[
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)
