OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

regrep-security message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: [regrep-security] FW: [ebxml-msg] XMLDSIG and v1.05 comments


FYI: My comments on ebXML MSG use of xmldsig
and response from the editor. I am reposting because
these would be relevant to our work on Registry xmldsig.


-----Original Message-----
From: David Fischer [mailto:david@drummondgroup.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 2:24 PM
To: Damodaran, Suresh; ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] XMLDSIG and v1.05 comments

I agree on items 1-5 (some of them are REQUIRED).  Since no one has
commented, I
will make these changes.  (Comments anyone?)

I can see some benefits to item 6 (use of the ds:Signature/Manifest) but I
concerned that it will cause systems not to be Interoperable if some systems
this and some don't.  Anyone have thoughts?


David Fischer
Drummond Group.

P.S.  Mr. Burdett, would you mind capturing these in the change DB?

-----Original Message-----
From: Damodaran, Suresh [mailto:Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com]
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 3:44 PM
To: 'ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: [ebxml-msg] XMLDSIG and v1.05 comments

I have some comments and change proposals on Section 4.1.3 Signature

1. Line 1088 suggests that ds:CanonicalizationMethod element is optional
in ds:SignedInfo. I don't believe it is true. Section 4.3.1 of XMLDSIG spec
states that "CanonicalizationMethod is a required element that specifies the
canonicalization algorithm
applied to the SignedInfo element...". Therefore, I propose we restate the
with a "MUST." Para starting 1090 needs to be rewritten too.

2. I also propose we provide a RECOMMENDED algorithm for
CanonicalizationMethod as
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315 (this one omits comments)
3. Sentence on line 1100 says that the signature is calculated over the SOAP
Header. I would argue that the signature be calculated over
SOAP-ENV:Envelope instead of SOAP-ENV:Header. This would include the
<eb:Manifest> in the SOAP-ENV:Body. Why is this needed? It is possible that
ds:Signature element is eliminated from the message after signature
validation is done. Beyond that point, the application would look at
eb:Manifest to locate the resources. Therefore, the integrity of eb:Manifest
element is important. The change from SOAP Header to SOAP Envelope needs to
be made in the whole section.
4. Line 1107 talks about the ds:Transform elements. I propose we add another
REQUIRED ds:Transform
<ds:Transform Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315"/>
for the SOAP Envelope after the "enveloped-signature" transform. This new
transform will make sure the SOAP envelope is canonicalized before signed.
5. Line 1120 suggests that URI attribute need not match the manifest
reference. I don't know what purpose this serves. I propose we delete
"However, this is NOT REQUIRED"
6. Line 1103: The Type attribute is optional according to the spec. Note
that if the reference type is
not manifest [http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/#sec-Manifest]  the
reference (i.e., payload) is required to be
validated as per XMLDSIG. We may want to give more control to the
application on validation. Therefore, mention of the manifest Type would be
good. The manifest itself is an ds:Object which is an element of
ds:Signature. I propose we REQUIRE the type attribute for the Reference
element of SOAP Envelope with a value of either
http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#Object or
[1] XML-Signature Syntax and Processing - W3C Proposed Recommendation


To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Powered by eList eXpress LLC