W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > October to December 2005

Re: Simple question about canonicalization

From: Rafa <rafael.hernandez@ya.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:52:51 +0200
Message-ID: <43411B93.7090704@ya.com>
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
CC: "w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>

Rich Salz escribió:

>You cannot just cut/paste your output into email, too many things will
>happen to it.  The safest is to attach it, perhaps do a ZIP or base64
>first.
>
>There are several free c14n routines around, including xmlsec, python-xml,
>apache java security suite, etc.  You might find it worthwhile to search,
>download, and install one of those packages to make comparisions.
>
>	/r$
>
>  
>
Thanks for your replay. Your hint has been pretty helpful in other 
fights I'm holding.
I've used smlsec on WindowsXP to obtain a correctly canonicalization of 
<SignedInfo>. Anyway I'm still hitting the same wall.
Probably your 1st sentence is the clue. When I first read it, I said to 
myself: Why not? I'm just using US ASCII7 characters. Papers say there 
is a direct correspondence from ASCII7 to UTF-8 characters.
Could it be that the internal representation of the canonicalized 
<SignedInfo> is not as simple as one byte per character although I  use 
only ASCII characters?
In other words, what is the exact byte-stream I must use as input to the 
SHA1 algorithm?

Thanks for your time,
Rafael Hernández
Received on Monday, 3 October 2005 11:51:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Monday, 3 October 2005 11:51:27 GMT