- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 15:45:42 -0500
- To: "Joseph Ashwood" <jashwood@arcot.com>
- Cc: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Joseph, I'm actually not sure I understand your example without the portions of XML, but it sounds like an issue discussed before. The following text was agreed to in the specification to address it: http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-xmldsig-core-20001031/#sec-See >For instance, if an XML document includes an embedded style sheet [XSLT] it >is the transformed document that that should be represented to the user and >signed. To meet this recommendation where a document references an external >style sheet, the content of that external resource should also be signed as >via a signature Reference -- otherwise the content of that external content >might change which alters the resulting document without invalidating the >signature. As Phill points out, Canonical XML provides a serialization of a XML node set, that's it. If you have concerns about other references, that is an application issue as Donald points out. (Consider a weird screw case where some applications might *wish* to make a statement about a URI with dynamic content.) Otherwise, if you want these things to be signed, then sign them in the Signature or package them together in some such archive. At 14:39 1/5/2001 -0800, Joseph Ashwood wrote: >I've found a security risk in canonical XML that I believe needs to be >covered. Simply stated through example (with probably large portions of xml >left out): > >... ><... namespace declaration...> ><agreement>I agree to pay the amount(s) shown in the namespace</agreement> >... > >once signed, can be later altered simply by changing the namespace >declaration from reading "Purchase Barbie for 19.95" to "Purchase Ferrari >for 150,000". The effect being that instead of getting a charge of 19.95 on >the credit card, the charge becomes 150,000. We have seen these security >risks become reality with servers being continually hacked all across the >internet. I can think of no immediate solution outside of embedding the >namespace file in the canonical XML. I don't think this problem will go >away, it will just get worse. > Joe __ Joseph Reagle Jr. W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Monday, 8 January 2001 15:45:48 UTC