RE: doubt with enveloped signature concept

Francisco Sepulveda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/08/2008 02:55:46 PM: > Michael, if i understand right the http://www.remote-server.com/file.doc > by definition (w3c) is a detached signature because it point to a > "thing" located external to the signature itself "Enveloped or enveloping sign

Re: doubt with enveloped signature concept

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/08/2008 02:30:00 PM: > Francisco Sepulveda wrote: > > Hello, I'm having problems with respect to what i understand about the > > concept of an "enveloped signature" > > > > The W3C define the signature as /"The signature is over the XML content > > that contains the

Re: No provider for SHA-256

I am not sure how to use SHA-256 as a cipher algorithm, and doubt you would use a public key from a certificate with it. Also, since you seem to be encrypting a significant amount of data I'd suggest you generate a symmetric key (TRIPLEDES or AES), encrypt the data ("rootElement") with it, and t

Re: Encrypt xml with private key

I think you are using 256 bit encryption with the limited strenth jurisdiction files. See: Java Cryptography Extension (JCE), Unlimited Strength Jurisdiction Policy Files 1.4.2 (http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/download.html#docs) Regards, Mike "huang zhimin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 09/21/2

Re: What is XMLUtils::addReturnToElement for?

r implementations relay on this) > > Regards, > > Raul > > On 4/4/07, Michael McIntosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was refering to the Java version - but my notation has betrayed my C++ > roots ;-) > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/04/2007 03:31:49 PM: &

Re: What is XMLUtils::addReturnToElement for?

I was refering to the Java version - but my notation has betrayed my C++ roots ;-) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/04/2007 03:31:49 PM: > Hi Mike, > With your notation I think you are referring to C++ version. Don't you? > On 4/4/07, Michael McIntosh < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>

What is XMLUtils::addReturnToElement for?

ike to not need to redistribute my modified Apache source code. Thanks, Mike Michael McIntosh Java and Web Services Security Group Security, Privacy, and Extensible Technologies Department IBM Research

Re: C++ library checking openssl version properly?

Seems strange - I would expect them all to be defined since 0x0090801fL > 0x00908000 > 0x00907000. Mike Michael McIntosh Web Services Security Group Security, Networking, and Privacy Department IBM Research "Scott Cantor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 08/21/2006 04:0

Re: CanonicalizerSpi

lem in the ant build scripts the 1.4 beta0 does NOT > have include JSR105 API but this weekend I will do a new release. > With new funcionality and I can create a zip with the javadoc if you want. > That will be ok for you? > > Regards, > > Raul > On 6/28/06, Mich

Re: CanonicalizerSpi

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 06/26/2006 10:09:31 AM: > Can you be more specific about what the problem is? > > Also, the next release of Apache XML Security (1.4) will include JSR 105 > (Java XML DSig API). The JSR 105 API allows you to implement your own > Canonicalization (or Transform) algori

Re: CanonicalizerSpi

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 06/26/2006 10:09:31 AM: > Can you be more specific about what the problem is? The problem is that there is no equivalent to _transformObject in the CanonicalizerSpi. An implementation of a Transform can include the following code in order to access any parameter value

CanonicalizerSpi

I am trying to implement a Canonicalization algorithm using the XML Security framework. My algorithm needs to access values(parameters) from elements passed as children of the CanonicalizationMethod element (similar to InclusiveNamespaces with Exclusive C14N). The schema[1] (below) provided for