W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-encryption@w3.org > August 2000

Re: encryption in XML & in SMIME

From: Don Davis <dtd@world.std.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 08:24:41 -0500
Message-Id: <l03110709b5d16628cf5c@[208.192.101.88]>
To: Malte Borcherding <Malte.Borcherding@brokat.com>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie>
Cc: xml-encryption@w3.org

Malte Borcherding wrote:

>... I do not consider a system insecure which does
> not mandate sign/wrap/sign security.

mr. borcherding,

neither do i.  i don't propose that signed & encrypted
xml documents should carry an extra signature.  i do
propose that that xml documents should instead use
explicit embedded names, whenever signature and encryp-
tion are used together.  if neither an extra signature
nor embedded names are included, in signed & encrypted
xml documents, then the message is not fully secure.

it seems plain that the xml encryption specification
should guide developers towards secure implementations.
yes, such guidance will constrain applications somewhat.
such constraint is always a price of secure operation.


Stephen Farrell wrote:
> ...for the specific case of signed(wrapped(msg)), since
> the keyInfo in the Signature carries identification, if
> that were inside the encryption then the solution would
> be neat.

conversely, for wrapped(sign(msg)), the signed text should
include the decryptor's keyinfo (or some other form of his
name).

					- don davis, boston





-
Received on Tuesday, 29 August 2000 08:25:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:17 GMT