Normally, a "SupportingTokens" policy comes with a security binding policy, one of either TransportBinding, AsymmetricBinding or SymmetricBinding. However, it is also possible to have a SupportingTokens policy without a security binding. This use-case is handled by separate code. Currently, we support UsernameTokens, KerberosTokens and SAMLTokens as SupportingTokens. We don't support the X509Token use-case.
I recommend starting by getting a test working with a SupportingToken UsernameToken, and then debug through the CXF security runtime to see how this is handled. Colm. On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 2:13 PM, SRog <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Colm, > thanks for your response. > Sorry, I didn't quite understand. If I take a look at the examples I found > on the internet, there is no interceptor written for X.509. What is the > security binding you are describing? Do you have an example how I have to > do > it? > > Thanks, > SRog > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/Username-PWD-on-STS-tp5750076p5750298.html > Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > -- Colm O hEigeartaigh Talend Community Coder http://coders.talend.com
