|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
where is AMS needed for IBM MQ? |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
Author |
Message
|
fjb_saper |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003 Posts: 20756 Location: LI,NY
|
Vitor wrote: |
MQMB&WAS wrote: |
Looks like it can encrypt the messages on its own. so, does it work if I put it in front of qmgr A? |
The sender MCA on A and the receiver MCA on B wouldn't be able to decrypt the messages. Which they need to do in order to insert xmit headers. Likewise on the hop from B to C. If this is what the vendor is expecting.
|
I thought AMS did not encrypt the headers, just for this purpose, so that you can route messages but won't be able to read the actual payload. Am I mistaken?  _________________ MQ & Broker admin |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
exerk |
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006 Posts: 6339
|
The sending end and the receiving end applications require that the required certificates for encryption/decryption are shared between the two ends and the queue manager must be AMS-capable (e.g. interceptors enabled), that's a given; the message payloads are 'sealed' in an encrypted envelope but the addressing 'headers' are not so that any intermediate, non-AMS queue managers can route but not read,which seems logical to me as otherwise the potential licence uplift would be significant as every intermediate queue manager would need to be AMS-capable - but that is just my understanding and I acknowledge I may be totally incorrect. _________________ It's puzzling, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this before...and it's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|