*On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Richard Frovarp
<[email protected] <[email protected]>> wrote:*
>
> *I'm guessing that such a thing wouldn't exist in Apache Tomcat. I'm not
> sure what you hope to gain by doing that. Surely each context / application
> is going to have its own security needs. *
>

Thanks for the reply. For my case -- in general, the needs for the
authentication* mechanism* for any deployed web app is identical:
authentication against LDAP, success produces a token, subsequent requests
validate token, etc. There should be no variation between web apps for how
authentication works, the way a user is challenged for credentials, the
resulting data structures, etc.

The authorization *mechanism* to access a particular web app should be
identical as well. Whether role- or group-based, the idea is the same --
proper membership should allow access to a web app.

The configuration and management of both authentication and authorization
to access a web app ideally would be managed centrally, in front- /
outside- of any secured web apps (as far as user information goes, for my
situation that would all be managed in LDAP).

Where the security needs of different web apps diverge are in two areas:

   1. As you say, the management of session state. I would expect that if
   security enforcement occurred at the container level, it would probably be
   logical that app-specific session state was sand-boxed so other apps could
   not access it -- that would eliminate concurrency issues. Session state
   shared across apps is debatable, but if it were allowed, then obviously
   some synchronized access to state would be required, but the focus here
   wasn't really to figure out concurrency, but rather deployment and
   configuration.
   2. Authorization of behaviors within an app. In this case, an app would
   need to be provided access to identity-related authorization info by the
   container (via the session), and then it could conduct affairs for users as
   it saw fit for whatever the web app does.

That was the idea, and I was hoping that CAS could handle that. Having to
change source / configuration per each web app and rebuild / test / deploy
isn't optimal. But if CAS can't handle that, knowing this is just as
helpful. So thanks for your reply.....

Cheers,

Brad

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CAS 
Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/apereo.org/group/cas-user/.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/apereo.org/d/msgid/cas-user/CAAUrXavM-a0X8fCPLyQNC%3D03ud52mikStq7mHG7ArfYBV-4vug%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/apereo.org/d/optout.

Reply via email to