Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 369045
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 12, 20262026-05-12T13:52:55+00:00 2026-05-12T13:52:55+00:00

The following is a message logged in Microsoft Service Trace Viewer. I believe it

  • 0

The following is a message logged in Microsoft Service Trace Viewer. I believe it represents a single call to a parameterless method that has an integer return value on a WCF Service (with WsHttpBinding). I am using message level security (with username credentials) and created a development server certificate to get this to work. I am baffled by the amount of overhead in the header. Has anyone seen this before? I am not even sure if I am looking at the right thing. I was planning to use this on every call, and I was hoping the overhead would be reduced on subsequent method calls on the same service, but this does not seem to be the case.

I am tempted to create a single Login() method over SSL instead that authenticates a user and returns a GUID that will be passed to authenticate subsequent requests, with an expiration policy per GUID etc. Intuitively I think this may be a bad idea but I am a security dummy so I am not sure.

Any advise is appreciated.

<s:Envelope xmlns:s="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope">
<s:Header>
<a:Action s:mustUnderstand="1" u:Id="_2" xmlns:u="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-wssecurity-utility-1.0.xsd" xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">http://tempuri.org/IWsAppointmentService/GetTest</a:Action>
<a:MessageID u:Id="_3" xmlns:u="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-wssecurity-utility-1.0.xsd" xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">urn:uuid:d83df40a-979b-440c-9292-7a5a84a64ecd</a:MessageID>
<a:ReplyTo u:Id="_4" xmlns:u="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-wssecurity-utility-1.0.xsd" xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">
<a:Address>http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/anonymous</a:Address>
</a:ReplyTo>
<a:To s:mustUnderstand="1" u:Id="_5" xmlns:u="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-wssecurity-utility-1.0.xsd" xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">http://localhost:8731/service/ws</a:To>
<o:Security s:mustUnderstand="1" xmlns:o="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-wssecurity-secext-1.0.xsd">
<u:Timestamp u:Id="uuid-169b0950-217e-48af-9057-ea832e0c7e19-14" xmlns:u="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-wssecurity-utility-1.0.xsd">
<u:Created>2009-09-08T14:08:36.224Z</u:Created>
<u:Expires>2009-09-08T14:13:36.224Z</u:Expires>
</u:Timestamp>
<c:SecurityContextToken u:Id="uuid-95cdaf11-3974-4cc0-93a8-a3d2191bbef4-5" xmlns:c="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/02/sc" xmlns:u="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-wssecurity-utility-1.0.xsd">
<c:Identifier>urn:uuid:3b6a325b-a4e1-478a-92a7-108dd3f94adb</c:Identifier>
</c:SecurityContextToken>
<c:DerivedKeyToken u:Id="uuid-169b0950-217e-48af-9057-ea832e0c7e19-9" xmlns:c="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/02/sc" xmlns:u="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-wssecurity-utility-1.0.xsd">
<o:SecurityTokenReference>
<o:Reference ValueType="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/02/sc/sct" URI="#uuid-95cdaf11-3974-4cc0-93a8-a3d2191bbef4-5"></o:Reference>
</o:SecurityTokenReference>
<c:Offset>0</c:Offset>
<c:Length>24</c:Length>
<c:Nonce>
<!-- Removed-->
</c:Nonce>
</c:DerivedKeyToken>
<c:DerivedKeyToken u:Id="uuid-169b0950-217e-48af-9057-ea832e0c7e19-10" xmlns:c="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/02/sc" xmlns:u="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-wssecurity-utility-1.0.xsd">
<o:SecurityTokenReference>
<o:Reference ValueType="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/02/sc/sct" URI="#uuid-95cdaf11-3974-4cc0-93a8-a3d2191bbef4-5"></o:Reference>
</o:SecurityTokenReference>
<c:Nonce>
<!-- Removed-->
</c:Nonce>
</c:DerivedKeyToken>
<e:ReferenceList xmlns:e="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#">
<e:DataReference URI="#_1"></e:DataReference>
<e:DataReference URI="#_6"></e:DataReference>
</e:ReferenceList>
<Signature xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#">
<SignedInfo>
<CanonicalizationMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"></CanonicalizationMethod>
<SignatureMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#hmac-sha1"></SignatureMethod>
<Reference URI="#_0">
<Transforms>
<Transform Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"></Transform>
</Transforms>
<DigestMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#sha1"></DigestMethod>
<DigestValue>NnVRkY+ZVgWd4qfBs3jtjxAf9m4=</DigestValue>
</Reference>
<Reference URI="#_2">
<Transforms>
<Transform Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"></Transform>
</Transforms>
<DigestMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#sha1"></DigestMethod>
<DigestValue>+DXYZ0w5aRfe1m+owuJXfYnT4TU=</DigestValue>
</Reference>
<Reference URI="#_3">
<Transforms>
<Transform Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"></Transform>
</Transforms>
<DigestMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#sha1"></DigestMethod>
<DigestValue>OCiMrL9/sZLY3qMANeBgpmmPTHQ=</DigestValue>
</Reference>
<Reference URI="#_4">
<Transforms>
<Transform Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"></Transform>
</Transforms>
<DigestMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#sha1"></DigestMethod>
<DigestValue>l6mMmQ2LE9VFtjaA6Qc4GKBXURw=</DigestValue>
</Reference>
<Reference URI="#_5">
<Transforms>
<Transform Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"></Transform>
</Transforms>
<DigestMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#sha1"></DigestMethod>
<DigestValue>gwaCnZv9JZtGrNhF6q8l2qIptMU=</DigestValue>
</Reference>
<Reference URI="#uuid-169b0950-217e-48af-9057-ea832e0c7e19-14">
<Transforms>
<Transform Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"></Transform>
</Transforms>
<DigestMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#sha1"></DigestMethod>
<DigestValue>i6m9Hb2aKQPRshhSqEpESJJASQg=</DigestValue>
</Reference>
</SignedInfo>
<SignatureValue>lo3sUvYlRiCCfag3kesKx9LFpHU=</SignatureValue>
<KeyInfo>
<o:SecurityTokenReference xmlns:o="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-wssecurity-secext-1.0.xsd">
<o:Reference ValueType="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/02/sc/dk" URI="#uuid-169b0950-217e-48af-9057-ea832e0c7e19-9"></o:Reference>
</o:SecurityTokenReference>
</KeyInfo>
</Signature>
</o:Security>
</s:Header>
<s:Body u:Id="_0" xmlns:u="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-wssecurity-utility-1.0.xsd">
<GetTest xmlns="http://tempuri.org/"></GetTest>
</s:Body>
</s:Envelope>
  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-12T13:52:55+00:00Added an answer on May 12, 2026 at 1:52 pm

