I was hoping to do it on the weekend just gone past. If all goes well -
this weekend.
Cheers,
Berin
Bradley Beddoes wrote:
Hi Berin,
Yes confirmed to solve the problem with the latest svn code.
Any rough eta on 1.3.1 official release yet?
bradley
Hi Berin,
Yes confirmed to solve the problem with the latest svn code.
Any rough eta on 1.3.1 official release yet?
bradley
--
Bradley Beddoes
Lead Software Architect
Intient - "Open Source, Open Standards"
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Sorry - I've not been close to email lately :<.
Does the cod
Sorry - I've not been close to email lately :<.
Does the code in SVN fix the problem? If not - let me know, and if you
can provide a test signature as a separate file that should validate but
which doesn't and I'll look see if I can track it down.
Cheers,
Berin
Bradley Beddoes wrote
Hi,
Seems my suspicions were correct it was a c14n issue.
I just found this post from Scott,
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xml-security-dev/200610.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
With my few small tests tonight (I intend to thrash it out more in the
morning) it seems to have also corrected
Bradley Beddoes wrote:
After more investigation I found a few problems with my usage of Xerces
and also some issues with the JAXP validator which I have now stopped
using which were causing problems with root node signatures.
Verification of a signature at the root node is now successful in bo
After more investigation I found a few problems with my usage of Xerces
and also some issues with the JAXP validator which I have now stopped
using which were causing problems with root node signatures.
Verification of a signature at the root node is now successful in both
C++ and Java, howeve
> The problem of invalid references arises in xmlsec-c code base when
> either a document has a single signature whose reference URI is some
> child node of the document or when the root node has a signature AND
> some child node of the document has a signature. (Validation with xerces
> 2.7 always
Additionally to ensure its absolutely clear as I didn't explicitly state
it Signatures are always reported as valid by xmlsec-c for all document
types.
thanks,
Bradley
Bradley Beddoes wrote:
Hi All,
I am hoping that someone on this list may be able to give me some
assistance with a problem
