RE: [ws-sx] Issue 31: Token properties

From
Anthony Nadalin <>
Date
2006-04-07T19:03:09+00:00
ID
Thread
RE: [ws-sx] Issue 31: Token properties
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" <>

"Whitehead, Greg" <> 

04/07/2006 12:58 PM

To

Anthony Nadalin/Austin/IBM@IBMUS

cc

"Scott Cantor" <>, "Symon Chang" <>, "Tony Gullotta" <>, <>

Subject

RE: [ws-sx] Issue 31: Token properties

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: 

-----Original Message-----

From: Anthony Nadalin [mailto:]

Sent: Fri 4/7/2006 8:03 AM

To: Whitehead, Greg

Cc: Scott Cantor; Symon Chang; Tony Gullotta; 

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"                       

                                       <>, "Scott      

                                       Cantor" <>, "Tony   

                                       Gullotta" <>,  

                                                 

                                                                   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" <>

                                                                           

  "Symon Chang" <                                                          

  >                                                    

                                                                           

                         <ecblank.gif>                                     

  04/06/2006 12:36 PM                                                      

                                                                        To 

                                     <ecblank.gif>                         

                                                                           

                                     "Scott Cantor" <>,    

                                     "Tony Gullotta" <                     

                                     >, Anthony       

                                     Nadalin/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, <           

                                     >           

                         <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:]

      Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:53 AM

      To: 'Tony Gullotta'; 'Anthony Nadalin'

      Cc: 

      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