    Nobody ever claimed using wsHttpBinding was a great idea! 😉

    wsHttpBinding implements a whole slew of those WS-* standards – and they don’t come cheap!

    Typically, if you’re behind a corporate firewall, I’d recommend using netTcp. Most of the time, when you’re dealing with internet facing public services, you’ll be better off with basicHttpBinding or webHttpBinding (REST).

    You can tweak wsHttpBinding, of course – turn off sessions, turn off security features etc.

    But in the end, you really have to ask yourself: is the effort to create such a login scheme, managing lifetime of these “session GUIDs”, and all the various ways this can go wrong (GUID expires to soon, GUID gets spoofed etc.) really worth it? Yes, of course – the message is a few kb in size – but does it really matter? Seriously?

    Don’t go optimizing in the wrong place – with today’s technologies in place, many of these “gut-feeling optimizations” are really not worth the trouble and the development effort to “optimize” away those few kb on each call might be massively higher than any performance penalty from transmitting a few kb back and forth.

    Think about it !

    Marc

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

Hi, I have a WCF service hosted in IIS that has the following binding
When I start eclipse it crashes with the following message. An error has occurred.
I have the following method in a base class that implements System.ComponentModel.INotifyPropertyChanged: protected virtual
The following message is shown on everything page of a Drupal site: user warning:
I get the following message: The project was not built due to File not
I'm getting the following message in my users' crash logs: Dyld Error Message: Symbol
Why do I get the following message in Visual Studio when I use the
gem install heroku failed with following message and I have tried the solution here
I'm trying to start a Vagrant instance and getting the following message: Vagrant cannot
I'm submitting to a rails webservice the following message: xmlPostData = <message> <message-text> +

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.