Martin, read the thread again. Did you read the first mail?

I specified the problem in the first mail (including the versions). I was
asking for help, I was not posting a bug (I didn't know it could be a bug).

Your answers were confusing. I had to tell you that I wanted to use
rsa-sha1 signatures for *three times*.

Denigrating tone? You said my question is no-op. I've been quite polite so
far.

Just a suggestion: if you want to help, please try to read and understand
the questions. Otherwise, it's just empty bragging.

Thanks for your time (again).
Regards.





On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 2:16 AM, Martin Gainty <mgai...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Enrique Soriano <
> enrique.sori...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Martin, I really appreciate your efforts to help me, but I think you
> didn’t understand the problem.
>
> The client stubs generated by Axis2 1.7.1 were sending rsa-sha256
> signatures, this is a fact.
>
> MG>faux pas as you should be posting version specific bugs at
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AXIS2
> MG>for your edification dont use this email list for one off version
> specific possible bugs
> MG>this is for versions that have already been released not for issues on
> new (unreleased) versions are addressed here
> MG>nobody could track the version you were implementing as you were always
> assuming we knew
> MG>In the future watch your denigrating tone, dont assume we know what
> version you are using
> MF>obey the rules and you should be ok if not you be will ignored
> MG>adios
>
> The server I need to use requires rsa-sha1 signatures, this is a fact.
>
> The client stubs generated by Axis2 1.6.4 are sending rsa-sha1 signatures,
> this is a fact.
>
> The client and the server can *now* verify the request/responses, this is
> a fact.
>
> My question was not a no-op.
>
>
> Thanks again.
> Regards.
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Martin Gainty <mgai...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> for my understanding and to be clear
>
> 1)you are not implementing rsa-sha256 on Initiator or recipient so the
> rsa-sha256 question is a no-op
>
> 2)you are not implementing EncryptedKeySHA1  which is for
> encryption/decryption only
>
> 3)if the web-service is implementing rsa-sha1
> Martin Gainty
> ______________________________________________
>
>  _____ _          _____             _          _____     ___ _                
>         _____               _     _   _
> |_   _| |_ ___   |  _  |___ ___ ___| |_ ___   |   __|___|  _| |_ _ _ _ ___ 
> ___ ___   |   __|___ _ _ ___ _| |___| |_|_|___ ___
>   | | |   | -_|  |     | . | .'|  _|   | -_|  |__   | . |  _|  _| | | | .'|  
> _| -_|  |   __| . | | |   | . | .'|  _| | . |   |
>   |_| |_|_|___|  |__|__|  _|__,|___|_|_|___|  |_____|___|_| |_| |_____|__,|_| 
> |___|  |__|  |___|___|_|_|___|__,|_| |_|___|_|_|
>                        |_|
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:57:11 +0100
> > Subject: Re: WSsecurity: SignatureMethod error
> > From: enrique.sori...@gmail.com
> > To: java-user@axis.apache.org
> >
> > Hi Martin, thanks for your response (again).
> >
> > I've solved the problem by downgrading to axis2-1.6.4. Now the client
> > stubs generated by wsdl2java work ok.
> >
> > Maybe it's just a bug in Axis2 2-1.7.1 (??).
> >
> > >> how would client signing with rsa-sha1 algorithm be able to
> communicate with any webservice expecting rsa-sha256 signature?
> >
> > This web service expects a rsa-sha1, as I said in previous messages.
> >
> > According to [1] and [2], WS SecurityPolicy specifies that rsa-sha1
> > must be the signature algorithm. I'm not familiar with WS Security
> > anyway.
> >
> > Regards.
> > Enrique
> >
> > Refs:
> >
> > [1]
> https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_JBoss_Fuse/6.0/html/Web_Services_Security_Guide/files/MsgProtect-SOAP-SpecifyAlgorithmSuite.html
> MG>this is what Fuse supports..one work around is to implement with Apache
> ESB which supports OASIS spec
> MG>speaking of which ..lets reference the OASIS spec on Asymmetric Binding
> to make sure we are on the same page
> MG>if for no other reason than 99% of Financial Institutions only
> implement X509 tokens..so if your implementation
> MG>does not support X509 you wont be able to implement in majority of
> financial institutions
> MG>below is a verbatim parroting of OASIS spec:
>
> C.3.1 Policy
>
> The following example shows a policy indicating an Asymmetric Binding,
> an X509 token as the [Initiator Token],
> an X509 token as the [Recipient Token],
> an algorithm suite, a requirement to encrypt the message parts before
> signing,
> a requirement to encrypt the message signature,
> a requirement to include tokens in the message signature and the
> supporting signatures,
> a requirement to include wsse11:SignatureConfirmation elements,
> a username token attached to the message, and finally an X509 token
> attached to the message and endorsing the message signature.
> Minimum message protection requirements are described as well.
>
> <!-- Example Endpoint Policy -->
> <wsp:Policy xmlns:wsp="..." xmlns:sp="...">
>   <sp:AsymmetricBinding>
>     <wsp:Policy>
>       <sp:RecipientToken>
>         <wsp:Policy>
>           <sp:X509Token sp:IncludeToken=".../IncludeToken/Always" />
>         </wsp:Policy>
>      </sp:RecipientToken>
>      <sp:InitiatorToken>
>        <wsp:Policy>
>          <sp:X509Token sp:IncludeToken=".../IncludeToken/Always" />
