LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  June 2002

ZNG June 2002

Subject:

Re: result set model for srw

From:

Theo van Veen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Fri, 14 Jun 2002 01:44:02 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (75 lines)

There is no service to delete or manipulate resultsets, so you do not
need a session-id to protect it.

In response to Matthew: it is not explicitly part of the SRU/SRW
protocol that referencing a resultset can generate a new resultset
with a new name.It would force clients to refresh the resutset after
each access. I do not see a reason to do so; when there is a
resultset why make a new one that is the same? I can imagine that
the server uses each access to a resultset to increase the TTL.

With respect to session-id - All the session context that is needed
are the SRW/SRU request parameters. Only in case the SRW-
client is a gateway between browsers and the SRW-server it needs
to know to which browser-client the response should be sent.
Therefor it needs the ability to send extra parameters to the server
that the server should echo. Rather than reserving it for a session-id
only it would be better when the server returns al the unknown
request parameters and leave it up to the client what to do with it. In
that way the gateway doesn't have to remember any context
anymore.

Theo


On 13 Jun 02, at 23:20, Robert Sanderson wrote:

> > > Yes. Otherwise you could subvert other users' result sets as
> > > you don't know who created it.
>
> > Not so. In SRW (unlike Z39.50) the result set name is really a
> > result set identifier generated by the server rather than requested
> > by the client. So in SRW the result set name effectively acts as a
> > session id.
>
> Yes. But if they persist, which they must in some form, then they can
> be operated on.
>
> For example, I send to client A a result set named 'rs1'. The rogue
> DDOS client then sends me a request against a result set named 'rs1'
> which promptly disappears for the real user.
>
> In the time between the server sending the resultset name to the
> client, a different attacking client can send a request which uses
> that name. You simply can't avoid that. You need to have a way of
> determining if the client is allowed to operate on that result set.
>
>
> > This result set name only has limited life. One receipt of a second
> > SRW request to get the next 10 records, the server is perfectly at
> > liberty to respond with a new result set name (at an abstraction
> > level this name would be referencing the same result set) i.e. this
> > is just a mechanism to maintain state between SRW requests.
>
> I could send continuous (SOAP is HTTP/1.1 so includes pipelining and
> gzipping, making this even more effective) requests to trash random
> resultset names.
>
> Regardless of how quickly they disappear, or how obscurely they're
> named, without an identifier which uniquely identifies the connection
> to which the result set belongs, they can be subverted.
>
> Like Microsoft's "Security through Obscurity", this is no security at
> all.
>
> Rob
>
>
> --
> ,'/:. Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
> ,'-/::::. http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
> ,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
> ,'---/::::::::::. Twin Cathedrals: telnet: liverpool.o-r-g.org
> 7777 ____/:::::::::::::. WWW:
> http://liverpool.o-r-g.org:8000/ I L L U M I N A T I

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager