- From: Ed Simon <ed.simon@entrust.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 13:59:29 -0500
- To: "'xml-encryption@w3.org'" <xml-encryption@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <A0E1DEC54ED42F4884DD9EEA00ACE37106D18E@sottmxs08.entrust.com>
The flexibility and power of XML Signature and XML Encryption requires a paradigm shift in how security professionals and application professionals think about security. I would even go further and say that even XML itself requires a paradigm shift in how security is approached. This isn't just an issue for XML Signature/Encryption but also for SAML, XACML, and whatever security-related XML may come along. When a decision is made to use XML and/or an XML-aware security mechanism, the designers of the system need to take into account why and how XML Security is different. This will require the involvement of XML Security expertise which will only come with experience. At this time, the best (that is, the safest) approach is to start with basic functionality, keeping things as simple as possible. Though a paradigm shift is ultimately required, in the early stages, it may be best for developers to start by simply using XML Signature and XML Encryption just as if they were an XML-ized PKCS#7 or CMS. Then once a good comfort level has been reached, and perhaps with the aid of an XML Security consultant, more advanced applications of XML Security can be incorporated. Ed -----Original Message----- From: Thane Plambeck [mailto:tplambeck@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 12:25 PM To: 'xml-encryption@w3.org' Subject: Signing encrypted data & PKCS7/CMS thoughts Ed writes: > The wonderful thing about XML Signature and XML Encryption is that it is very flexible in ways that simply were not possible with CMS and PKCS7. Although I agree with this in spirit, it's also our biggest problem in my opinion. To the extent that we enable app developers to reuse keys, combine signature/encryption, etc, we run risks of creating footholds for cryptanalysis that aren't present in PKCS7/CMS. Publishing a spec that puts the burden of cryptanalytic soundness on the app developer is a useless, probably even dangerous activity. Suppose I believe that CMS and PKCS7 have a sound treatment of signing and encryption from a cryptanalytic point of view. It would be great if I knew that any cryptanalytic attack on my XML Encryption/XML SIgnature application would lift to a PKCS 7 attack, ie, that my XML app is at least as secure as PKCS7. Maybe there could be PKCS7 "profile" or something? Whether this is possible or even a reasonable way to think of this I don't know. Thane Plambeck VeriSign
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2001 14:00:10 UTC