Andreas, Andreas Kuehne-3 wrote > would we be better off if iText doesn't use the given provider for > hashing? The specified provider is usually intended for the signing stuff. > And BC is always a good choice for hashing algorithms.
That can be a solution, too. Maybe, though, someone prefers a specific digest algorithm implementation but cannot guarantee the provider being positioned at an early enough position in the provider list. On the other hand iText cannot consider all tiny special cases and such persons should create their signature containers externally. Most important in my eyes, though, is to make the provider handling in iText consistent --- if excluding SunPKCS11 when retrieving a digest algorithm once, it should be done in all similar contexts. Regards, Michael -- View this message in context: http://itext-general.2136553.n4.nabble.com/iText-5-3-0-digital-signature-problem-tp4655635p4655642.html Sent from the iText - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ iText-questions mailing list iText-questions@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/itext-questions iText(R) is a registered trademark of 1T3XT BVBA. Many questions posted to this list can (and will) be answered with a reference to the iText book: http://www.itextpdf.com/book/ Please check the keywords list before you ask for examples: http://itextpdf.com/themes/keywords.php
