[QFJ-227] Login Reject (possible SessionReject) Created: 21/Aug/07 Updated: 15/Nov/12 Resolved: 25/Aug/07 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | QuickFIX/J |
| Component/s: | Engine |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Other | Priority: | Major |
| Reporter: | Ulvi Ugur | Assignee: | Steve Bate |
| Resolution: | Fixed | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Environment: |
Any |
||
| Description |
|
Hi, When the acceptor gets the login message (35=A), certain verifications are being performed by the QuickFIX engine like SenderCompID, TargetCompId, CurrentTimes, SeqNum, etc. If one or many of these verifications fail, the issue is logged on the acceptor side but no messages are send to the initiator. Is it possible to configure/program QuickFIX so that it sends a Reject-session-level (35=3) message with a SessionRejectReason (373) with the rejection reason ? Or is there any other mechanism which would inform the initiator about the problem ? Thanks in advance, Ulvi |
| Comments |
| Comment by Steve Bate [ 25/Aug/07 ] |
|
We do send rejects for these types of problems if the message is not a login message. The spec recommends the behavior we've implemented for login messages. IIRC, this is at least partly a security issue to make it harder for a hacker to get feedback when trying to gain access to the engine. Currently, there is no configuration to override this behavior for login messages. |
| Comment by Ulvi Ugur [ 26/Aug/07 ] |
|
Hi Steve, Thanks for the feedback. I can understand and appreciate that QuickFIX is not responding to a failed login attempt with an explanatory message wizth security concerns. However, I still think that this mode should be configurable and can be combined with an SSL certificate implementation. After all this is the normal mode of operation for many internet based transaction applications which use their own non-FIX based implementation which might be easily a growing space for FIX (or QuickFIX if you want to see it that way). Given that, do you think if it would be possible to add this request as a future release candidate functionality ? Regards, Ulvi |