>        </wsp:Policy>
>      </sp:InitiatorToken>
>      <sp:AlgorithmSuite>
>        <wsp:Policy>
>          <sp:Basic256 />
>        </wsp:Policy>
>      </sp:AlgorithmSuite>
>      <sp:Layout>
>         <wsp:Policy>
>           <sp:Strict />
>         </wsp:Policy>
>      </sp:Layout>
>      <sp:IncludeTimestamp />
>      <sp:EncryptBeforeSigning />
>      <sp:EncryptSignature />
>      <sp:ProtectTokens />
>    </wsp:Policy>
>   </sp:AsymmetricBinding>
>   <sp:SignedEncryptedSupportingTokens>
>     <wsp:Policy>
>       <sp:UsernameToken sp:IncludeToken=".../IncludeToken/Once" />
>     </wsp:Policy>
>   </sp:SignedEncryptedSupportingTokens>
>   <sp:SignedEndorsingSupportingTokens>
>     <wsp:Policy>
>       <sp:X509Token sp:IncludeToken=".../IncludeToken/Once">
>
>         <wsp:Policy>
>
>           <sp:WssX509v3Token10 />
>
>         </wsp:Policy>
>
>       </sp:X509Token>
>     </wsp:Policy>
>   </sp:SignedEndorsingSupportingTokens>
>   <sp:Wss11>
>     <wsp:Policy>
>       <sp:RequireSignatureConfirmation />
>     </wsp:Policy>
>   </sp:Wss11>
> </wsp:Policy>
>
>
>
> <!-- Example Message Policy -->
> <wsp:All xmlns:wsp="..." xmlns:sp="...">
>   <sp:SignedParts>
>     <sp:Header Name="Header1" Namespace="..." />
>     <sp:Header Name="Header2" Namespace="..." />
>     <sp:Body/>
>   </sp:SignedParts>
>   <sp:EncryptedParts>
>     <sp:Header Name="Header2" Namespace="..." />
>     <sp:Body/>
>   </sp:EncryptedParts>
> </wsp:All>
>
>
> MG>by Jboss Fuse doc the Algorithm Suite sp:Basic256 for signature
> encryption is wrong?
>  <sp:AlgorithmSuite>
>        <wsp:Policy>
>          <sp:Basic256 />
>        </wsp:Policy>
>      </sp:AlgorithmSuite>
> MG>Jboss Fuse requirements states there is no algorithm other than
> dsa-rsa1 supported?
> MG>but OASIS standards DO support encryption of SIGNATURES with sp:Basic256
> MG>is OASIS incorrect?
>
> > [2] http://cxf.apache.org/docs/ws-securitypolicy.html
> MG>assertions are misleading but the CYA statement is DOB accurate when
> they point to the original OASIS spec with this statement:
>
> TheWS-SecurityPolicy specification
> <http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/ws-securitypolicy/v1.3/ws-securitypolicy.html>
>  allows
> for specifying things like asymmetric/symmetric keys, using transports
> (https) for encryption, which parts/headers to encrypt or sign, whether to
> sign then encrypt or encrypt then sign, whether to include timestamps,
> whether to use derived keys, etc... Basically, it describes what actions
> are necessary to securely interact with the service described in the WSDL.
>
> MG>Additional Note: does CXF tell you that if you use camelcase names for
> ComplexElements you will fubar CXF wsdl2java?
> MG>i have a 4 year old string of emails that documents this fatal error
>
> MG>CONCLUSION
> MG>take everything you read from vendors with a grain of salt
> MG>its is always a good idea to go back to the original specification for
> the source of truth
> MG>Saludos Enrique
>
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Martin Gainty <mgai...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > Item1:
> > >
> > > SHA1 is used for encryption/decryption only
> > >
> > > http://coheigea.blogspot.com/2013/03/signature-and-encryption-key.html
> > >
> > > Item2:
> > >
> > > <sp:AsymmetricBinding >
> > > <wsp:Policy>
> > > <sp:InitiatorToken>
> > > <wsp:Policy>
> > > <sp:X509Token
> > > sp:IncludeToken="
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/ws-securitypolicy/200702/IncludeToken/AlwaysToRecipient
> ">
> > > <wsp:Policy>
> > > <sp:WssX509V3Token10/>
> > > </wsp:Policy>
> > > </sp:X509Token>
> > > </wsp:Policy>
> > > </sp:InitiatorToken>
> > > <sp:RecipientToken>
> > > <wsp:Policy>
> > > <sp:X509Token
> > > sp:IncludeToken="
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/ws-securitypolicy/200702/IncludeToken/AlwaysToRecipient
> ">
> > > <wsp:Policy>
> > > <sp:WssX509V3Token10/>
> > > </wsp:Policy>
> > > </sp:X509Token>
> > > </wsp:Policy>
> > > </sp:RecipientToken>
> > > <sp:AlgorithmSuite>
> > > <wsp:Policy>
> > > <sp:Basic128/>
> > > </wsp:Policy>
> > > </sp:AlgorithmSuite>
> > >
> > > notice that AlgorithmSuite sp:Basic128 is common to both initiator and
> > > recipient
> > >
> > > how would client signing with rsa-sha1 algorithm be able to
> communicate with
> > > any webservice expecting rsa-sha256 signature?
> > >
> > > Please explain
> > > Martin
> > > ______________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 19:34:04 +0100
> > > Subject: RE: WSsecurity: SignatureMethod error
> > > From: enrique.sori...@gmail.com
> > > To: java-user@axis.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mar 9, 2016 15:34, "Martin Gainty" <mgai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> 2000 spec you are
> > >> currently implementing:
> > >> <ds:KeyInfo xmlns:ds="http://
> > >>www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#">
> > >>
> > >> does not acommodate
> > >>256 bit signatures
> > >>
> > >> your current option will only
> > >>allow 2000 xmldsig spec which is why
> > >>you are defaulting to rsa-sha1
> > >>algorithm in SignatureMethod
> > >
> > > I want to use rsa-sha1, I don't want to use rsa-sha256 (which is the
> > > signature method my client is currently using).
> > >
> > > Regards.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@axis.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@axis.apache.org
> >
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to