Hi Dinusha,

True. I believe it should be a deployment recommendation. To be correct, it
is not cache timeout at IdP, but it should be the recommended session
timeout at IdP. IMO, I don't think it is a problem that we need to solve.

thanks,
Dimuthu

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Dinusha Senanayaka <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hi Dimuthu,
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Dimuthu Leelarathne <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dinusha,
>>
>> Why don't we use the custom cache expiry time at the IdP as well? I
>> believe it is a better solution than doing a ping to keep the IdP session
>> live.
>>
>
> With the current AppM architecture, we don't have key-manager like feature
> that could install and use between gateway and IdP communication. It's
> direct web service calls to IdP, where AppM don't have control over IdP
> cache.
>
>
>>
>> thanks,
>> Dimuthu
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Dinusha Senanayaka <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, Nuwan. We will add a configurable cache timeout + expired based on
>>> last access (not based on the initial value added time to cache).
>>>
>>> +1 for RuwanA purposed model. This need another config to keep the IdP
>>>  ping interval.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dinusha.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Nuwan Dias <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Some things to consider with this is that the cache timeout is no
>>>> longer (necessarily) restricted to 15 minutes. Its configurable. And being
>>>> a Gateway product, I feel that people will want extended cache timeouts for
>>>> better performance. It has been so for the API Gateway.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> NuwanD.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Ruwan Abeykoon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>> Can we implement the following strategy in the gateway,
>>>>> 1. Upon first application request, the GW consult with IdP and cache
>>>>> the IdP response if authenticated ( this is the current behaviour). 
>>>>> However
>>>>> cache object needs a change. Figure 1.
>>>>> 2. Any subsequent application hit on the gateway, we check the last
>>>>> time IdP is consulted. If this is less than 7 min (Half of the IdP session
>>>>> Timeout) we consult IdP again as in step 1, and update the cache
>>>>> accordingly.
>>>>>
>>>>> This way, we can keep IdP session active as long as the GW session is
>>>>> active and requests keep arriving. The security issues will not arise as 
>>>>> GW
>>>>> consult IdP occasionally but regularly. So if a user is disabled in IdP,
>>>>> that information is cascaded to the gateway within 7 min. We will not need
>>>>> any background polling mechanism in this way, and only activated when 
>>>>> users
>>>>> are actively using the GW.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only change needed to be done is at the
>>>>> gateway SAML2AuthenticationHandler.
>>>>>
>>>>> [image: Inline image 2]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Figure 1
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Dinusha Senanayaka <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *How do we handle authenticated user session currently*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We use Hazelcast cache in the gateway and once user first
>>>>>> authenticated from the IdP, we create a new cookie and put it to this
>>>>>> cache. Then all other web app access requests are served from gateway 
>>>>>> cache
>>>>>> until it get expired, without calling IdP for each page load.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Issue with above model*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have used default CacheManager to initialize above mentioned cache
>>>>>> which has 15 min of expiry time. By default IdP session also set to 15 
>>>>>> min.
>>>>>> Even though user actively accessing the app till the 15 min, IdP will see
>>>>>> him as a idle user since request are not going to IdP and served from the
>>>>>> gateway cache. Hence, both GW cache and IdP session get cleared at after
>>>>>> 15min and user get redirect to login page.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Solution*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As per the discussion had with Dulanja, instead of using default
>>>>>> cache manager, we could initial a cache manager which expired based on 
>>>>>> last
>>>>>> access time. Refer thread [1]. So that gateway cache (session) will be
>>>>>> active as long as user accessing the web app. But IdP will get timeout
>>>>>> which won't be an issue to access the app. But can this cause security
>>>>>> threat since cache won't get expired as long as user is active ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]. [Dev] Set a desired value to HazelCast Cache Timeout
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Dinusha.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dinusha Dilrukshi
>>>>>> Associate Technical Lead
>>>>>> WSO2 Inc.: http://wso2.com/
>>>>>> Mobile: +94725255071
>>>>>> Blog: http://dinushasblog.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> *Ruwan Abeykoon*
>>>>> *Architect,*
>>>>> *WSO2, Inc. http://wso2.com <http://wso2.com/> *
>>>>> *lean.enterprise.middleware.*
>>>>>
>>>>> email: [email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Architecture mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Nuwan Dias
>>>>
>>>> Technical Lead - WSO2, Inc. http://wso2.com
>>>> email : [email protected]
>>>> Phone : +94 777 775 729
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dinusha Dilrukshi
>>> Associate Technical Lead
>>> WSO2 Inc.: http://wso2.com/
>>> Mobile: +94725255071
>>> Blog: http://dinushasblog.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Architecture mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dimuthu Leelarathne
>> Director
>>
>> WSO2, Inc. (http://wso2.com)
>> email: [email protected]
>> Mobile : 0773661935
>>
>> Lean . Enterprise . Middleware
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dinusha Dilrukshi
> Associate Technical Lead
> WSO2 Inc.: http://wso2.com/
> Mobile: +94725255071
> Blog: http://dinushasblog.blogspot.com/
>



-- 
Dimuthu Leelarathne
Director

WSO2, Inc. (http://wso2.com)
email: [email protected]
Mobile : 0773661935

Lean . Enterprise . Middleware
_______________________________________________
Architecture mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture

Reply via email to