[xmlsec] RE: Need urgent help for verify

[Edward Shallow]

My point exactly !!!

If X509Certificate is there, then one can only assume the signer wants you
to use it. In xmlsec we are using the KeyName at "signing time" for
convenience. It does stay in the signature though. The problem is KeyName
gets in the way when verifying. Again, I would vote for precedence order.
Check X509Certificate first. If KeyName is the same (i.e. CN= from
X509Certificate is the same as friendly-name in KeyName) DO NOT GO TO MS
Cert Store as they are the same and the in-signature certificate is fine.
Beside the public cert will not be in the cert store anyway !!!

Aleksey ? 

Ed

-----Original Message-----
From: Jürgen Heiss [mailto:jheiss at Mesonic.com] 
Sent: June 1, 2006 6:53 AM
To: ed.shallow at rogers.com; Aleksey Sanin; xmlsec at aleksey.com
Subject: RE: [xmlsec] RE: Need urgent help for verify

Ups I think I don't understand something.
I call the function

if(xmlSecDSigCtxVerify(&dsigCtx, data->startNode) < 0)  

And how it look this function look in the KeyName and try to get the
certificate from the registry.
But of course the certificate isn't registered. So, what if have to do the
load the certificate which is In the signed XML-doucument. How I can tell
the function xmlSecDSigCtxVerify to get the certificate from the signed xml
File and to don't try to look in the registry because there it will be not?
So how I can handle this that I always load the certificate with which the
document was signed.

Thanks
Jürgen


-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Shallow [mailto:ed.shallow at rogers.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 01. Juni 2006 12:30
To: Jürgen Heiss; 'Aleksey Sanin'; xmlsec at aleksey.com
Subject: RE: [xmlsec] RE: Need urgent help for verify

What do you mean the document is no longer valid ?

If it verifies the References covered by the signature are valid. If the DN
in the certificate refers to the same certifiacte as the friendly name in
the KeyName, the KeyName is redundant. This is what I am doing. I am
removing the Keyname for the verify and then putting it back in for
consistency.

Alternatively you can tell xmlsec which key sources to consult using the
enabledKeyData list. I find this a pain and prefer to check the keys in each
location myself. If you have created the signature yourself and are
subsequently verifying it, you know they are the same. They should rarely
differ. In fact I cannot think of an instance where the contents of
X509Certificate should get overridden by KeyName in a Verify. Even when
including issuer certificates, they end up as more than one X509Certificate.
I buy that if X509Certifiate is not there one can consult KeyName, but
rarely if ever the reverse. But that is just my opinion. I would like to see
an order to the certificate search.

Ed

-----Original Message-----
From: xmlsec-bounces at aleksey.com [mailto:xmlsec-bounces at aleksey.com] On
Behalf Of Jürgen Heiss
Sent: June 1, 2006 2:40 AM
To: Aleksey Sanin; ed.shallow at rogers.com; xmlsec at aleksey.com
Subject: RE: [xmlsec] RE: Need urgent help for verify

Hi everybody,

Well you are right, its really the Keyname. So if I remove the Keyname it
works.
But of course the document isn't anymore valid. Is there a way always to
ignore the keyname and use the the certificate by verify a signed document?
 
What is the 

xmlSecDSigCtx::keyInfoReadCtx->enabledKeyData
xmlSecDSigCtx::keyInfoWriteCtx->enabledKeyData


For? How must I use them?

Thanks I advance.


Jürgen

-----Original Message-----
From: xmlsec-bounces at aleksey.com [mailto:xmlsec-bounces at aleksey.com] On
Behalf Of Aleksey Sanin
Sent: Mittwoch, 31. Mai 2006 22:20
To: ed.shallow at rogers.com; xmlsec at aleksey.com
Subject: Re: [xmlsec] RE: Need urgent help for verify

Yes

xmlSecDSigCtx::keyInfoReadCtx->enabledKeyData
xmlSecDSigCtx::keyInfoWriteCtx->enabledKeyData

Aleksey

ed.shallow at rogers.com wrote:
> Yes you are right !!! I forgot about that.
>  
> You mean the "--enabled-key-data" list in the command line utility ? 
> Where is this in the API ? in the Ctx ?
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Aleksey Sanin <aleksey at aleksey.com>
> To: ed.shallow at rogers.com
> Cc: Jürgen Heiss <jheiss at Mesonic.com>; xmlsec at aleksey.com
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 2:31:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [xmlsec] RE: Need urgent help for verify
> 
>  > Does it not make sense to check X509Certificate first ? Or must we
> > consciously remove KeyName to avoid problems in the mscrypto world
> where  > the chances of actually having the public verification 
> certificate in  > the verifiers mscrypto store is remote at best ?
>  >
> I think, that either signer or verifier should decide if KeyName makes 
> sense for him/her or not. In xmlsec, there is a way to disable KeyName 
> usage for verification, for example.
> 
> Aleksey
_______________________________________________
xmlsec mailing list
xmlsec at aleksey.com
http://www.aleksey.com/mailman/listinfo/xmlsec

_______________________________________________
xmlsec mailing list
xmlsec at aleksey.com
http://www.aleksey.com/mailman/listinfo/xmlsec