|
Web Application Security
Is logoff feature necessary May 02 2006 07:41AM test future gmail com (14 replies) 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 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 02 2006 09:32AM Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha (strange nsk no-ip org) |
|
Privacy Statement |
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?10 +0? *?H?÷
?í0?¦0? pémìaæVlÊð~)m60
*?H?÷
0b10 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$УTíÍóEuÓmáÇy?¸ÖàJJðBשµ;YʽBö;ô?ê?OL?*9Ó¤;l?f]t0Ì/¶;~Ã?ÜlÌ¡åi
£S0Q0Uÿø0 `?H?øB 0U0vanderaj (at) greebo (dot) net0 [email concealed]Uÿ00
*?H?÷
?Þ?cbu¿.¶Èùô¹ ©fëÓ=p$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?÷
0Ñ10 UZA10UWestern Cape10U Cape Town10U
Thawte Consulting1(0&UCertification Services Division1$0"UThawte Personal Freemail CA1+0) *?H?÷
personal-freemail (at) thawte (dot) com0 [email concealed]
030717000000Z
130716235959Z0b10 UZA1%0#U
Thawte Consulting (Pty) Ltd.1,0*U#Thawte Personal Freemail Issuing CA0?0
*?H?÷
0?Ħ<UsUûN¹Ê?ZhÀupßéÿ£ì½Íõ[òv½:aò¿QÎÔåP
0×cZ,?p?ÝÉð+?Zª?qV˯<çñ?6$*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.crl0U0)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$±ÓFÿ]_eO1?0??0v0b10 UZA1%0#U
Thawte Consulting (Pty) Ltd.1,0*U#Thawte Personal Freemail Issuing CApémìaæVlÊð~)m60 + ?o0 *?H?÷
1 *?H?÷
0 *?H?÷
1
060503133058Z0# *?H?÷
1·ì"ܽµ;¾?~ÛCWY'0? +?71x0v0b10 UZA1%0#U
Thawte Consulting (Pty) Ltd.1,0*U#Thawte Personal Freemail Issuing CApémìaæVlÊð~)m60?*?H?÷
1x v0b10 UZA1%0#U
Thawte Consulting (Pty) Ltd.1,0*U#Thawte Personal Freemail Issuing CApémìaæVlÊð~)m60
*?H?÷
?|y]iåòW\p?X©ùi:8;lö.ÐÎéæ-?Õðá,p<
á+qÆ¡½?¢æL¿Äå?vnI³?$T9ÐÁP£¾?«2ì>?IãE#4 Mì7hçãc8??rÙYc?@´}?hÇ?A??© x?Ýýºm?ØãSöÔ
[ reply ]