W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > July to September 1999

RE: Scenarios upgrade and Data Model RSN

From: John Boyer <jboyer@uwi.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 11:25:48 -0700
To: "Richard Himes" <rhimes@nmcourt.fed.us>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NDBBLAOMJKOFPMBCHJOICEMKCAAA.jboyer@uwi.com>
Hi Richard,

Good work!  Comments below...

Thanks for the scenarios, they really helped me to understand the current
status.
I now firmly believe the <Package> element is just clutter.

<JOHN>
They seem to be clutter in your cases, but could be useful to those who
don't want to create their own element.
</JOHN>

From the scenario in 2.1.1:

<dsig:Package id='data'>
   <dsig:ContentInfo type='urn:mime:image%2fjpeg'/>
   <dsig:Value encoding="base64">...</dsig:Value>
</dsig:Package>

<dsig:Signature>
   ...
   <dsig:Locator href='#data'/>
   ...
<dsig:Signature>

Would be cleaner as:

<MyElement ContentType='urn:mime:image%2fjpeg' encoding='base64'
      id='data'>...</MyElement>
...
   <dsig:Locator href='#data'/>
...

<JOHN>
Yes, the example you give above is, for the most part, an instance of
signing a portion of a document, which can be found at the beginning of
section 2.4.  It turns out that signing a package is really a special case
of signing a partial XML document.  The first scenario in section 2.1.1
shows what to do when you have a file whose contents you would like to pull
into the signature file, but for which you have no element name.  When you
have no name, you could just use dsig:package.  If you have your own
elements, just sign your own elements.
The one thing that is different is that you only want to sign element
content as opposed to the whole element including tags and attributes.
</JOHN>

In my understanding, this is a _valid_ construct (in the current spec) which
signs only the base64 text (not the content type or the encoding).  I
suspect
that this is the way it will be used by applications, that is, without the
Package.  If this is considered a security problem (the content type and
encoding aren't included in the hash), then they should be included
(duplicated) in the manifest.  Note that this also works as a direct
envelopment, as in the <impp> example..

<JOHN>
Unless there are canonicalizer parameters that will allow you to drop the
start and end tags from what gets canonicalized, then your expectation is
not being satisfied.
</JOHN>

My primary interest initially will be in validating the document, that is,
assuring it hasn't changed since it was filed with the court.  Assuming they
have a signed manifest (<Signature> element), suppose an attorney downloads
a
copy of a PDF from the Internet (purporting to be an official copy), and
wishes
to validate that it is an exact copy of the official document.  In the
<Package> scenario, they (the application) would have to wrap it in a
Package
element, hoping to construct it in exactly the same way (e.g. assuming there
aren't multiple synonyms for the same content type), encode it, canonicalize
it
correctly, hash it, and compare it to the hash in the manifest.  This is a
critical problem, in my view, with unnecessary clutter and difficulties for
application developers.  More likely, the hash would be on the unencoded
external document or the encoded internal document (does this lack of
symmetry
bother anyone else?)

<JOHN>
To validate the external document as you've described here is exactly the
point of scenario 2.3.  Note that the Value contains the encoding attribute
of base64.  This is not saying that the document had base 64 encoding
applied to it.  This is saying that the hash of the document has been base64
encoded (because the raw hash contains illegal bytes).

Actually, I had you in mind specifically when putting this scenario
together.  The scenario write-up could use improvement in pointing these
things out.  Also, it should say that the absence of a canonicalizer element
implies no canonicalization of the target document.

So, if you want a validated legal document, the application would download
the signature of that document, verify the signature, then verify that the
Locator does indeed point at the desired document, then obtain the bytes of
the desired document and store them locally.  Then, do a byte level hash of
the document, and compare with the base64 decoded content of the Value
element.
</JOHN>

Also, I would like the manifest to support an unencoded hash of an internal
document.  All that would be required is a parameter such as
reformat="ueb64"
(unencoded base64).  So, in order to validate the document mentioned in the
previous paragraph,  the only requirement (other than validating the
signature
of the manifest) would be to hash the PDF directly and compare it to the
hash
in the manifest.

<JOHN>
So what you're saying is that you'd like not to separate obtaining the
signature from obtaining the document.  You'd like to put the document in an
XML file along with the signature element.  Further, you must apply bse 64
because the document is binary.

When you calculate the hash of the element, you want the hash to be
calculated on the binary of the document.  I like this scenario a lot.
Further, I think it could be solved by another c14n parameter for the
resource.  What do you think?

So you'd have something like the following:

<dsig:Canonicalizer>
<dsig:Algorithm type='urn:w3c-org:xml-c14n'/>
<dsig:format tags="off" attributes="off" decode="on"/>
</dsig:Canonicalizer>

Something like this would be very good.  People get that warm and fuzzy
feeling about a security system when the hash is computed over something
they trust.

John Boyer
Software Development Manager
UWI.Com -- The Internet Forms Company

</JOHN>
Thanks,
Rich
Received on Thursday, 19 August 1999 14:26:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:07 GMT