Colm,

the revised patch seems ok to me.

For the planned V2.0 :
shall we start some e-mail thread (or using the wiki?)
to gather some ideas and proposals what to address in V2.0?

Regards,
Werner

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: ext O hEigeartaigh, Colm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. April 2008 12:09
> An: Dittmann, Werner (NSN - DE/Muenich); ext Fred Dushin; wss4j-dev
> Betreff: RE: WSS-54
> 
> Hi Werner,
> 
> Please consider the revised patch for WSS-54. I think that 
> for the 2.0 timeframe we need to revisit the way things are 
> handled in UsernameTokenProcessor, as delegating 
> authentication to the password callback handler is not a good 
> solution. 
> 
> In the meantime, the revised patch preserves the old 
> functionality, along with some extra bits and pieces, mainly 
> the addition of an extra variable to control whether password 
> types other than plaintext or digested are allowed.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Colm.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dittmann, Werner (NSN - DE/Muenich) 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 15 April 2008 08:13
> To: ext Fred Dushin; wss4j-dev
> Subject: AW: WSS-54
> 
> Fred, Ruchith, all,
> 
> first of all - thanks to Fred to take actions on all the open 
> issues :-)
> 
> As for WSS-54: in the orginal implementation the 
> "handleUsernameToken()"
> checked the both types of passwords. After some discussions 
> on the mailing
> list (back in 2004, WSS4J's stoneage :-)  ) we modified the 
> behaviour to
> check only the hashed passwords. The main reason was (as far 
> as I can remember):
> - only for hashed passwords the WS-Security specs define how 
> the validate
>   it (using nonce, created time etc)
> - the plain password is just "plain" text - no validation is 
> specified, thus
>   we decided not to implement a check into the handler but to 
> leave the
>   check to ther server application. You may refer to the 
> follwoing archived 
>   e-mail discussion:
>   
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-fx-dev/200409.mbox
> /[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> IMHO implementing this patch brakes a behaviour that WSS4J 
> provides since long 
> and thus may break applications.
> 
> Regards,
> Werner
> 
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: ext Fred Dushin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. April 2008 01:51
> > An: wss4j-dev
> > Betreff: WSS-54
> > 
> > Hi Ruchith,
> > 
> > Could I ask you to take a look at Colm's patch for WSS-54?
> > 
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WSS-54
> > 
> > I'm +1 on the change, but I see you had some important 
> comments in the
> > Jira trail, and before committing the change (or asking you to), I'd
> > like to make sure you're in agreement with it.
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > -Fred
> > 
> > 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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]
> 
> ----------------------------
> IONA Technologies PLC (registered in Ireland)
> Registered Number: 171387
> Registered Address: The IONA Building, Shelbourne Road, 
> Dublin 4, Ireland
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to