We have usernametoken + transport policy with timestamp. I will take a look at this thanks
Sent from my Galaxy S2 On Oct 16, 2012 5:39 AM, "Daniel Kulp" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Oct 15, 2012, at 2:27 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Probably in that case I was thinking about getting access to the in > message > > SoapMessage and figuring out the operation based on the first element > > inside body. It should still be there as that is what wss4j interceptor > > uses I think > > Depends on the way the UsernameToken policy is defined and what other > policies are in effect there. If there is ONLY a UsernameToken policy, > there is a more optimized pathway that bypasses the full WSS4J handling and > just handles the header directly. (UsernameTokenInterceptor) In this case, > the Body may not have been read into an SAAJ model. However, you would be > able to grab the XMLStreamReader from the in message and parse the next > couple events to find the first child element and use that QName. > > Dan > > > > > Sent from my Galaxy S2 > > On Oct 16, 2012 5:15 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Ah yep makes perfect sense for cases where body is encrypted what about > >> when not like for usernametoken and ssl > >> > >> Sent from my Galaxy S2 > >> On Oct 16, 2012 2:18 AM, "Daniel Kulp" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> On Oct 15, 2012, at 6:21 AM, Jason Pell <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> I have a interceptor registered to intercept exceptions thrown from > >>>> WSS Interceptors and also the Callback to wrap them in a domain fault. > >>>> However I hit a problem because the WebFaultOutInterceptor expects > >>>> the BindingOperationInfo to be populated and this is not populated > >>>> until DocLiteralInInterceptor is executed which is after ws security > >>>> is populated. > >>>> > >>>> We are not enforcing the use of the SOAPAction which I suppose might > >>>> solve this, but before I go there I wanted to know if it was possible > >>>> to move the parsing of the DocLiteralInInterceptor earlier so that at > >>>> least I know the operation name before I validate ws security. > >>> > >>> Likely not. If the soap:Body is encrypted, there wouldn't be a way to > >>> determine the body until after the security stuff is handled. > Likewise, if > >>> there is a security exception trying to decrypt the body, there also > >>> wouldn't be a way to determine the operation. > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Daniel Kulp > >>> [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog > >>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > >>> > >>> > > -- > Daniel Kulp > [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > >
