Re: [w3c/payment-request] Applying "Detached" JWS Signatures to PaymentRequest (#714)

@marcoscaceres and @stpeter, the issue raised by @cyberphone is entirely valid and a major reason why JOSE sucks as much as it does for signatures (the signature is applied to base64 encoded data which must be decoded and compared to any clear JSON to ensure they are actually the same data).

It has been the source of major vulnerabilities in JOSE signatures and also part of the reason so many people immediately recoil if you say you want to use JOSE as your signature standard. 

Because of _history_, there is no guarantee that JSON parsers respect ordering unless they are compliant with the very latest ECMAScript specs.

Critically, the fact that browsers do respect ordering is irrelevant because it is not just browsers that will create and validate the signatures that may be included in Payment Requests.

I would suggest that this issue remains closed and a new one is opened under the encryption and tokenization TF to suggest the use of detatched signatures as an alternative to JOSE for the WG to consider in exploring standards for encryption and signing.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/payment-request/issues/714#issuecomment-391678711