On 2/27/07, Raul Benito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Jason,
Sorry for the delay.
See my comments inline
On 2/23/07, jason marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> Raul,
>
> I'm not sure I can be as helpful as Yvan, having a more modest and
> polite test suite, but I have a bit of Unicode and spe
test cases before you plan to release a
new version to get a second feekback concerning the strongness of the
library: 4 eyes is better than 2 eyes :-)
>
> Regards. Yvan
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Raul Benito
> Sent: mar
Regards. Yvan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Raul Benito
Sent: mardi, 13. février 2007 12:18
To: security-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: Signed document can be corrupted in certain circumstances
Hi Hess,
It is my fault, we have a &q
ss of the library: 4 eyes is better than 2 eyes :-)
Regards. Yvan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Raul Benito
Sent: mardi, 13. février 2007 12:18
To: security-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: Signed document can be corrupted in ce
Hi Hess,
It is my fault, we have a "critic" bug
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41462 , the problem
is that I was thinking in 8bits instead of 32bits. now it is quite
fixed in head but we are having a problem with some part of unicode. I
think I will do a 1.4.1 with this bug and
Hi everybody,
I think I found a critical bug into XML security V1.4.0 (Java). A XML document
signed with Apache XML security can be corrupted in certain circumstances.
Here are the start conditions and the results I have:
1. XML document encoding in "UTF-8" having a UNICODE character "\u26
