On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Amila De Silva <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi,
> Shouldn't we think of providing the configuration in each API rather than
> in api-manager.xml. So some APIs will get the token only from the Header,
> while some other APIs can get if from request URL.
>
+1 that would be very useful. For initial implementation we may start with
api-manager.xml.

Thanks,
sanjeewa.

>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Sanjeewa Malalgoda <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> As of now we have implemented
>> method extractCustomerKeyFromAuthHeader(headers) to extract authentication
>> headers(token) from incoming transport headers list. So we might need to
>> add generic method in a way we can retrieve token from message context.
>> What i suggest is having configuration to decide we get bearer token from
>> headers, url parameter or both. I'm sure every APIM users do not want to
>> allow sending token as query string. Also most importantly there is a way
>> to configure remove auth headers and skip it by adding configuration to
>> api-manager.xml. And we should keep it as it is because APIM users are
>> heavily use it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> sanjeewa.
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Sam Sivayogam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Sanjeewa,
>>>
>>> Currently the key validation is done inside OAuthAuthenticator. what i’m
>>> planning to do is to get the key  from query parameter if key is not
>>> available in the Authentication Header.
>>>
>>> regards
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Sanjeewa Malalgoda <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> IMO we should add configuration to key validation entry point (in
>>>> gateway authentication handler). With this configuration we should be able
>>>> to decide token accept as query param, transport header or both. If query
>>>> param authentication header enabled only we will retrieve token from query
>>>> params. Otherwise we will be looking at transport headers. Or we may be
>>>> able to look at both(transport header, query parameter) according to
>>>> defined order. WDYT?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> sanjeewa.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Nuwan Dias <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In general, it is understood that it is bad practice. But its
>>>>> mentioned in the OAuth 2.0 spec, so IMO as a product we should support it
>>>>> but mention implications on the docs clearly.
>>>>>
>>>>> In scenarios where the communication between the client and server are
>>>>> guaranteed to be safe, its ok to pass the information in the url IMO. Ex:
>>>>> For systems communicating internally only. With the IoT stuff building up,
>>>>> I presume there could be more valid uses of this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> NuwanD.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Gayan Gunawardana <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Harsha Kumara <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As Johann mentioned, if the specification defined sending token as
>>>>>>>> the query param, we needs to support it and implement as specification
>>>>>>>> specified. But again the user who going to use it needs to know aware 
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the security issues cause by using token as query param. Also the
>>>>>>>> specification specified that it's discourage to use this approach.  
>>>>>>>> IMO If
>>>>>>>> we support it, we shouldn't use in our products unless if there is any
>>>>>>>> specific reason.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> What would be the particular use case to send access token in query
>>>>>> String. This is a bad practice according to many real world use cases 
>>>>>> [1].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> http://www.thread-safe.com/2013/10/latest-facebook-security-vulnerability.html
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Gayan Gunawardana
>>>>>> Software Engineer; WSO2 Inc.; http://wso2.com/
>>>>>> Email: [email protected]
>>>>>> Mobile: +94 (71) 8020933
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Architecture mailing list
>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Nuwan Dias
>>>>>
>>>>> Associate Tech Lead - WSO2, Inc. http://wso2.com
>>>>> email : [email protected]
>>>>> Phone : +94 777 775 729
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Architecture mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> *Sanjeewa Malalgoda*
>>>> WSO2 Inc.
>>>> Mobile : +94713068779
>>>>
>>>>  <http://sanjeewamalalgoda.blogspot.com/>blog
>>>> :http://sanjeewamalalgoda.blogspot.com/
>>>> <http://sanjeewamalalgoda.blogspot.com/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Architecture mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Sam Sivayogam*
>>>
>>> Software Engineer
>>> Mobile  : +94 772 906 439
>>> Office   : +94 112 145 345
>>> *WSO2, Inc. :** wso2.com <http://wso2.com/>*
>>> lean.enterprise.middleware.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Sanjeewa Malalgoda*
>> WSO2 Inc.
>> Mobile : +94713068779
>>
>>  <http://sanjeewamalalgoda.blogspot.com/>blog
>> :http://sanjeewamalalgoda.blogspot.com/
>> <http://sanjeewamalalgoda.blogspot.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Architecture mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Amila De Silva*
>
> WSO2 Inc.
> mobile :(+94) 775119302
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
>
>


-- 

*Sanjeewa Malalgoda*
WSO2 Inc.
Mobile : +94713068779

 <http://sanjeewamalalgoda.blogspot.com/>blog
:http://sanjeewamalalgoda.blogspot.com/
<http://sanjeewamalalgoda.blogspot.com/>
_______________________________________________
Architecture mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture

Reply via email to