[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Issue PR012: Need policy example for encrypted username token
PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL OR START A DISCUSSISON THREAD UNTIL THE ISSUE IS ASSIGNED A NUMBER.
The issues coordinators will notify the list when that has occurred.
Title: Need policy example for encrypted username token
One the examples document, we have insecure example of Username Token policy, but no simple encrypt password policy on Username token. This is a must-to-have scenario to be shown in the example document.
On the Security Policy Examples document, there is an example of unencrypted plain text Username Token policy on 22.214.171.124, but there is no example for encrypted plain text Username Token policy.
Sending unencrypted password text, as showed on 126.96.36.199, is not a secure way to handle the Username Token. The example should not be advertised as the only way to handle plain text password.
We do have an encrypted plain text password policy on section 2.1.3 -- “(WSS 1.0) UsernameToken with Mutual X.509v3 Authentication, Sign, Encrypt”. However, this example requires signature. It is more complicated.
Encrypted support token without signature is a very common use case. It is documented on the first WS-Security Interop Scenarios Document [WSS10-INTEROP-01 Scenario 1 – section 4.4.4] (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/11374/wss-interop1-draft-06-merged-changes.pdf ).
This is a real requirement for this use case scenario in the field, too. If a client does not have its own private key then the Username Token is the only way for authentication. If the server cannot accept digested password, then encrypted password is the only way to secure authentication. The client does not have key for signature, SignedEncryptedSupportingTokens assertion is not an alternative in this scenario.
We should provide a simple policy example for sending encrypted password over the SOAP message, and make a comment on the example of section 188.8.131.52 is not a secure way.
Just like the WSS 1.0 Interop scenario document, a more secure example of handle Username Token should be followed after section 184.108.40.206.
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated
entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.