Search: Home Bugtraq Vulnerabilities Mailing Lists Jobs Tools Beta Programs
Web Application Security
Is logoff feature necessary May 02 2006 07:41AM
test future gmail com (14 replies)
Re: Is logoff feature necessary May 03 2006 11:19AM
Alexis FitzGerald (alexis iol ie)
Re: Is logoff feature necessary May 02 2006 08:06PM
Robert Hajime Lanning (robert lanning gmail com)
Re: Is logoff feature necessary May 02 2006 04:57PM
Alexander Bolante (alexander bolante gmail com)
Re: Is logoff feature necessary May 02 2006 04:32PM
Dave Ferguson (gmdavef gmail com)
RE: Is logoff feature necessary May 02 2006 03:42PM
M. Burnett (mb xato net)
RE: Is logoff feature necessary May 02 2006 01:07PM
wa0qmj (bugtraq jvedman com)
RE: Is logoff feature necessary May 02 2006 12:40PM
Rod Divilbiss (rod rodsdot com) (1 replies)
RE: Is logoff feature necessary May 03 2006 10:59AM
Auri Rahimzadeh (auri auri net) (2 replies)
Administrivia: Is logoff feature necessary May 03 2006 12:53PM
Andrew van der Stock (vanderaj greebo net)
RE: Is logoff feature necessary May 03 2006 12:45PM
Keith Duffin (kduffin duffin org) (1 replies)
Re: Is logoff feature necessary May 03 2006 01:30PM
Andrew van der Stock (vanderaj greebo net)
I can answer this for a particular product suite: WebSeal and
WebSphere using LTPA cookies, due to some research I can't directly
share.

If a WebSeal junction has a 15 minute idle out, and WebSphere a 20
minute idle out, users cannot re-connect to the WebSphere application
after 15 minutes, but resources are held open on WebSphere for the
whole 20 minutes. In general, it's best to have WebSeal use a shorter
idle timeout than the application server behind it as this leads to
less confusion for the user and greater security as the application
server cannot be reached when WebSeal does not allow it.

If WebSeal forcefully logs off your users (say via pdadmin), apps
hidden behind WebSeal junctions are generally not notified but also
do not see any further connectivity until a user logs in again. If
you want to see logout events, I'm moderately certain there is no
method to notify the WebSphere application except via using a custom
logout page outside your protected junction ... and by that time you
will no longer have access to the WebSphere application state, so I'm
not sure what that would gain you.

An application which is WebSeal aware can log off an individual
WebSeal session via an API call and reduce the possibility of this
difference being exploited. This is best practice.

thanks,
Andrew

On 03/05/2006, at 10:45 PM, Keith Duffin wrote:

> What about instances where an identity framework is used, such as CA's
> Siteminder or IBM's Identity Mangament Suite? Closing the browser
> will
> result in the session begin invalidated - I'm not sure if that
> cascades to
> releasing other resources or not.

