<?xml version="1.0"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://www.codeplex.com/rss.xsl"?><rss version="2.0"><channel><title>SingleSignOn Work Item Rss Feed</title><link>http://www.codeplex.com/SingleSignOn/WorkItem/List.aspx</link><description>SingleSignOn Work Item Rss Description</description><item><title>CLOSED ISSUE: Better Session Maintenance</title><link>http://www.codeplex.com/SingleSignOn/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=2440</link><description>Currently the server-side doesn&amp;#39;t clean up after itself and old sessions remain. I&amp;#39;ll probably build a better security factor in to expire old sessions and&amp;#47;or delete them.&lt;br /&gt;Comments: 2.0 beta</description><author>nlb6665</author><pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:36:26 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">CLOSED ISSUE: Better Session Maintenance 20080331053626P</guid></item><item><title>CLOSED ISSUE: Web Service Security</title><link>http://www.codeplex.com/SingleSignOn/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=1129</link><description>---------edited Aug 14, 2007--------&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#39;ve decided to implement another form of security using a shared key. It&amp;#39;s a custom solution and only recommended for Medium Trust shared hosting solutions. For Full Trust solutions WSE 3.0 or WCF should be used instead. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There will be a server side admin tool for the keys. A separate key should be generated for each client machine. The key will be saved as a key file in the client application folder &amp;#40;or location of your choice&amp;#41;, then it will be read and passed to each web service call for validation. &amp;#40;just like the current solution&amp;#41;. The only difference is the key isn&amp;#39;t dynamically generated and authenticated with a username&amp;#47;password. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This prevents the keys from never expiring like they did before and, you can expire keys on the server side in case one becomes compromised. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;-----Edited Sept 8, 2007-----&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#39;m working on posting these changes now. Feel free to comment on the discussion thread. The old release will still be available with the session based web service security. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Thoughts&amp;#63; &lt;br /&gt;Discussion thread&amp;#58; http&amp;#58;&amp;#47;&amp;#47;www.codeplex.com&amp;#47;SingleSignOn&amp;#47;Thread&amp;#47;View.aspx&amp;#63;ThreadId&amp;#61;13798&lt;br /&gt;</description><author>nlb6665</author><pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:36:03 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">CLOSED ISSUE: Web Service Security 20080331053603P</guid></item><item><title>CLOSED FEATURE: Dynamic Mode Security - Add user authorization to function calls</title><link>http://www.codeplex.com/SingleSignOn/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=9805</link><description>Basically once a service key is validated the client application has free reign against the membership functions. This is fine for a web application in most cases because it&amp;#39;s running on a trusted host. However, in a windows forms situation, your key is being sent directly to a user so their application can talk to your membership service. I think there should be an optional way to lock down the membership functions for untrusted applications. I&amp;#39;ve been thinking about a way to maybe lock it down by authorized groups.  That way say minimal users would only be able to login and obtain their groups, maybe reset a password.  More privileged users could do more. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;thoughts&amp;#63;&lt;br /&gt;Comments: in 2.0 beta</description><author>nlb6665</author><pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:33:53 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">CLOSED FEATURE: Dynamic Mode Security - Add user authorization to function calls 20080331053353P</guid></item><item><title>REOPENED FEATURE: Dynamic Mode Security - Add user authorization to function calls</title><link>http://www.codeplex.com/SingleSignOn/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=9805</link><description>Basically once a service key is validated the client application has free reign against the membership functions. This is fine for a web application in most cases because it&amp;#39;s running on a trusted host. However, in a windows forms situation, your key is being sent directly to a user so their application can talk to your membership service. I think there should be an optional way to lock down the membership functions for untrusted applications. I&amp;#39;ve been thinking about a way to maybe lock it down by authorized groups.  That way say minimal users would only be able to login and obtain their groups, maybe reset a password.  More privileged users could do more. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;thoughts&amp;#63;&lt;br /&gt;</description><author>nlb6665</author><pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:33:36 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">REOPENED FEATURE: Dynamic Mode Security - Add user authorization to function calls 20080331053336P</guid></item><item><title>CLOSED FEATURE: Dynamic Mode Security - Add user authorization to function calls</title><link>http://www.codeplex.com/SingleSignOn/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=9805</link><description>Basically once a service key is validated the client application has free reign against the membership functions.