>>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> writes:
Stephen> (jumping in with little context...)
Stephen> On 10/02/2012 02:34 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> I think that we need to have a mandatory-to-implement policy for
>> signature handling to guarantee interoperability. I think that
>> mandatory-to-implement policy should be ignore the signature in
>> all its bulk.
Stephen> Defining signature "handling" as ignoring the signature
Stephen> would seem very insecure, no? How'd you justify that?
But something that can actually be implemented. The idea that you could
actually construct a usable PKI is sufficiently preposterous that it
need not be considered:-)
OK, now that we've squared off, let me try and make a serious
contribution.
The SAML signature mechanism is anselary to the security approach that
we're using for this.
I think a lot of us would like to not even support signatures in this
SAML binding because we believe that the hop-by-hop integrity is
sufficient and because those signatures will create interoperability
problems.
It seems silly to me though to reject a request because it is signed
when you would hapilly accept the same request were the signature
stripped.
_______________________________________________
abfab mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
