6:06 a.m.
Within Undertow we already have an authentication framework coming
together based on the requirements identified for the project - at this
stage we support SPNEGO, HTTP Basic with HTTP Digest now being close to
completion - with HTTP Digest we are supporting all capabilities from
RFC2069, RFC2617 and RFC5843.
A couple of comments from a very quick review of the mechanisms you have
within PicketBox: -
- The implementation assumes that it is running within a servlet
container, Undertow is a highly performant HTTP server that may or may
not contain a servlet container.
- Today HTTP Digest is one of the most complex mechanisms out there,
to me this is almost the definitive mechanism - prove we can support all
capabilities in all three RFCs and we are in a good position for
mechanisms not even in existence to be usable with undertow.
Unfortunately the PicketBox version does still seem to be tied to
RFC2069 with an assumption it is in a servlet container - even then some
of the basic RFC2069 capabilities are not implemented.
- The second key feature that will prove the approach is correct is
the use of multiple mechanisms concurrently, presently Undertow works
with SPNEGO combined with either Basic or Digest authentication - once
complete it will work with this pair plus Client Cert AND FORM
authentication - we should even have the capability to implement a
custom FORM implementation with some of the DIGEST capabilities.
Longer term I also believe we need the set of mechanisms to live
together and potentially co-located with the SASL mechanisms as there is
a potential to share between these.
Regards,
Darran Lofthouse.
On 11/14/2012 06:49 AM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
Anil Saldhana wrote:
> Hi All,
> I was not aware of this mailing list until today.
>
> 3-4 months ago, we rewrote PicketBox5 to be a generic security framework.
> https://docs.jboss.org/author/display/SECURITY/Java+Application+Security
> https://github.com/picketbox/picketbox
>
> We neither have JAAS stuff nor Servlet Security
> (FORM,DIGEST,CLIENT-CERT,BASIC) tied to Tomcat Authenticators.
> I am wondering if there is a scope for using PicketBox5 with Undertow.
> Also there is no tie in into any containers in
> PicketBox5.
>
> The test cases that you may want to review:
>
https://github.com/picketbox/picketbox/tree/master/http/src/test/java/org...
>
> Maybe Stefan from our side can help out. I would guess we can produce a
> prototype branch with undertow + PBox5.
I have had a look through this today, and the big problem with using
this for Undertow is that it is based on the Servlet API's. We want to
be able to use Undertow as the domain HTTP server as well, and we really
need to be able to re-use the security without adding a servlet
dependency into the AS core.
I will go through this more fully tomorrow, as I am still recovering
from my 24 hour flight, but it looks like there are also other things
that this may not support such as multiple authentication mechanisms and
optional authentication.
I'm not ruling out using PicketBox, however at this stage I think that
the best approach is probably to have the HTTP authentication mechanisms
in Undertow, where they can make use of the async IO features as much as
possible, and just provide a very simple SPI that we can then back with
PicketBox in order to keep Undertow core free of external dependencies.
Stuart
>
> Regards,
> Anil
>
> PS: Feedback from *Jason Greene*: I'll let Stuart and Darran comment,
> but my thinking is that we want to greatly limit the dependencies of
> standalone undertow. Integration in AS is a different story though. I
> would imagine this means some kind of SPI between undertow and the
> container.
> _______________________________________________
> undertow-dev mailing list
> undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
_______________________________________________
undertow-dev mailing list
undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev