Re: Why is there no ServerMinPrincipalType constraint
Gregg Wonderly <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.java.sun.jini |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Bob Scheifler wrote: >> Is that really true? Assuming I'm in a network and the server is able to >> authenticate as some Kerberos principal that means that he has been >> granted one in the KDC and that seems a certain level of trust to me. >> >> Also in a PKI environment in which I have an X.500 principal in my trust >> store it means that the entity at the other end is known by me. > > In restricted circumstations such as you describe, it's also quite > likely that simply requiring ServerAuthentication.YES is sufficient, > without need for a type constraint. So, I still find server type > constraints uninteresting. I'd tend to agree with Bob given the two forms of authentication that are currently supported by the stack. If at some future date, we had some less authentic forms of authentication supported in the stack, then there might be some qualification constraint which would be similar to Integrity.YES. e.g. the authentication information has to be verifiable. Currently we don't have such complications, so I'm not seeing a need for a type of authentication, yet. If you are ready to greatly generalize the IL mechanisms to carry arbitrary Principals instead of just the two currently, explicitly recognized, then we might need to keep certain types from flowing under certain circumstances. Gregg Wonderly -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Getting Started: http://www.jini.org/wiki/Category:Getting_Started Community Web Site: http://jini.org jini-users Archive: http://archives.java.sun.com/archives/jini-users.html Unsubscribing: email "signoff JINI-USERS" to [email protected]