[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-7088?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15572015#comment-15572015
 ] 

Grzegorz Maczuga commented on CXF-7088:
---------------------------------------

That is highly possible! Please close it.
Thanks Colm.

Greg

> SignedEncryptedSupportingTokens in WS-Policy and SAML not encrypted being 
> accepted
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CXF-7088
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-7088
>             Project: CXF
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 3.0.6
>            Reporter: Grzegorz Maczuga
>            Assignee: Colm O hEigeartaigh
>         Attachments: message_anonymous.txt, policy.txt
>
>
> In WS-Policy that is used by service we have defined 
> <SignedEncryptedSupportingTokens/>
> Some people say that WS-SecurityPolicy 1.2 imply that also SAML assertion 
> that is inside WS-Security section of the message SOAP Header should be 
> encrypted (not only signed).
> Message with SAML that is NOT encrypted is currently accepted by CXF even 
> while policy defines <SignedEncryptedSupportingTokens/>
> Question is: does SAML assertion fall into "SupportingTokens" category and 
> should be encrypted as well?
> What is your view on that? Is that a bug in Neethi?
> See 
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/ws-securitypolicy/200702/ws-securitypolicy-1.2-spec-os.html#_Toc161826566
> Signed, encrypted supporting tokens are Signed supporting tokens (See section 
> 8.2) that are also encrypted when they appear in the wsse:SecurityHeader. 
> Element Encryption SHOULD be used for encrypting the supporting tokens.
> The syntax for the sp:SignedEncryptedSupportingTokens differs from the syntax 
> of sp:SignedSupportingTokens only in the name of the assertion itself. All 
> nested policy is as per the sp:SignedSupportingTokens assertion.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to