You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@servicemix.apache.org by Gianfranco Boccalon <gb...@tiscali.it> on 2006/12/22 15:35:24 UTC
WS-Security
I read in previous post this phrase "WS-Security support has not been
fully implemented".
What means "not fully" ?
Which features are not implemented yet ?
Thanks
Gianfranco Boccalon
Re: WS-Security
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
No work has been done on 3.1 wrt to ws-security.
On 12/22/06, Gianfranco Boccalon <gb...@tiscali.it> wrote:
> Sure.
> Should I use SM 3.1 or Signature and username are also in 3.0 (I saw a
> sample of using username) ?
>
> Guillaume Nodet ha scritto:
> > Signature and username token have been implemented and tested.
> > Encryption has not been finished / tested, though we delegate all
> > the work to WSS4J, so there should not be much work.
> > Wanna take a look at it ?
> >
> > On 12/22/06, Gianfranco Boccalon <gb...@tiscali.it> wrote:
> >> I read in previous post this phrase "WS-Security support has not been
> >> fully implemented".
> >> What means "not fully" ?
> >> Which features are not implemented yet ?
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Gianfranco Boccalon
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
Re: WS-Security
Posted by Gianfranco Boccalon <gb...@tiscali.it>.
Sure.
Should I use SM 3.1 or Signature and username are also in 3.0 (I saw a
sample of using username) ?
Guillaume Nodet ha scritto:
> Signature and username token have been implemented and tested.
> Encryption has not been finished / tested, though we delegate all
> the work to WSS4J, so there should not be much work.
> Wanna take a look at it ?
>
> On 12/22/06, Gianfranco Boccalon <gb...@tiscali.it> wrote:
>> I read in previous post this phrase "WS-Security support has not been
>> fully implemented".
>> What means "not fully" ?
>> Which features are not implemented yet ?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Gianfranco Boccalon
>>
>
>
Re: WS-Security
Posted by dajevu <jd...@hireright.com>.
Does the UsernameToken support the PasswordDigest instead of clear-text
password?
My understanding that is comprised by taking 3 times: timestamp, nonce & the
password itself, run through a SHA1 hash?
Thanks!
jeff
gnodet wrote:
>
> Signature and username token have been implemented and tested.
> Encryption has not been finished / tested, though we delegate all
> the work to WSS4J, so there should not be much work.
> Wanna take a look at it ?
>
> On 12/22/06, Gianfranco Boccalon <gb...@tiscali.it> wrote:
>> I read in previous post this phrase "WS-Security support has not been
>> fully implemented".
>> What means "not fully" ?
>> Which features are not implemented yet ?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Gianfranco Boccalon
>>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/WS-Security-tf2870896s12049.html#a8753469
Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: WS-Security
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
Signature and username token have been implemented and tested.
Encryption has not been finished / tested, though we delegate all
the work to WSS4J, so there should not be much work.
Wanna take a look at it ?
On 12/22/06, Gianfranco Boccalon <gb...@tiscali.it> wrote:
> I read in previous post this phrase "WS-Security support has not been
> fully implemented".
> What means "not fully" ?
> Which features are not implemented yet ?
>
> Thanks
> Gianfranco Boccalon
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet