- From: Dale Moberg <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 08:53:57 -0700
- To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
There are only two requirements falling under two security topics. The topics are 1. security considerations for web services and 2. security considerations for trusting WSDL descriptions of web services. R084 Compliance must not preclude building implementations that are resistant to attacks. I hope no one would object to that constraint! If compliance precluded building attack resistant services, we are in trouble. However, attacks can be of many types. DOS attacks are always possible on listening connections. I doubt anyone wants to stretch this requirement to mean that listening on a port is not allowed. More generally, there are a lot of issues under topic 1 that might need more discussion: Should more positive support for security of web services be described? Should there be bindings or binding subtypes that are labeled as less subject to risks from common threats? Should there be a security risk assessment subsection in the document? Or in a separate document? Should details involved in a web services usage agreement be documented in bindings? And so on. R088 Document best practices for signing WSDL documents. I think this requirement probably needs to be sharpened up. I would propose that it be restated to say: The specification MUST document how a WSDL document can be signed, using XMLDsig, so that a potential user of the WSDL document can establish trust in the information conveyed about the web service (at "configuration" time, not service invocation time.) Recommendations about when signatures should be provided (when publishing to a registry, for example) should be made in a security information section. I would recommend that this requirement be accepted as reworded. There are still several detailed issues (should the signature be inside a WSDL document, should it be in a separate document and use a XMLDsig Reference to point to the signed document(s)) that are left open to be resolved later. Partly this is because I am unclear from current discussions how the "modularity" of WSDL is going to translate into variations in physical document partition of information.
Received on Wednesday, 10 April 2002 11:54:34 UTC