CAS 1: Basic authentication; user requests service directly and receives it CAS 2: Proxy authentication; service requests another service on behalf of user and receives it
An example where this is useful: your company / organization has a portal that everyone logs in. If you expect the portal to deliver your email for you, then it is requesting your email on behalf of you. If the email server is CAS protected, then this would never work, so the portal must request your email on your behalf. I wouldn¹t say proxy authentication is for a portal environment; it is useful whenever you want build some manner of web service. On 8/11/08 5:10 PM, "Alex Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > Bother to bother all the experts. > > After I successfully configured both CAS 1 and CAS 2, I am still kind of > confused with the benefits by upgrading CAS 1 to CAS 2. > > It seems to me that there is no difference between CAS 1 and CAS 2 in the > front end. Using CAS 1 or using CAS 2 configuration can produce the same > output. If so, why bother to upgrade to CAS 2?? > > It seems to me that by distinguishing CAS 1 and CAS 2, it's just the > configuration difference and use most current version client, right?? > > It seems to me that CAS 1 is designed for SSO and CAS 2 is designed for a > portal environment, right? > > If you can tell me more about what the advantages/benefits/differences are by > upgrading CAS 1 to CAS 2, I will be very appreciated it > > Thanks, > > > Alex > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Yale CAS mailing list > [email protected] > http://tp.its.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/cas -- Andrew R. Feller, Analyst Information Technology Services 200 Fred Frey Building Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 (225) 578-3737 (Office) (225) 578-6400 (Fax)
_______________________________________________ Yale CAS mailing list [email protected] http://tp.its.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/cas
