ws-sx message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-sx] Issue 31: Token properties
- From: Anthony Nadalin <drsecure@us.ibm.com>
- To: "Whitehead, Greg" <greg.whitehead@hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 14:05:28 -0500
The RST has elements/attributes that can be used to describe what type of token is requested, are you saying this is not adequate ?
I'm saying that WS-SecurityPolicy as described in the charter id to express the conditions and restrictions on the wire formats defined by WSS, WS-Trust and WS-SecureConversation and that contents of the token are opaque to the wire formats.
Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122
"Whitehead, Greg" <greg.whitehead@hp.com>
"Whitehead, Greg" <greg.whitehead@hp.com>
04/07/2006 12:58 PM
|
|
Each relying party that is protecting a resource based on the token it receives in a WSS Security header will have some policy about what that token needs to say. While WSS can be neutral to that, I don't see how the STS can be... otherwise, how will a WSC be able to get a satisfactory token from the STS?
Are you saying that it's sufficient for a WSP to state that it requires SAML tokens, and that ANY SAML token will do?
-Greg
Trustgenix has been acquired by HP. Please make a note my new email address: greg.whitehead@hp.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Nadalin [mailto:drsecure@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Fri 4/7/2006 8:03 AM
To: Whitehead, Greg
Cc: Scott Cantor; Symon Chang; Tony Gullotta; ws-sx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-sx] Issue 31: Token properties
Greg,
It's enough for WS-Security, WS-Trust, etc to say I want a SAML token as
that is all the is profiled in WSS, there is nothing that the wire format
of these specifications depend on in regards to token specifics.
Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122
Greg Whitehead
<greg.whitehead@h
p.com> To
Anthony Nadalin/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
04/07/2006 07:15 cc
AM "Symon Chang"
<schang@bluetitan.com>, "Scott
Cantor" <cantor.2@osu.edu>, "Tony
Gullotta" <tony.gullotta@soa.com>,
ws-sx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject
Re: [ws-sx] Issue 31: Token
properties
It seems to me that an RST needs to specify the desired properties of the
requested token in enough detail that the STS can satisfy the request
without relying on out-of-band information.
As has already been pointed out, it's not enough to say that you want a
SAML token.
-Greg
On Apr 7, 2006, at 12:34 AM, Anthony Nadalin wrote:
Symon,
The key part of what you quote is "conditions and restrictions on the
wire formats defined by OASIS Web
Services Security [1], WS-SecureConversation [2] and WS-Trust [3] to
a
specific set of typed message interchanges." well Services Security,
WS-SecureConversation and WS-Trust don't depend on any formats of the
tokens for wire formats, applications may but these specifications
don't.
Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122
<graycol.gif>
"Symon Chang" <schang@bluetitan.com>
"Symon Chang" <
schang@bluetitan.com>
<ecblank.gif>
04/06/2006 12:36 PM
To
<ecblank.gif>
"Scott Cantor" <cantor.2@osu.edu>,
"Tony Gullotta" <
tony.gullotta@soa.com>, Anthony
Nadalin/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, <
ws-sx@lists.oasis-open.org>
<ecblank.gif>
cc
<ecblank.gif>
<ecblank.gif>
Subject
<ecblank.gif>
RE: [ws-sx] Issue 31: Token
properties
<ecblank.gif>
<ecblank.gif>
The following is from the charter for our WS-SX TC:
"WS-SecurityPolicy [4] uses the facilities of WS-Policy [5] to
express
the conditions and restrictions on the wire formats defined by OASIS
Web
Services Security [1], WS-SecureConversation [2] and WS-Trust [3] to
a
specific set of typed message interchanges."
From this statement, there is no reason to define the WSS token
properties somewhere else. WS-SecurityPolicy has to define properties
of
token in the WS-Security spec.
For example, Username Token with/without nonce or created tags should
be
definable in the security policy, so that the Policy Enforcement
Point
can enforce the policy accordingly.
Symon Chang, CISSP
Sr. Security Architect
Blue Titan Software
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Cantor [mailto:cantor.2@osu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:53 AM
To: 'Tony Gullotta'; 'Anthony Nadalin'
Cc: ws-sx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-sx] Issue 31: Token properties
> I would think that at a minimum we should look at properties
> required to ensure the tokens can be authenticated properly
> like in my first example.
That applies to SAML as well, i.e. SubjectConfirmation. It's
meaningless
to
just say "SAML token".
I would say there should be token profiles of many of these specs, if
not
here, fine, but somewhere.
-- Scott
(See attached file: graycol.gif)(See attached file: pic11814.gif)(See attached file: ecblank.gif)
graycol.gif
pic11814.gif
ecblank.gif
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
