Re: [saag] Re:

["Prof. Ahmed Bin Abbas Ahmed Ali Adas" <alaadas@kaau.edu.sa>]

Pete

CORBASec standard to my knowledge has finished. Noting that CORBA-3
specification defines transport level firewalls, application level
firewalls, and most interesting GIOP. Transport level firewalls work at TCP
port 683 for IIOP and 684 for IIOP/SSL.

Ahmed


----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Chown" <Pete.Chown@skygate.co.uk>
To: "Prof. Ahmed Bin Abbas Ahmed Ali Adas" <alaadas@kaau.edu.sa>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: [saag] Re:


> Prof. Ahmed Bin Abbas Ahmed Ali Adas wrote:
>
> > The best approach in my view is to use CORBA and CORBsec to deal with
path
> > messages, I believe if CORBA routers can be realized very soon, most of
your
> > IPsec shortcomings will be resolved.
>
> Have they sorted out the firewall draft yet?  Last time I looked they
> were still trying to solve this and other security related problems,
> because of difficulties with the architecture of IIOP.
>
> Also wasn't there a problem where CORBAsec progressed but some companion
> document didn't, meaning that CORBA security wasn't specified as
> completely as had been intended?  (My memory's going, I can't remember
> exactly what happened -- sorry.)
>
> In a lot of ways I think GIOP is preferable to the XML-based encodings
> that have come more recently.  XML is more verbose, and parsing it
> requires extra code.  By contrast, GIOP's structure is very simple.
>
> Yet in spite of this, it is much easier to use SOAP or XML-RPC.  I think
> there are two reasons.  Firstly the lack of the firewall spec makes it
> very difficult to proxy.  Secondly all the other security measures are
> very complicated and under-specified.
>
> --
> Pete
>