对于 Internet 上的 WCF 服务来说，传输安全性是一种不好的做法吗？
我有一个可通过 Internet 访问的 WCF 服务。它具有 wsHttpBinding 绑定和消息安全模式，并使用用户名凭据来验证客户端。 msdn说我们应该在Internet场景中使用消息安全，因为它提供端到端的安全，而不是像传输安全那样提供点对点的安全。
如果我通过 Internet 对 wcf 服务使用传输安全性会怎么样？这是一个不好的做法吗？我的数据会被恶意用户看到吗？
I have a WCF service accessible over the Internet. It has wsHttpBinding binding and message security mode with username credentials to authenticate clients.
The msdn says that we should use message security for the Internet scenarios, because it provides end-to-end security instead of point-to-point security as Transport security has.
What if i use transport security for the wcf service over the Internet? Is it a bad practice? Could my data be seen by malicious users?
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（3）
不，这将是一个很好的做法 - 问题是：当您处理互联网连接时，您无法保证通过任意数量的中间跃点建立完整的安全连接链。
您所能保证的传输安全性是从客户端到第一跳的链接，以及从最后一跳到服务器的链接 - 两者之间的任何内容都超出您的控制范围。所以基本上，互联网上的传输安全是行不通的——除非你有一个严格控制的环境，你知道客户端非常直接地连接到你的服务器。
由于这些技术限制，传输安全仅在企业/LAN 环境中真正起作用。一旦您无法控制路由和中间跃点，您就需要使用消息安全来实现端到端安全。
No, it would be a good practice - trouble is: you cannot guarantee a complete chain of secure connections over an arbitrary number of intermediate hops when you're dealing with an internet connection.
All you can guarantee with transport security is the link from your client to the first hop, and the link from the last hop to your server - anything in between is beyond your control. So basically, transport security over the internet is not going to work - unless you have a strictly controlled environment where you know the client connects very directly to your servers.
Due to those technical limitations, transport security only really works in corporate / LAN environments. As soon as you have no control over the routing and the intermediary hops, you need to use message security for an end-to-end security.
是的，当客户端（大多数客户端都会这样做）验证服务器证书时，它是 100% 安全的。
这里提到的多跳场景完全是假的。仅当同一条消息通过不同的应用程序传输时才会出现这种情况。例如几个应用程序经纪人。如果这些代理不能安全地通信，则中间网络嗅探器可以读取消息。
换句话说，即使中间有一百万个路由器，通过互联网进行的客户端/服务器通信也是 100% 安全的，但只有当客户端验证服务器证书时才是安全的，因为客户端可以连接到中间人可以使用虚假证书冒充服务器的主机。如果客户端不验证证书，则消息可能会被泄露。
Yes it is 100% secure when the clients (which most clients do) validate the server certificate.
The multiple hop scenario mentioned here is complete bogus. This is only true when the same message travels through various applications. Like for example several application brokers. If these brokers do not communicate securely then the message can be read by intermediate network sniffers.
In other words, client/server communication over the internet is 100% secure even when there are a million routers in between but it is only secure when the client validates the server certificate as the client could connect to a man-in-the-middle host that could impersonate the server with a false certificate. If the client does not validate the certificate the message could be compromised.
IMO 可能不是 100%
如果 BlueCoat 可以做到，那么还有谁可以呢？
http://directorblue.blogspot.com /2006/07/think-your-ssl-traffic-is-secure-if.html
IMO it may not be 100%
If BlueCoat can do it, then who else can?
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/07/think-your-ssl-traffic-is-secure-if.html