A SOAP fault is returned to the client.

See section 12 "Error Handling" here:

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/16790/wss-v1.1-spec-os-SOAPMessageSecurity.pdf

For example:

faultcode: wsse:FailedAuthentication
faultstring: The security token could not be authenticated or authorized


Colm.

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Schneider Christian
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Just out of curiosity... How should you handle an authorization fault like 
> missing authentication, wrong credentials or not authorized in the 
> ws-security case.
>
> For http auth protocols we use 401 and 403 response codes. How is this 
> handled in the ws security case? Or does the spec only say how to transmit 
> the data?
>
> Best regards
>
> Christian
>
>
>
> Christian Schneider
> Informationsverarbeitung
> Business Solutions
> Handel und Dispatching
>
> Tel : +49-(0)721-63-15482
>
> EnBW Systeme Infrastruktur Support GmbH
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Karlsruhe
> Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Mannheim ­ HRB 108550
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Dr. Bernhard Beck
> Geschäftsführer: Jochen Adenau, Hans-Günther Meier
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Colm O hEigeartaigh [mailto:[email protected]]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 2. Dezember 2010 11:31
> An: [email protected]
> Betreff: Re: Nonce encoding
>
>>  By outputting the EncodingType like above, we are wasting
>> bandwidth by outputting redundant information, but it is completely valid.
>
> It may be a waste of bandwidth, but the Basic Security Profile spec requires 
> it:
>
> http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicSecurityProfile-1.1.html#UsernameTokenNonce
>
> "R4220 Any NONCE MUST specify an EncodingType attribute. "
>
>> Thanks for the response Daniel, but how can I told WSS4JOutInterceptor not to
>> use Base64 encoding for the 'Nonce'?
>
> No, only Base64 encoding is supported.
>
> Colm.
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wednesday 01 December 2010 2:52:12 pm FelipeGC wrote:
>>> Hi all!
>>>
>>> I'm writing a client application that needs to authenticate in the server
>>> using WSS Username Token Profile. The password must be encrypted unsing the
>>> password digest as described in the specification: Base64 ( SHA-1 ( nonce +
>>> created + password ) ).
>>>
>>> For that purpose I'm using the WSS4JOutInterceptor as follows:
>>>
>>> Map<String, Object> outProps = new HashMap<String, Object>();
>>> String username = "aUsername";
>>> String password = "aPassword";
>>> outProps.put(WSHandlerConstants.ACTION, WSHandlerConstants.USERNAME_TOKEN);
>>> outProps.put(WSHandlerConstants.USER, username);
>>> outProps.put(WSHandlerConstants.PASSWORD_TYPE, WSConstants.PW_DIGEST);
>>> outProps.put(WSHandlerConstants.PW_CALLBACK_REF, new
>>> ClientPasswordCallbackHandler(username, password));
>>> WSS4JOutInterceptor wssInterceptor = new WSS4JOutInterceptor(outProps);
>>>
>>> The resulting XML is being created with the elements: 'Username',
>>> 'Password', 'Nonce' and 'Created'. The 'Nonce' is beign created like this:
>>>
>>> <wsse:Nonce
>>> EncodingType="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-soap-
>>> message-security-1.0#Base64Binary">kG8i5U4s1I6AbolCG/AYkw==</wsse:Nonce>
>>>
>>> As I undertand this is right, but the server is not authenticating my
>>> request. The guys responsible for the server said that the 'Nonce' must not
>>> be encoded in Base64 and that encoding is optional. This is right?
>>
>> If you look at the UsernameToken profile specification:
>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/v1.1/wss-v1.1-spec-os-UsernameTokenProfile.pdf
>> Line 249 clearly states that it IS optional, but if unspecified, the default
>> is Base64.   By outputting the EncodingType like above, we are wasting
>> bandwidth by outputting redundant information, but it is completely valid.
>> Thus, they are wrong.   Base64 is the correct encoding for it.
>>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>>
>>> What I want to know is: there's any other way to send the 'Nonce' using
>>> another encoding other than Base64?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> FelipeGC
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> [email protected]
>> http://dankulp.com/blog
>>
>

Reply via email to