Skip to main content

Deploy WebSphere Plugin - Working on next release

It is time to return back to work, after a well deserved break. Following the release 1.0 is time to think about the next release. Well, version 1.0 is available and up-and-running but I bet a lot of people wouldn't find it really useful. This because for to use it, you need to disable the WAS security. It can be acceptable if both Hudson and WAS seat in the same (well protected) LAN and, for example the, WAS is a machine used from the developers as Reference box. But if WAS needs to be well secured and/or in production alas.
Now next release should cover WAS 6.1/7 with security enabled. I have already a working proof of concept so it is just matter of polish a bit the code. Here start the "bad news". For having the deploy websphere builder to work with security enabled you need an IBM JRE. This sounds as a big limitation and infact it is. To overcome it you need to install the hudson.war in WAS rather than in Tomcat for example. Well to be perfectly honest though whoever use this plugin is suppose to be a WebSphere user so it shouldn't be so huge deal... Any way more to come soon, so stay tuned!!


Anonymous said…
Hi Antonio,

Thank for your plugin. I am trying to use it, but I do not sure where I must place the two .jar required files.

When I try to use it, at the end of a configuration task and I save the task I get the following error:
javax.servlet.ServletException: java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: com/ibm/websphere/management/Session

I am sure I am not placing propertly the two jar files. Can you help me and tell me where I must plave the files because in /.hudson/ I have not any war directory.

Thanks in advance.

Popular posts from this blog

Billion Laugh Attack in

tl;dr suffered from a Billion Laugh Attack vulnerability that made the containerized environment to crash with a single invocation.
Introduction Few months ago I applied for a talk at a security conference titled Soyouwanna be a Bug Bounty Hunter but it was rejected :(. The reason behind it is that I have been on/off in the bug bounty business for a while as you can see here:
Funny. Found in a forgotten drawer from the time I was a bug hunter :p — Antonio Sanso (@asanso) November 30, 2018 and I would have liked to share some of the things I have learned during these years (not necessary technical advises only). You can find a couple of these advises here:

Rule #1 of any bug hunter is to have a good RSS feed list
and here

The rule #2 of any bug hunter is to DO NOT be to fussy with 'food' specifically with "left over"
Today's rule is: The rule #3 of any bug hunter is DO LOOK at the old stuff


OpenSSL Key Recovery Attack on DH small subgroups (CVE-2016-0701)

Usual Mandatory Disclaimer: IANAC (I am not a cryptographer) so I might likely end up writing a bunch of mistakes in this blog post...

tl;dr The OpenSSL 1.0.2 releases suffer from a Key Recovery Attack on DH small subgroups. This issue got assigned CVE-2016-0701 with a severity of High and OpenSSL 1.0.2 users should upgrade to 1.0.2f. If an application is using DH configured with parameters based on primes that are not "safe" or not Lim-Lee (as the one in RFC 5114) and either Static DH ciphersuites are used or DHE ciphersuites with the default OpenSSL configuration (in particular SSL_OP_SINGLE_DH_USE is not set) then is vulnerable to this attack.  It is believed that many popular applications (e.g. Apache mod_ssl) do set the  SSL_OP_SINGLE_DH_USE option and would therefore not be at risk (for DHE ciphersuites), they still might be for Static DH ciphersuites.
Introduction So if you are still here it means you wanna know more. And here is the thing. In my last blog post I was …

Top 10 OAuth 2 Implementation Vulnerabilities

Some time ago I posted a blogpost abut  Top 5 OAuth 2 Implementation Vulnerabilities.
This week I have extended the list while presenting Top X OAuth 2 Hacks at OWASP Switzerland.

This blog post (like the presentation) is just a collection of interesting attack OAuth related.

#10 The Postman Always Rings Twice  I have introduced this 'attack' in last year post . This is for provider implementer, it is not extremely severe but, hey, is better to follow the spec. Specifically

The client MUST NOT use the authorization code  more than once.  If an authorization code is used more than once, the authorization server MUST deny the request and SHOULD revoke (when possible) all tokens previously issued based on that authorization code.

It turned out that even Facebook and Googledid it wrong... :)

#9 Match Point To all OAuth Providers be sure to follow section 4.1.3 of the spec in particular

...if the "redirect_uri" parameter was included in the initial authorization requ…