&amp;#160;This is fine for a web application in most cases because it&amp;#39;s running on a trusted host. However, in a windows forms situation, your key is being sent directly to a user so their application can talk to your membership service. I think there should be an optional way to lock down the membership functions for untrusted applications. I&amp;#39;ve been thinking about a way to maybe lock it down by authorized groups.&amp;#160; That way say minimal users would only be able to login and obtain their groups, maybe reset a password.&amp;#160; More privileged users could do more. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;thoughts&amp;#63;&lt;br /&gt;Comments: This feature is included in 2.0 beta</description><author>nlb6665</author><pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:33:06 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">CLOSED FEATURE: Dynamic Mode Security - Add user authorization to function calls 20080331053306P</guid></item><item><title>CREATED FEATURE: Dynamic Mode Security - Add user authorization to fucntion calls</title><link>http://www.codeplex.com/SingleSignOn/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=9805</link><description>Basically once a service key is validated the client application has free reign against the membership functions.&amp;#160;This is fine for a web application in most cases because it&amp;#39;s running on a trusted host. However, in a windows forms situation, your key is being sent directly to a user so their application can talk to your membership service. I think there should be an optional way to lock down the membership functions for untrusted applications. I&amp;#39;ve been thinking about a way to maybe lock it down by authorized groups.&amp;#160; That way say minimal users would only be able to login and obtain their groups, maybe reset a password.&amp;#160; More privileged users could do more. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;thoughts&amp;#63;&lt;br /&gt;</description><author>nlb6665</author><pubDate>Sat, 29 Mar 2008 06:36:13 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">CREATED FEATURE: Dynamic Mode Security - Add user authorization to fucntion calls 20080329063613A</guid></item><item><title>CREATED ISSUE: Personalization/Profiles</title><link>http://www.codeplex.com/SingleSignOn/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=8882</link><description>I noticed the other day that profiles and personalization were a neat piece that could work well in this. So heres&amp;#39; a little work item to make those objects available via web services which would enable inter-site personalization settings.  I found when trying to enable web parts.&lt;br /&gt;</description><author>nlb6665</author><pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:29:13 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">CREATED ISSUE: Personalization/Profiles 20071127102913P</guid></item><item><title>CREATED ISSUE: App still redirecting to login page after logging into SSOSite</title><link>http://www.codeplex.com/SingleSignOn/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=7854</link><description>Basically this is is a work item for creating shared session functionality between AppDomains. So you can essentially login to one web application and automatically already be authenticated for another web application using the same SingleSignOn authentication service. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;Links with more info&lt;br /&gt;This page http&amp;#58;&amp;#47;&amp;#47;weblogs.asp.net&amp;#47;scottgu&amp;#47;archive&amp;#47;2005&amp;#47;12&amp;#47;10&amp;#47;432851.aspx explains how to share the authentication cookie.&lt;br /&gt;</description><author>nlb6665</author><pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:40:53 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">CREATED ISSUE: App still redirecting to login page after logging into SSOSite 20071017014053P</guid></item><item><title>COMMENTED ISSUE: Feature requests: Password expiration, Account inactivity expiration and password history</title><link>http://www.codeplex.com/SingleSignOn/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=7053</link><description>Hi,&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;I want to describe some feature request, which i would also like to contribute for in the next future.&lt;br /&gt;I only want some feedback for coding and realization.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;Feature request 1&amp;#58; password expiration&lt;br /&gt;- In the standard Membership, is it not possible to let a passwort expire after some time &amp;#40;e.g. 3 months, 100 days or 1000 hours&amp;#41;&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;Feature request 2&amp;#58; user lock out after inactivity&lt;br /&gt;- it is useful and sometimes necessary to lock out a user automtically if he&amp;#47;she is inactive for some time &amp;#40;e.g. 3 months&amp;#41;&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;Feature request 2&amp;#58; password history&lt;br /&gt;- some security guidelines need a password history for the last 6 or 8 password, so&lt;br /&gt;that the user don&amp;#39;t &amp;#34;reuse&amp;#34; their in short periods&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;Any feedback is appreciate&amp;#33;&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;regards&lt;br /&gt;Christian&lt;br/&gt;Comments: ** Comment from web user: nlb6665 ** &lt;p&gt;I&amp;#39;ll create an open issue for this one. I&amp;#39;m not sure how quick I can get to it, but if you have some code that works with this, I&amp;#39;d be happy to integrated it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thanks&amp;#33;&lt;br/&gt;-Nathan&lt;/p&gt;</description><author>nlb6665</author><pubDate>Sun, 23 Sep 2007 03:21:47 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">COMMENTED ISSUE: Feature requests: Password expiration, Account inactivity expiration and password history 20070923032147A</guid></item><item><title>CREATED ISSUE: Feature requests: Password expiration, Account inactivity expiration and password history</title><link>http://www.codeplex.com/SingleSignOn/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=7053</link><description>Hi,&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;I want to describe some feature request, which i would also like to contribute for in the next future.