Re: [security-services] Comments on Attribute Sharing Profile for X.509 Authentication-Ba sed Systems (draft 10)

["Tom Scavo" <trscavo@gmail.com>]

On 7/7/06, Thomas Wisniewski <Thomas.Wisniewski@entrust.com> wrote:
>
> 5. line 481-486  Add the following thought somehow. Basically,
> transport-level security alone will not provide SAML message authentication
> of the sending party. I.e., a receiver can authenticate any requesting party
> it trusts and that will provide confidentiality and message integrity.
> However, it does not satisfy the requirement that the message (SAML xml
> content) sent is in fact coming from the authenticated requester. For
> example if the receiver trusts requester A and requester B. What if
> requester A sends a SAML message stating that its IssuerName is that of
> requester B. Strictly tranport-level security would not suffice. So either
> XML signatures is required or SAML message authentication is required.
> So for Enhanced Mode, transport level security would not suffice in
> single-hop scenarios (the current text implies it would be ok -- and the
> need for dig signatures is really because of the possibilitly of multi-hop
> scenarios).

Tom, you're right, and this has consequences beyond the lines cited.
For instance, I should rewrite the introduction to section 2 in light
of your remarks.  Also, some of my outstanding comments (not
implemented in draft-10) are irrelevant as well.  Good catch!

What I believe is true is the observation that multi-hop scenarios
heighten the need for Enhanced Mode.  That said, I can't come up with
a very satisfying multi-hop scenario, so I think I'll drop the notion
altogether.  I will also rewrite the text to be more in line with your
comments above.

Thanks, Tom.

Tom