Hi Isuru
What was the reason to use Axiom instead of the JAXB standard?
Thanks
Oliver
"Isuru
Suriarachchi" An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] Kopie: "Dittmann, Werner
(NSN - DE/Munich)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Dennis
m> Sosnoski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Colm O hEigeartaigh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Werner
Dittmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"jimmy Zhang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
16.10.2008 13:46 [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], (Blindkopie:
Oliver Wulff/CHK/External/Zurich)
Thema: Re: WSS4J 1.5.4
Encryption Performance Question
Hi,
As paul has explained, we have developed a new WS-Security implementation
totally on Axiom. Our intention was to find a solution for the well known
performance drawbacks of Rampart. According to performance results we
obtained at the end of our project, I can say that we have achieved our
goal.
One of the main reasons for Rampart performacne drawbacks is the usage of
DOM as the object model in WSS4J and XML-Sec implementations. As top
Rampart layer uses Axiom, DOOM conversion is done to convert the object
model into DOM. So we have implemented WS-Security and XML-Security
entirely using Axiom and that removes the requirement for DOOM. And also as
Axiom is pull based, it saves lot of memory when it comes to invalid
messages if they are rejected without building the whole message.
The other major problem with Rampart is that WSS4J is not WS-SecurityPolicy
aware. So the policy based validations of secured SOAP messages are done
after going through all the WS-Security validations steps in WSS4J. This
wastes both memory and processing power if the message is not according to
policy. In order to remove this drawback, we have made our WS-Security
implementation policy aware. So the token proccessors can do policy
validations themselves.
In addition to above mentioned improvements, we have done various code
level improvements as well. Specially in invalid message cases like DOS
attacks, our implementation performs extremely efficiently than Rampart. In
other words, it rejects the messages far earlier than Rampart.
I have explained our WS-Security model in the article at
http://wso2.org/library/articles/ws-security-processing-models-along-ws-securitypolicy-1
.
Thanks,
Isuru
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Werner
A group of four students from the University of Morutuwa built a
WS-Security implementation architected directly on top of Axiom as
their final year project. Saliya (copied) is one of them, plus
Sameera, Isuru and Kalani. (Forgive me for excluding their surnames).
They called this "Rampart2" as a code-name, but of course naming would
need to be decided by the community. AFAIK they intend to contribute
this to the WS project - and the contribution of canonicalization into
Axiom is the first step they have taken.
My understanding is that they have submitted a paper on this to the
IITC conference, so the paper will be published at the end of the
month. In the meantime, if you contact Saliya, I'm sure he can share a
pre-press version. Saliya also mentioned he is planning to share some
results in a blog.
Paul
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 7:49 AM, Dittmann, Werner (NSN - DE/Munich)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> a link to this work would be nice :-) ,
>
> Regards,
> Werner
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ext Paul Fremantle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 8:37 AM
>> To: Dennis Sosnoski
>> Cc: Colm O hEigeartaigh; Werner Dittmann; jimmy Zhang;
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: WSS4J 1.5.4 Encryption Performance Question
>>
>> Dennis
>>
>> I don't know about *just* canonicalization, but the team built a
>> complete version of WS-Security on top of Axiom and in their tests the
>> overall speedup ranged from 1.7-3x faster on various scenarios and
>> message sizes.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Dennis Sosnoski
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Hi Paul,
>> >
>> > I don't think that C14N support in Axiom is likely to be of
>> much direct
>> > benefit for performance. Axiom is slower and more
>> memory-intensive than
>> > standard DOM implementations when a document model needs to
>> be build - its
>> > advantage is that barring signing and such, most times you
>> can get away
>> > without the need for a document model - so I don't see that
>> using Axiom
>> > rather than a standard DOM is really going to help.
>> >
>> > The exception would be cases where only some tokens in the
>> header are being
>> > signed, which is actually the case that started this
>> discussion. If the
>> > Axiom+Rampart+WSS4J combination is smart enough to only
>> build the Axiom DOM
>> > for the header tokens that are being signed, this should
>> give much better
>> > performance than when the entire message has to be
>> converted to a DOM.
>> >
>> > I look forward to comparing the performance using Axiom
>> C14N vs. using
>> > standard DOM, and will give this a try as soon as it
>> becomes an option in
>> > the configuration.
>> >
>> > - Dennis
>> >
>> >
>> > Paul Fremantle wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> IMO
>> >>> C14N (in the case of signature) and DOM are the main culprits for
>> >>> performance as far as WSS4J is concerned, not PKC.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I believe that some students have built out C14N directly
>> in Axiom and
>> >> are planning to contribute it to Axiom shortly. That
>> should make a big
>> >> difference.
>> >>
>> >> Paul
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Paul Fremantle
>> Co-Founder and CTO, WSO2
>> Apache Synapse PMC Chair
>> OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
>>
>> blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>
--
Paul Fremantle
Co-Founder and CTO, WSO2
Apache Synapse PMC Chair
OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
******************* BITTE BEACHTEN *******************
Diese Nachricht (wie auch allfällige Anhänge dazu) beinhaltet
möglicherweise vertrauliche oder gesetzlich geschützte Daten oder
Informationen. Zum Empfang derselben ist (sind) ausschliesslich die
genannte(n) Person(en) bestimmt. Falls Sie diese Nachricht
irrtümlicherweise erreicht hat, sind Sie höflich gebeten, diese unter
Ausschluss jeder Reproduktion zu zerstören und die absendende Person
umgehend zu benachrichtigen. Vielen Dank für Ihre Hilfe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
