10:21 a.m.
If it's just to meet the new requirement of the server, that's fine. As long as we
are aware that there is no security gain from this in JS land and that we make our users
aware of this as well.
On Jun 20, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com> wrote:
So I'm trying to figure out what we gain from this … now instead
of putting your variantID in the JS, you are putting the variantID and a secret in the JS.
I don't see any security gain here so trying to figure out what we gain.
On Jun 20, 2013, at 10:12 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> with the use of this helper, it is "safe" (I think) to use the window.btoa
function(see details), to perform a (simple) Base64 encoding.
>
> Base64 encoding is required, since the "Device Registration" HTTP REST
endpoint now uses HTTP_Basic (for details see the matching thread).
>
> Currently we perform this code for "channel registration":
>
> $.ajax({
> contentType: "application/json",
> dataType: "json",
> type: "POST",
> url: url,
> headers: {
> "ag-mobile-variant": variantID
> },
> data: JSON.stringify({
> category: messageType,
> deviceToken: endpoint.channelID,
> clientIdentifier: alias
> })
> });
> As mentioned on the "Security thread", the variantID is no longer a header,
it is part of the HTTP_Basic auth process.
>
> This is a (local) JavaScript change that I did. It works fine so far:
>
> $.ajax({
> contentType: "application/json",
> dataType: "json",
> type: "POST",
> crossDomain: true,
> url: url,
> headers: {
> "Authorization": "Basic " + window.btoa(variantID +
":" + secret)
> },
> data: JSON.stringify({
> category: messageType,
> deviceToken: endpoint.channelID,
> alias: alias ///// NOTE:: the key has changed..........
> })
> });
> The important thing: we add the "Authorization": "Basic " header
and using the mentionedwindow.btoa() function for the actual encoding.
>
> The same applies for the DELETE (unregistration).
>
> Any thoughts? Otherwise, I'd send a PR.
>
> Ah.... the dependency agains the Base64.js polyfill library would/should be included
in our "grunt" build for "distribution", or would it be
"just" declared (yeah, that's details but asking for curiousity)
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev