Re: [dev] Digital signatures in OOo. What about OOo 3.0?
Hi Joachim, Joachim Lingner wrote: Giuseppe Castagno wrote: Hi all, ... The idea was to write an extension to sign, but it seems that ATM OOo lacks the needed stuff, e.g. it doesn't seem possible to sign a document with a 3rd part signature method. Thats true. There is currently no way of plugin in a different mechanismn let alone something to switch between the them. Actually I found a bunch of services in that area (an example [1]), but almost all are tagged as 'unpublished'. True. 'unpublished' because not supported or what? Are there any plan to implement this in 3.x codeline? No, afaik. I see, lack of resources or some other reason? There is also the problem that the GUI code is mixed up signing logic. This needs to be separated. One could also think of an options page where the user could select different signing methods. However, there is nothing planned yet. I had a look to the code stuff. It seems all inside xmlsec module. If I have specific questions to the current code, is there a dedicated ML to ask for? Giuseppe. -- Kind Regards, Giuseppe Castagno [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Acca Esse http://www.acca-esse.eu - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Digital signatures in OOo. What about OOo 3.0?
I learned that there are document load and document save events which could be received by an extension. This could be some kind of entry point for a signature service in an extension. But then again you need to provide your own dialog. You could of cause use the low level services (unpublished) but with the risk that the implementation breaks later. Or you may also try to disentangle the code of the document signature service to have a clearly separated GUI packed into a UNO service. Then you could use this GUI as well from your extension. -Joachim Joachim Lingner wrote: Giuseppe Castagno wrote: Hi Joachim, Joachim Lingner wrote: Giuseppe Castagno wrote: Hi all, ... The idea was to write an extension to sign, but it seems that ATM OOo lacks the needed stuff, e.g. it doesn't seem possible to sign a document with a 3rd part signature method. Thats true. There is currently no way of plugin in a different mechanismn let alone something to switch between the them. Actually I found a bunch of services in that area (an example [1]), but almost all are tagged as 'unpublished'. True. 'unpublished' because not supported or what? unpublished interfaces can be changed, removed at any time. So if you write an extension you should use always published ones. Are there any plan to implement this in 3.x codeline? No, afaik. I see, lack of resources or some other reason? Well, you are the first to ask for such a pluggable signature framework AFAIK. Given that it is a useful feature, and I think it is, there is still the question of who is going to do it. In that sense it is always a question of priority and resources. There is also the problem that the GUI code is mixed up signing logic. This needs to be separated. One could also think of an options page where the user could select different signing methods. However, there is nothing planned yet. I had a look to the code stuff. It seems all inside xmlsec module. If I have specific questions to the current code, is there a dedicated ML to ask for? Please ask on [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Joachim Giuseppe. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Digital signatures in OOo. What about OOo 3.0?
Having a Plugin doing the signature verification is one thing. The Plugin could even alert the user in case the signature is broken. But right now there is no way to get that information into the OOo framework, which then makes sure that the status occurs in the status bar, and that the signature status can be used for the macro security level stuff Malte. Joachim Lingner wrote, On 03/04/08 17:08: I learned that there are document load and document save events which could be received by an extension. This could be some kind of entry point for a signature service in an extension. But then again you need to provide your own dialog. You could of cause use the low level services (unpublished) but with the risk that the implementation breaks later. Or you may also try to disentangle the code of the document signature service to have a clearly separated GUI packed into a UNO service. Then you could use this GUI as well from your extension. -Joachim Joachim Lingner wrote: Giuseppe Castagno wrote: Hi Joachim, Joachim Lingner wrote: Giuseppe Castagno wrote: Hi all, ... The idea was to write an extension to sign, but it seems that ATM OOo lacks the needed stuff, e.g. it doesn't seem possible to sign a document with a 3rd part signature method. Thats true. There is currently no way of plugin in a different mechanismn let alone something to switch between the them. Actually I found a bunch of services in that area (an example [1]), but almost all are tagged as 'unpublished'. True. 'unpublished' because not supported or what? unpublished interfaces can be changed, removed at any time. So if you write an extension you should use always published ones. Are there any plan to implement this in 3.x codeline? No, afaik. I see, lack of resources or some other reason? Well, you are the first to ask for such a pluggable signature framework AFAIK. Given that it is a useful feature, and I think it is, there is still the question of who is going to do it. In that sense it is always a question of priority and resources. There is also the problem that the GUI code is mixed up signing logic. This needs to be separated. One could also think of an options page where the user could select different signing methods. However, there is nothing planned yet. I had a look to the code stuff. It seems all inside xmlsec module. If I have specific questions to the current code, is there a dedicated ML to ask for? Please ask on [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Joachim Giuseppe. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Digital signatures in OOo. What about OOo 3.0?
Hi Malte, you underestimate the capabilities of our framework. :-) Even if not everything is already implemented, the things you pointed out shouldn't be a big deal: status update in status bar is possible already, an API to transfer the signature state to the document shouldn't be so hard to implement, even the current UI should be usable. Ciao, Mathias Malte Timmermann wrote: Having a Plugin doing the signature verification is one thing. The Plugin could even alert the user in case the signature is broken. But right now there is no way to get that information into the OOo framework, which then makes sure that the status occurs in the status bar, and that the signature status can be used for the macro security level stuff Malte. Joachim Lingner wrote, On 03/04/08 17:08: I learned that there are document load and document save events which could be received by an extension. This could be some kind of entry point for a signature service in an extension. But then again you need to provide your own dialog. You could of cause use the low level services (unpublished) but with the risk that the implementation breaks later. Or you may also try to disentangle the code of the document signature service to have a clearly separated GUI packed into a UNO service. Then you could use this GUI as well from your extension. -Joachim Joachim Lingner wrote: Giuseppe Castagno wrote: Hi Joachim, Joachim Lingner wrote: Giuseppe Castagno wrote: Hi all, ... The idea was to write an extension to sign, but it seems that ATM OOo lacks the needed stuff, e.g. it doesn't seem possible to sign a document with a 3rd part signature method. Thats true. There is currently no way of plugin in a different mechanismn let alone something to switch between the them. Actually I found a bunch of services in that area (an example [1]), but almost all are tagged as 'unpublished'. True. 'unpublished' because not supported or what? unpublished interfaces can be changed, removed at any time. So if you write an extension you should use always published ones. Are there any plan to implement this in 3.x codeline? No, afaik. I see, lack of resources or some other reason? Well, you are the first to ask for such a pluggable signature framework AFAIK. Given that it is a useful feature, and I think it is, there is still the question of who is going to do it. In that sense it is always a question of priority and resources. There is also the problem that the GUI code is mixed up signing logic. This needs to be separated. One could also think of an options page where the user could select different signing methods. However, there is nothing planned yet. I had a look to the code stuff. It seems all inside xmlsec module. If I have specific questions to the current code, is there a dedicated ML to ask for? Please ask on [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Joachim Giuseppe. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS Please don't reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]. I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] Digital signatures in OOo. What about OOo 3.0?
Hi all, I'm part of an Italian group of developers that are seeking a way to implement the signature of OOo documents according to the standard laid out by the Italian Public Administration. The idea was to write an extension to sign, but it seems that ATM OOo lacks the needed stuff, e.g. it doesn't seem possible to sign a document with a 3rd part signature method. Actually I found a bunch of services in that area (an example [1]), but almost all are tagged as 'unpublished'. Are there any plan to implement this in 3.x codeline? I mean, plans to implement 3rd parties signature infrastructure for ODF documents. It seems that ODF 1.2 has a clean support for this, whereas ODF 1.0 had not. -- Kind Regards, Giuseppe Castagno Acca Esse http://www.acca-esse.eu [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] http://api.openoffice.org/docs/common/ref/com/sun/star/xml/crypto/XMLSignature.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Digital signatures in OOo. What about OOo 3.0?
Giuseppe Castagno wrote: Hi all, I'm part of an Italian group of developers that are seeking a way to implement the signature of OOo documents according to the standard laid out by the Italian Public Administration. The idea was to write an extension to sign, but it seems that ATM OOo lacks the needed stuff, e.g. it doesn't seem possible to sign a document with a 3rd part signature method. Thats true. There is currently no way of plugin in a different mechanismn let alone something to switch between the them. Actually I found a bunch of services in that area (an example [1]), but almost all are tagged as 'unpublished'. True. Are there any plan to implement this in 3.x codeline? No, afaik. There is also the problem that the GUI code is mixed up signing logic. This needs to be separated. One could also think of an options page where the user could select different signing methods. However, there is nothing planned yet. -Joachim I mean, plans to implement 3rd parties signature infrastructure for ODF documents. It seems that ODF 1.2 has a clean support for this, whereas ODF 1.0 had not. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
