Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 20738 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2007 17:00:11 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Jul 2007 17:00:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 82496 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jul 2007 17:00:09 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 82442 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jul 2007 17:00:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 82407 invoked by uid 99); 6 Jul 2007 17:00:08 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 10:00:08 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of david.blevins@visi.com designates 208.42.176.213 as permitted sender) Received: from [208.42.176.213] (HELO g2host.com) (208.42.176.213) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 10:00:01 -0700 Received: from [76.167.141.63] (account dblevins@visi.com HELO [10.0.1.2]) by mailfront2.g2host.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.10) with ESMTPSA id 8170390 for dev@geronimo.apache.org; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:59:35 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <10E7A250-A712-4862-995E-30982843C542@yahoo.com> References: <39ABCD23-0849-490E-A696-AA58CAADA22A@yahoo.com> <4E890806-D1AB-44D9-956F-6298DEB0178A@visi.com> <10E7A250-A712-4862-995E-30982843C542@yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: David Blevins Subject: Re: What to do about remote login in geronimo 2.0/openejb 3.0? Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 09:59:32 -0700 To: dev@geronimo.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Jul 5, 2007, at 5:44 PM, David Jencks wrote: > > On Jul 5, 2007, at 12:03 PM, David Blevins wrote: > >> How were we doing web services security before? Did it work for >> EJBs too? (maybe that was the issue). > > Web services security works and worked fine. AFAICT it's using > BASIC web authentication. Anyway we tell the web services client a > user and password and it gets sent with the message and logged in > and everything works. The user/pw comes out of a private > credential in the Subject. In order for this to get into the > Subject we need a login module running locally on the client to put > it there. All this is working fine and has worked fine for a long > time. > > The problem is that in order to call an ejb we (currently) need > remote login modules on the client that are actually running on the > server and get the identification principal back to the client > subject. We seem to be able to configure logins that use either > only remote modules or only local modules but I haven't been able > to figure out how to configure something that uses both a local > login module for the web services AND in the same login > configuration a remote module for openejb. Hmm. I can definitely see similarities and what you're feeling around for. The paradigm is essentially the same on the client-side; pull user/pw from userland, then put it in a known code location (subject, static) where it will be fished out on request. The server- side is also the same being a plain user/pw login. Could be possible not just to use the same login configuration but the same login module. > I also find the code and configuration around remote login modules > to be incredibly hard to understand and confusing so I'd rather > come up with something that appears to involve a little less magic. Amen. >> >> I really lost you when you stated an issue with web services >> security then jumped to solving the problem in the protocol that >> doesn't use web services. I can't figure out how these things >> connect. > > Just possibly the above will help :-) > > Anyway after perusing the jaspi spec some more I don't want to > promise to implement it by geronimo 2.0 so I'm now trying option > (0) and hope to have a proposed patch friday. [...] I think this > special purpose solution will be a lot simpler and easier to > understand than the geronimo code and will work fine while we think > about jaspi. Sounds like a plan. -David