&lt;br /&gt;I only want some feedback for coding and realization.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;Feature request 1&amp;#58; password expiration&lt;br /&gt;- In the standard Membership, is it not possible to let a passwort expire after some time &amp;#40;e.g. 3 months, 100 days or 1000 hours&amp;#41;&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;Feature request 2&amp;#58; user lock out after inactivity&lt;br /&gt;- it is useful and sometimes necessary to lock out a user automtically if he&amp;#47;she is inactive for some time &amp;#40;e.g. 3 months&amp;#41;&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;Feature request 2&amp;#58; password history&lt;br /&gt;- some security guidelines need a password history for the last 6 or 8 password, so&lt;br /&gt;that the user don&amp;#39;t &amp;#34;reuse&amp;#34; their in short periods&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;Any feedback is appreciate&amp;#33;&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;regards&lt;br /&gt;Christian&lt;br/&gt;</description><author>nlb6665</author><pubDate>Sun, 23 Sep 2007 03:21:07 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">CREATED ISSUE: Feature requests: Password expiration, Account inactivity expiration and password history 20070923032107A</guid></item><item><title>COMMENTED ISSUE: Better Session Maintenance</title><link>http://www.codeplex.com/SingleSignOn/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=2440</link><description>Currently the server-side doesn&amp;#39;t clean up after itself and old sessions remain. I&amp;#39;ll probably build a better security factor in to expire old sessions and&amp;#47;or delete them.&lt;br/&gt;Comments: ** Comment from web user: nlb6665 ** &lt;p&gt;This has been removed due to the recent security change. There is no longer a web service database session. &lt;/p&gt;</description><author>nlb6665</author><pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:49:48 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">COMMENTED ISSUE: Better Session Maintenance 20070912014948P</guid></item><item><title>COMMENTED ISSUE: Web Service Security</title><link>http://www.codeplex.com/SingleSignOn/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=1129</link><description>---------edited Aug 14, 2007--------&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#39;ve decided to implement another form of security using a shared key. It&amp;#39;s a custom solution and only recommended for Medium Trust shared hosting solutions. For Full Trust solutions WSE 3.0 or WCF should be used instead. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There will be a server side admin tool for the keys. A separate key should be generated for each client. The key will be saved as a key file in the client application folder &amp;#40;or location of your choice&amp;#41;, then it will be read and passed to each web service call for validation. &amp;#40;just like the current solution&amp;#41;. The only difference is the key isn&amp;#39;t dynamically generated and authenticated with a username&amp;#47;password. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;-----Edited Sept 8, 2007-----&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#39;m working on posting these changes now. Feel free to comment on the discussion thread. The old release will still be available with the session based web service security. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Thoughts&amp;#63; &lt;br /&gt;Discussion thread&amp;#58; http&amp;#58;&amp;#47;&amp;#47;www.codeplex.com&amp;#47;SingleSignOn&amp;#47;Thread&amp;#47;View.aspx&amp;#63;ThreadId&amp;#61;13798&lt;br/&gt;Comments: ** Comment from web user: nlb6665 ** &lt;p&gt;Check out the latest release. &lt;/p&gt;</description><author>nlb6665</author><pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:52:59 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">COMMENTED ISSUE: Web Service Security 20070910065259P</guid></item><item><title>CREATED ISSUE: Better Session Maintenance</title><link>http://www.codeplex.com/SingleSignOn/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=2440</link><description>Currently the server-side doesn't clean up after itself and old sessions remain. I'll probably build a better security factor in to expire old sessions and/or delete them.&lt;br/&gt;</description><author>nlb6665</author><pubDate>Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:53:31 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">CREATED ISSUE: Better Session Maintenance 20070702115331P</guid></item><item><title>COMMENTED ISSUE: Web Service Security</title><link>http://www.codeplex.com/SingleSignOn/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=1129</link><description>I have a few ideas to improve the web service security. Right now it's a manual login process that generates a randomized session key. The only way to get a key is to login and the only way to invoke a web service is to have a key.  The problem is, there's no built-in expiration or a way to tell the membership provider to re-initialize after expiring a session (there's probably a better way to do it all anyways). 

