[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1636?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12603533#action_12603533
 ] 

Colm O hEigeartaigh commented on CXF-1636:
------------------------------------------


> To fix this problem, this blog sample[4] created a separate interceptor that 
> will reject any UsernameToken that does not have both a timestamp and a > 
> nonce. Perhaps we should update our WSS4J in/out interceptors to require both 
> of these, so external users don't need to do this. 

-1 to this. Both the nonce and created elements are optional as per the 
specification (albeit "recommended"), I don't think we should be forcing this 
behaviour on the average user.

> but perhaps WSS4J is doing the checking/validation that they are not being 
> used more then once. 

Unfortunately, nonce caching isn't implemented (yet) in WSS4J. Feel free to 
raise an enhancement request in the WSS4J JIRA tho :-)

> Have WSS4J in/out interceptors require nonces and timestamps when using 
> UsernameTokens?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CXF-1636
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1636
>             Project: CXF
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Glen Mazza
>            Priority: Minor
>
> Our WSS4J In/Out interceptors[1][2] do not appear to be requiring 
> UsernameTokens to have timestamps and nonces.  From [3], lines 176-190, these 
> are used to prevent replay attacks (i.e., an intruder just copying the entire 
> soap header, encrypted or not, and reusing it for another request).  
> To fix this problem, this blog sample[4] created a separate interceptor that 
> will reject any UsernameToken that does not have both a timestamp and a 
> nonce.  Perhaps we should update our WSS4J in/out interceptors to require 
> both of these, so external users don't need to do this.
> A question though--I'm unsure where the nonce-checking is being done--our 
> WSS4J interceptors seem to be ignoring them, but perhaps WSS4J is doing the 
> checking/validation that they are not being used more then once.
> Glen
> [1] http://tinyurl.com/4cgg9b
> [2] http://tinyurl.com/48h6an
> [3] http://tinyurl.com/65n78j
> [4] 
> http://depressedprogrammer.wordpress.com/2007/07/31/cxf-ws-security-using-jsr-181-interceptor-annotations-xfire-migration/

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

Reply via email to