequence.

Thanks,
Amila.

> To verify the message is not seen by anybody else, it can be encrypted.
>
> HTH,
> Jaliya
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Amila Suriarachchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 20, 2008 7:46 AM
> *Subject:* Security Manager Interface
>
> hi,
>
> Sandesha2 SecurityManager has this interface. Here what this message Part
> parameter means.
> /**
>      * Check that the given element of the message demonstrated proof of
> possession of
>      * the given token. This allows Sandesha to implement the checking
> required by the
>      * RM spec. Proof is normally demonstrated by signing or encrypting the
> the given
>      * part using the token.
>      * If the elements is not secured with the given token the
> SecurityManager must
>      * throw an exception.
>      */
>     public abstract void checkProofOfPossession(SecurityToken token,
> OMElement messagePart, MessageContext message)
>     throws SandeshaException;
>
> I went through the code and so that always Soap Body and Sequence header
> parts are passed to this parameter. Is this means
> for a Secure conversation is it required to Sign and Encrypt these parts?
> Is there any reason why this check is done like this without checking the
> given Security token value with the Security token value in the
> Security Header?
>
> thanks,
> Amila.
>
> --
> Amila Suriarachchi,
> WSO2 Inc.
>
>


-- 
Amila Suriarachchi,
WSO2 Inc.

Reply via email to