I'm thinking about using a public/private key encryption and SOAP Extensions to encrypt the data channels between the service and client.  By doing that, only applications with public keys will be able to communicate with the web services. Then there wouldn't be a need for generating sessions. 

I'm still considering other options as well. 

Thoughts? Comments: ** Comment from web user: Heynemann ** &lt;p&gt;Not at all. You could use the Isolated Storage are for the user to keep an encrypted xml file containing the user and password. I&amp;#180;ll be doing some work on the Service infra-structure of this project soon. Probably I&amp;#180;ll do the services in WCF since it allows for security between parties already.&lt;/p&gt;</description><author>Heynemann</author><pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:42:52 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">COMMENTED ISSUE: Web Service Security 20070612014252P</guid></item><item><title>CLOSED TASK: Windows Forms Client Sample</title><link>http://www.codeplex.com/SingleSignOn/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=1277</link><description>I'm planning on pushing out a sample windows form client application to show how this would work.  This task is kind of dependent on the security issue. 

The windows client sample is basically just a windows forms app that communicates with its own instance of the membership provider. In this case a WebServiceMemebershipProvider from the SingleSignOn library. This library will then communicate with a central website and authenticate users. </description><author>nlb6665</author><pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2007 05:50:40 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">CLOSED TASK: Windows Forms Client Sample 20070612055040A</guid></item><item><title>COMMENTED TASK: Windows Forms Client Sample</title><link>http://www.codeplex.com/SingleSignOn/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=1277</link><description>I'm planning on pushing out a sample windows form client application to show how this would work.  This task is kind of dependent on the security issue. 

The windows client sample is basically just a windows forms app that communicates with its own instance of the membership provider. In this case a WebServiceMemebershipProvider from the SingleSignOn library. This library will then communicate with a central website and authenticate users. Comments: ** Comment from web user: nlb6665 ** &lt;p&gt;Check current release.&lt;/p&gt;</description><author>nlb6665</author><pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2007 05:50:17 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">COMMENTED TASK: Windows Forms Client Sample 20070612055017A</guid></item><item><title>COMMENTED TASK: Windows Forms Client Sample</title><link>http://www.codeplex.com/SingleSignOn/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=1277</link><description>I'm planning on pushing out a sample windows form client application to show how this would work.  This task is kind of dependent on the security issue. 

The windows client sample is basically just a windows forms app that communicates with its own instance of the membership provider. In this case a WebServiceMemebershipProvider from the SingleSignOn library. This library will then communicate with a central website and authenticate users. Comments: ** Comment from web user: caldarola ** &lt;p&gt;I&amp;#39;m very interested to this issue.&lt;/p&gt;</description><author>caldarola</author><pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2007 10:36:22 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">COMMENTED TASK: Windows Forms Client Sample 20070604103622A</guid></item><item><title>CREATED ISSUE: Windows Forms Client Sample</title><link>http://www.codeplex.com/SingleSignOn/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=1277</link><description>I'm planning on pushing out a sample windows form client application to show how this would work.  This task is kind of dependent on the security issue. 

The windows client sample is basically just a windows forms app that communicates with its own instance of the membership provider. In this case a WebServiceMemebershipProvider from the SingleSignOn library. This library will then communicate with a central website and authenticate users. </description><author>nlb6665</author><pubDate>Sun, 03 Jun 2007 01:51:57 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">CREATED ISSUE: Windows Forms Client Sample 20070603015157A</guid></item><item><title>COMMENTED ISSUE: Web Service Security</title><link>http://www.codeplex.com/SingleSignOn/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=1129</link><description>I have a few ideas to improve the web service security. Right now it's a manual login process that generates a randomized session key. The only way to get a key is to login and the only way to invoke a web service is to have a key.  The problem is, there's no built-in expiration or a way to tell the membership provider to re-initialize after expiring a session (there's probably a better way to do it all anyways). 

I'm thinking about using a public/private key encryption and SOAP Extensions to encrypt the data channels between the service and client.  By doing that, only applications with public keys will be able to communicate with the web services. Then there wouldn't be a need for generating sessions. 

I'm still considering other options as well. 

Thoughts? Comments: ** Comment from web user: nlb6665 ** &lt;p&gt;I also realize that this is kind of a big security issue with windows forms clients.  The service username and password would have to be in the app.config. &lt;/p&gt;</description><author>nlb6665</author><pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:57:07 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">COMMENTED ISSUE: Web Service Security 20070601025707P</guid></item><item><title>CREATED ISSUE: Web Service Security</title><link>http://www.codeplex.com/SingleSignOn/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=1129</link><description>I have a few ideas to improve the web service security. Right now it's a manual login process that generates a randomized session key. The only way to get a key is to login and the only way to invoke a web service is to have a key.  The problem is, there's no build-in expiration yet or a way to tell the membership provider to re-initialize after expiring a session and there's probably a better way to do it all anyways. 

I'm thinking about using a public/private key encryption and SOAP Extensions to encrypt the data channels between the service and client.  By doing that, only applications with public keys will be able to communicate with the web services. Then there wouldn't be a need for generating sessions. 

Thoughts? </description><author>nlb6665</author><pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2007 16:12:42 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">CREATED ISSUE: Web Service Security 20070529041242P</guid></item></channel></rss>