I do not think encryption is that important, signing probably yes,
but if you want encryption you always can switch to a ssl layer which
is easier to handle.




Mike Kienenberger wrote:
> I did a search on the JSF 1.2 spec, and the four references to
> encrypting are all vague and general ("It is advisable that this
> [client saved state] information be encrypted and tamper evident,
> since it is being sent down to the client, where it may persist for
> some time."), so we're on our own here.
> 
> There's a few different approaches.   The first is to simply generate
> a new key on startup and effectively expire all sessions when the
> server is restarted.   It's not a bad "first draft" implementation.  
> However, it won't work in clustered environments nor across restarts.
> 
> Saving the key in each session might work.   The environment may
> preserve server-side sessions across restarts, depending on the
> configuration.
> 
> Another approach is to find some centralized location to store the
> encryption key.   I'm not really sure what's available.   Maybe a file
> in "temp", and that has its own security concerns, but those are
> probably subordinate to client-side state saving concerns.
> 
> As you stated, you could also store the key in the application as an
> unchangable attribute.    Maybe that's not a bad way to go either, but
> if that were the case, I'd like to be able to store it as a JNDI
> property.   I'd be a bit concerned about keeping the same key forever.
>   I think some "random" data would need to be padded into the state
> values, especially for shorter state values, in order to keep the
> encryption secure.
> 
> I'd also like to recommend that the data is signed rather than just
> encrypted.   For me, having a cryptologically-signed state is more
> important than encrypting the state.    I'm not concerned that the
> end-user can read the state (after all, most of the state is visible
> in another form already).   I just don't want the end-user to be able
> to modify it.
> 
> On 10/11/05, Dennis Byrne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>

Reply via email to