0? *?H?÷
 ?0?1 0 +0? *?H?÷
 ?í0?¦0? pémì aæVlÊð~)m60
 *?H?÷
0b1 0 UZA1%0#U
Thawte Consulting (Pty) Ltd.1,0*U#Thawte Personal Freemail Issuing CA0
060121125830Z
070121125830Z0l10U
van der Stock10
U*Andrew10UAndrew van der Stock1"0  *?H?÷
 vanderaj (at) greebo (dot) net0 [email concealed]?0
 *?H?÷
0?ÔâI?ü??m?òåiЪ͵!òÕ?Ò#?T»coýeo(Náµ¹P,cÓø©â:ªµ4ghé<>(}÷
a(Æ$УTíÍóEuÓmáÇy?¸ÖàJJðBשµ;YʽBö;ô?ê?OL?*9Ó¤;l?f]t0Ì/¶;~Ã?ÜlÌ¡åi
£S0Q0Uÿø0 `?H?øB 0U0vanderaj (at) greebo (dot) net0 [email concealed] Uÿ00
 *?H?÷
?Þ?c­bu¿.¶Èùô¹ ©fëÓ=p$ñ?hfv?sa»ß¹?í~ÔNàñðÁØ ?OÂÞvÊ'ñ[=µD¡ÆYj%ÀsÀ¾¥®Ü8x¢íù!c;7¦j6½»Ì®Üc àb6È»ó,­Ò ^| ©ìMûCLh4_F ªq0??0?¨ 
0
 *?H?÷
0Ñ1 0 UZA10U Western Cape10U Cape Town10U
Thawte Consulting1(0&U Certification Services Division1$0"UThawte Personal Freemail CA1+0) *?H?÷
 personal-freemail (at) thawte (dot) com0 [email concealed]
030717000000Z
130716235959Z0b1 0 UZA1%0#U
Thawte Consulting (Pty) Ltd.1,0*U#Thawte Personal Freemail Issuing CA0?0
 *?H?÷
0?Ä¦<UsUûN¹Ê?ZhÀupßéÿ£ì½Íõ[òv½ :aò¿QÎÔåP
0×cZ,?p?ÝÉð+?Zª?qV˯< çñ?6$*Ï+Õó?w=¾+þ»>¿@?d×§¦»?eÑÅ*T?H§¶Ñ<
a@dr`·û£?0?0Uÿ0ÿ0CU<0:08 6 4?2http://crl.tha
wte.com/ThawtePersonalFreemailCA.crl0 U0)U"0 ¤010UPrivateLabel2-1380
 *?H?÷
H?ÑP?ê .Ì
£f¬g¯¬¾Â¡C??L!¸ø6ª-?6/ÀôP ?p<ý­áabÃÙ:~?±?Å ?t?%P?bÇÛ'qW%Ý©?9?? Oe_?Ú÷÷?ÖÆN®öê4å[5MwãV!x?Ü!5Þ$±ÓFÿ]_eO1?0??0v0b1 0 UZA1%0#U
Thawte Consulting (Pty) Ltd.1,0*U#Thawte Personal Freemail Issuing CApémì aæVlÊð~)m60 + ?o0 *?H?÷
 1  *?H?÷
0 *?H?÷
 1
060503133058Z0# *?H?÷
 1·ì"ܽµ;¾?~ÛCWY'0? +?71x0v0b1 0 UZA1%0#U
Thawte Consulting (Pty) Ltd.1,0*U#Thawte Personal Freemail Issuing CApémì aæVlÊð~)m60? *?H?÷
  1x v0b1 0 UZA1%0#U
Thawte Consulting (Pty) Ltd.1,0*U#Thawte Personal Freemail Issuing CApémì aæVlÊð~)m60
 *?H?÷
?|y]iåòW\p?X©ùi:8;lö.ÐÎéæ-?Õðá,p<
á+qÆ¡½?¢æL¿Äå?vnI³?$T9ÐÁP£¾?«2ì>­?IãE#4 Mì7hçãc8??rÙYc?@´}?hÇ?A??© x?Ýýºm?ØãSöÔ

[ reply ]
Re: Is logoff feature necessary May 02 2006 11:22AM
Michael Silk (michaelslists gmail com)
RE: Is logoff feature necessary May 02 2006 09:56AM
Deepu Thomas Philip (deepu philip paladion net)
Re: Is logoff feature necessary May 02 2006 09:47AM
ViersOnline (viers free fr)
Re: Is logoff feature necessary May 02 2006 09:32AM
Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha (strange nsk no-ip org)
Re: Is logoff feature necessary May 02 2006 09:24AM
Peter Conrad (conrad tivano de)
Re: Is logoff feature necessary May 02 2006 09:22AM
Daniel Persson (mailto woden gmail com)
Re: Is logoff feature necessary May 02 2006 09:14AM
Vicente Aguilera (vaguilera isecauditors com)







 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2009, SecurityFocus