RE: Security Considerations - Initial Proposal

I was thinking of it as a replacement. But my text is intended to cover
the kinds of things we want to say. I expect we'll probably use somewhat
less terse language in the actual spec.

Gudge 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM [mailto:Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM] 
> Sent: 23 February 2005 00:10
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org; Anthony Nadalin; Rich Salz; 
> Chris Kaler
> Subject: Re: Security Considerations - Initial Proposal
> 
> Gudge,
> 
> Just wondering how this proposal is related to the existing Security  
> Considerations section[1] in the SOAP Binding. It seems to 
> cover much  
> of the same ground. Is it intended as a delta to the existing 
> text or  
> as a replacement ?
> 
> Thanks,
> Marc.
> 
> [1]  
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2004/ws/addressing/ws-addr- 
> soap.html#_Toc77464334
> 
> On Feb 21, 2005, at 9:53 AM, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> 
> >
> > The following is an initial proposal for text for a security
> > considerations section for WS-Addressing. We may need to 
> add stuff to
> > this, but I think this provides a 'minimum bar'.
> >
> > Comments welcome,
> >
> > Gudge
> >
> > ----------------------------
> >
> > Security Considerations
> >
> > EPRs SHOULD be integrity protected to prevent tampering. 
> Such integrity
> > protection can be provided by transport or message level signatures.
> >
> > Users of EPRs SHOULD only use EPRs from sources they trust. 
> In practice
> > this is likely to mean that users of EPRs only use EPRs 
> that are signed
> > by parties the user of the EPR trusts.
> >
> > WS-Addressing headers (wsa:To, wsa:Action et.al.) including those
> > headers present as a result of processing 
> ReferenceParameters in an EPR
> > SHOULD be integrity protected. Such integrity protection can be  
> > provided
> > by transport or message level signatures.
> >
> > To prevent information disclosure EPR issuers SHOULD NOT 
> put sensitive
> > information into wsa:Address values or Reference Parameters.
> >
> >
> > In addition to the above, the following text needs to be in 
> a normative
> > section of the spec, probably in the SOAP binding 
> somewhere. We really
> > need to do this otherwise we'll have to define a WS-A normalization
> > algorithm and I'd much rather not do that...
> >
> > To avoid breaking signatures, intermediaries MUST NOT change the XML
> > representation WS-Addressing headers. Specifically, 
> intermediaries MUST
> > NOT remove XML content that explicitly indicates otherwise-implied
> > content, and intermediaries MUST NOT insert XML content to 
> make implied
> > values explicit. For instance, if a RelationshipType attribute is
> > present with a value of 
> "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/reply",  
> > an
> > intermediary MUST NOT remove it; similarly, if there is no
> > RelationshipType attribute, an intermediary MUST NOT add one.
> >
> >
> ---
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
> Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2005 00:12:38 UTC