Security Service Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Security Service — All Issues

  • Acronym: SEC
  • Issues Count: 6
  • Description: All Issues
Closed All
All Issues

Issues Descriptions

Credentails.set_privileges()

  • Key: SEC14-55
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1765
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The documentation states that the force_commit parameter given the value
    of false will cause the privileges to be set at a later time. If so,
    what does the out parameter "actual_privileges" return?
    Is this valid only if force_commit was true and successful?

    Also, boolean states a return value. I believe this should be
    void, and state that exceptions will be raised with reasons for
    failure.

  • Reported: SEC 1.3 — Sun, 2 Aug 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SEC 1.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close Issue 1765: set_privileges

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

SecIOP Architecture

  • Key: SEC14-54
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1723
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: In trying to understand some problems we"re having on
    our reference implementation development, I"ve run
    across an inconsistency in the CORBAsec V1.2 spec.

    On page 15-191, Section, 15.9.1, there is a figure
    15-59 that shows the SECIOP protocol underneath the
    IIOP protocol. This is contrary to my understanding
    of the SECIOP architecture, which corresponds to
    Figure 15-57 - where the SECIOP protocol is located
    between the GIOP and IIOP protocols.

    Hopefully, the problem is simply that Figure 15-59
    should have "IIOP" replaced by "GIOP".

  • Reported: SEC 1.3 — Wed, 22 Jul 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SEC 1.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close issue 1723: SecIOP Architecture

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

DelegationMode

  • Key: SEC14-57
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1930
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: enum DelegationMode is defined in Security.idl and in SecurityLevel2.idl.
    Both definitions are rather different:

  • Reported: SEC 1.3 — Wed, 2 Sep 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SEC 1.4
  • Disposition Summary:
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Principal Authenticator

  • Key: SEC14-56
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1847
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Security 1.3 Service pages 15-87 5 Jan 1998

    continue_authentication has the wrong in/out designations on
    three of its four parameters. I have in, in, out, out.

    It shoud be

    continue_authentication(
    in Opapue response_data,
    inout Credentials creds,
    inout Opaque continuation_data,
    inout Opaque auth_specific_data
    );

  • Reported: SEC 1.3 — Fri, 21 Aug 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SEC 1.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Extension to SecurityContext to support SECIOP::DiscardContext

  • Key: SEC14-53
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1661
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: I believe the SecurityContext interface needs to be extended to properly
    support the SECIOP::DiscardContext message.

  • Reported: SEC 1.3 — Fri, 10 Jul 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SEC 1.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    :DiscardContext message.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Paragraph 19, section 15.8.4.2

  • Key: SEC14-52
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1633
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Paragraph 19 of section 15.8.4.2 says:

    "In this example if mechanism “mech 1” is used the target security name is “MBn1”
    while the association must use integrity replay and misordering options. If mechanism
    “mech 2” is used no mechanism specific security name has been specified and so
    “Manchester branch” is used as the security name. The association options are
    EstablishTrustInClient and Integrity."

    The last sentence seems to imply that if "mech 2" is used the top-level
    association options, and not the association options for "mech 2" are used.
    If this is always the case, then it would seem pointless to bother
    specifying association options for "mech 2" because they will never be
    used. If this is the case (which would also be very strange) only when
    a tag_sec_name is not present for "mech 2" this should be explained
    more clearly.

  • Reported: SEC 1.3 — Thu, 2 Jul 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SEC 1.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Close issue 1633: Paragraph 19, section 15.8.4.2

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT