>>It is simpler (and less controversial) to say that the message may avail >>itself of underlying transport-level security, and/or that XML features >>such as DSIG and XMLENC may be used to provide soap-level security features. > > But that's not true. You can sign and encrypt RPC methods as much as > you like, but that won't make them secure. Please explain. I've been involved in the security area for awhile, and I just don't understand your point. Isn't signed/encrypted soap messages over HTTP the exact same thing as SMIME over SMTP? > That's an interesting point, but the processing model doesn't specify > how to route, only how to target. A recipient receiving a message with an encrypted actor and/or mustUnderstand cannot properly send a SOAP "actor" fault back, since (obviously) it doesn't know who the actor was. :) I believe this impacts the processing model. /r$ -- Zolera Systems, Your Key to Online Integrity Securing Web services: XML, SOAP, Dig-sig, Encryption http://www.zolera.comReceived on Friday, 4 January 2002 14:39:43 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:05 GMT