[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: CPA & MS (was RE: Threat assessment,some dissent RE: [ebxml-msg] security pro blem with ebXML MS)
Suresh, I'm not sure I understand what you really want to know. I previously said that I know of no other contract besides CPA. By that I meant an electronic contract that specifies the agreed IT technical configuration. Of course, there is tpaML but tpaML was just a proof of concept that led to CPP-CPA. "Other contract + MS" would not work only because there is no other contract. Web Services does not include a contract; WSDL is strictly a service provider description, not an agreement. "CPA + other transport" is conceptually possible but we have not defined the bindings for another transport that would replace the ebXMLBinding subtree. The obvious possibility would be "bare SOAP". It is perfectly reasonable for the registry spec to permit other types of contract. They just don't exist at this time, as far as I know. Regards, Marty ************************************************************************************* Martin W. Sachs IBM T. J. Watson Research Center P. O. B. 704 Yorktown Hts, NY 10598 914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287 Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com ************************************************************************************* "Damodaran, Suresh" <Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com> on 11/12/2001 04:09:55 PM To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS cc: "'Dale Moberg'" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>, James M Galvin <galvin@drummondgroup.com>, Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>, Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>, ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: CPA & MS (was RE: Threat assessment, some dissent RE: [ebxml-msg] security pro blem with ebXML MS) Marty, Thanks for responding to this question. I have a follow-up question. Within Registry TC, we spec'ed Registry to work with any type of contract. I would guess CPA + MS Other contract + other (non MS) transport CPA + other (non MS) transport (is it possible? would be the only viable combinations as per CPA spec? In particular, Other contract + MS would not work (as per your statements below). Please confirm. Regards, -Suresh -----Original Message----- From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 10:33 PM To: Damodaran, Suresh Cc: 'Dale Moberg'; James M Galvin; Christopher Ferris; Rich Salz; ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: Threat assessment, some dissent RE: [ebxml-msg] security pro blem with ebXML MS Suresh, You asked "What if another type contract is used?" That might be another can of worms but I think that we can safely put it off until version 77 since no other such contract has surfaced and Web Services hasn't yet figured out the need for agreements. So, we are dealing with the following cases: CPA Manually entered configuration information equivalent to a CPA but with no automated assurance that what both parties enter is compatible. I think that this is what most of us understand as the meaning of "no CPA". No agreement at all. The proponents of "no agreement at all" either believe that two parties can communicate without compatible configurations or that all the configuration information can be carried in the message header. Regards, Marty **************************************************************************** ********* Martin W. Sachs IBM T. J. Watson Research Center P. O. B. 704 Yorktown Hts, NY 10598 914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287 Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com **************************************************************************** ********* "Damodaran, Suresh" <Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com> on 11/09/2001 05:33:48 PM To: "'Dale Moberg'" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>, James M Galvin <galvin@drummondgroup.com>, Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>, Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com> cc: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: Threat assessment, some dissent RE: [ebxml-msg] security pro blem with ebXML MS Dale, In any case, the MS spec should state clearly what kind of security it supports and what it doesn't. It definitely is not in the interest of anyone to say that ebXML MS provides certain security guarantees, when it doesn't. Possibly the security considerations section needs a good rewrite, may be other too. (Things like CPA will have Content-Type should be in MS spec. However, I am not sure MS assumes the uses a CPA. What if another type contract is used? Hope I am not opening another can of worms:-)) I do hope this subject gets discussed at the F2F. Regards, -Suresh -----Original Message----- From: Dale Moberg [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 12:27 PM To: Damodaran, Suresh; James M Galvin; Christopher Ferris; Rich Salz Cc: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: Threat assessment, some dissent RE: [ebxml-msg] security problem with ebXML MS Jim and Suresh, In my earlier long message I tried to summarize: 1. what kind of threats might be provided 2. under what transport/packaging conditions given the typical processing of 3. ebXML messages. I considered a number of possible kinds of threats. Apparently Jim thinks it is only the threat of misdirection that should be of concern. So, for that threat, these considerations still stand: 1. ebXML messaging processing does not need to trust internal MIME content-type values. 2. content-id values, if changed, will almost certainly lead to an error condition when they are used as part of XMLDsig signatures. 3. CPA based agreements can be used to: a. check that internal mime content-types are as expected. MIME error can be thrown if enforced. b. add digital enveloping that can encrypt the entire MIME chunk, including the headers (using 1847 security packaging if you like, Jim!) Given all of this existing apparatus permitting strong counters for the situation of MITM header tweaking, if you still wish to mandate an additional new security mechanism, I urged you to hold off until the next iteration. By then, maybe XMLEncryption will be stable or other security proposals may have emerged that can be cited. Maybe a tweak to the mid: or cid: URIs that would permit mid: sub-segments-- who knows? ebXML messaging is IMO not primarily engaged in inventing new security solutions and countermeasures, but instead is involved in adopting existing stable solutions to achieve an acceptable coverage for the standard threats (spoofing, alteration, and sniffing). I would rather retrofit to a dedicated security groups carefully examined spec. than try to throw something together at the last minute (and we are at the last minute for 1.1). Dale ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC