geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From si...@godik.com
Subject Re: Geronimo Security plans (from ApacheCon)
Date Sat, 24 Dec 2005 02:41:43 GMT
Hi David,
In addition, xacml will provide policy combination and delegation of rights

Simon

--- David Jencks wrote:

>At ApacheCon several of us got together to discuss security in  
>Geronimo.  These are my recollections, please expand/contradict/ 
>modify what I forgot or got wrong.
>
>People:  Alan Cabrera, David Jencks, Kresten Krab Thorup, Hiram  
>Chirino, Simon Godik (Others ???)
>
>Problems with the current implementation:
>
>- Distinction between client-side and server-side login modules is  
>too hard to understand and too ad-hoc: security assertions are a  
>better, standard, and more comprehensible way of getting the same  
>functionality.
>
>- The LoginModule wrapping a set of login modules serves little purpose.
>
>Things we like and want to generalize somehow:
>
>- We'd like to extend the variety of approaches represented in the  
>CORBA csiv2 model to other transports and contexts beyond CORBA
>
>How we might get there:
>
>Simon gave us some hints about SAML and XACML and IIUC pointed out  
>that most of the basic ideas we need are worked out in detail in  
>these specs and that we can implement these ideas without necessarily  
>relying on the xml-centered implementation called for in the specs.   
>In particular SAML extensively discusses security assertions which  
>are a more powerful and systematic way of dealing with both the  
>client/server login module problems and the information dealt with by  
>csiv2.  My current and very limited understanding is that SAML  
>indicates what kind of security assertions can be made and how to  
>transfer them between systems.  XACML provides a framework in which  
>(among many many other things) these security assertions can have  
>effects on authentication and authorization decisions
>
>
>Since ApacheCon I've started looking into XACML and SAML a tiny bit  
>and although I am not thrilled by the pointy brackets I think this is  
>an avenue we should investigate thoroughly.  I think it can  
>definitely provide the flexibility we want in the security model: I  
>think the challenge will be making the configuration comprehensible  
>and the implementation fast.  From my very brief study it looks like  
>XACML will provide a framework in which authorization rules that  
>include the request info provided by JACC can be evaluated.  I'm not  
>?sure what else it will bring us :-)
>
>
>Many thanks,
>david jencks





Mime
View raw message