DO NOT REPLY [Bug 47353] Bug in canonicalization from an XPathNodeList

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47353 Scott Cantor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: htt

RE: Canonicalization Validation

Eduardo Mourão wrote on 2009-07-30: > Well, I have a signed XML that I would really appreciate if you people can > tell me if it's signature is valid or not. It's not even valid XML as attached, so my guess is you corrupted it somehow. > I'm really running out of options. Out partner did set > X

Re: Canonicalization Validation

Well, I have a signed XML that I would really appreciate if you people can tell me if it's signature is valid or not. I'm really running out of options. Out partner did set XmlDocument.PreserveWhitespace = true and that was my last resort. Our validator says it is completely valid, but our .NET

Re: Canonicalization Validation

Scott Cantor wrote: Inconsistent c14n has caused us to have validation failures in the past, and I have found no decent way to finding out what exactly the canonicalizer output looks like. I've had to use the debugger and set the "os" stream to a FileOutputStream in DOMReferen

RE: Canonicalization Validation

> Inconsistent c14n has caused us to have validation failures in the past, and > I have found no decent way to finding out what exactly the canonicalizer > output looks like. I've had to use the debugger and set the "os" stream to a > FileOutputStream in DOMReference.transform(Data, XMLCryptoContex

Re: Canonicalization Validation

this would be allowed. This would go a long way in helping understand why validation of a message failed. Thoughts? Eduardo Mourão 07/24/2009 11:55 AM Please respond to security-dev@xml.apache.org To security-dev@xml.apache.org cc Subject Re: Canonicalization Validation Unfortunel

RE: Canonicalization Validation

First, you should know that if your partner's validator removes whitespace from the signed document (in most contexts) before attempting to validate the signature, it does not conform to the digital signature specification. The canonicalization spec is very clear that most whitespace mu

Re: Canonicalization Validation

2009 10:50 AM > *To:* security-dev@xml.apache.org > *Subject:* Canonicalization Validation > > Hi, > > I'm having problems with .NET interoperability. My software receives signed > XML documents and validates them, but, when I send to one of our partners (a > .NET solution) i

RE: Canonicalization Validation

n't a clue. From: Eduardo Mourão [mailto:eduardo@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:50 AM To: security-dev@xml.apache.org Subject: Canonicalization Validation Hi, I'm having problems with .NET interoperability. My software receives signe

Canonicalization Validation

76W99+T8XyLs2qmMRctrWLwn8uIN7OMrVH4XvSRpbPztc1iDyNKXP/Ol2UdiTfynQ+OAgUOzKXoHa8EEu6St3SNvGgg= How can I validate the canonicalization of an incoming signed XML file? Thank you very much, Eduardo Mourão

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 47353] Bug in canonicalization from an XPathNodeList

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47353 Scott Cantor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Version|unspec

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 47353] Bug in canonicalization from an XPathNodeList

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47353 --- Comment #6 from Scott Cantor 2009-06-13 13:12:19 PST --- After trying to understand the code, you're definitely correct that the fix isn't going to be just removing the check inside the printNamespace method. My reading of the alg

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 47353] Bug in canonicalization from an XPathNodeList

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47353 --- Comment #5 from Scott Cantor 2009-06-13 10:28:31 PST --- Confirmed with latest (soon to be 1.5.0) code and without Xalan. Doesn't occur if the canonicalizer is run directly on the marked element, so definitely requires the XPath "

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 47353] Bug in canonicalization from an XPathNodeList

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47353 --- Comment #4 from Scott Cantor 2009-06-11 08:32:43 PST --- That's why I'm reluctant to fix it, since I didn't write any of the code. Let me see if we can poke Berin about it and have him review it. -- Configure bugmail: https://iss

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 47353] Bug in canonicalization from an XPathNodeList

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47353 --- Comment #3 from John Keeping 2009-06-11 08:21:56 PST --- I was about to attach the same patch I posted to the mailing list at http://article.gmane.org/gmane.text.xml.security.devel/6707 but I've thought about it a bit more and I t

Re: [PATCH] xml-security-c: Potential bug in canonicalization from an XPathNodeList

Scott Cantor wrote: > Can you please file all of that in the bugzilla? Filed as bug 47353 (as you've probably seen!) > I'm very reluctant to make changes to that code because I don't understand > it, and don't have any easy way to run any regressions using test vectors, > but I'll take a look at

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 47353] Bug in canonicalization from an XPathNodeList

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47353 --- Comment #2 from John Keeping 2009-06-11 08:11:35 PST --- Created an attachment (id=23795) --> (https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23795) Test file for use with the above program This file can be used to test be

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 47353] Bug in canonicalization from an XPathNodeList

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47353 --- Comment #1 from John Keeping 2009-06-11 08:09:33 PST --- Created an attachment (id=23794) --> (https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23794) Test case which demonstrates the buggy behaviour -- Configure bugmail: h

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 47353] New: Bug in canonicalization from an XPathNodeList

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47353 Summary: Bug in canonicalization from an XPathNodeList Product: Security Version: unspecified Platform: PC OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal

RE: [PATCH] xml-security-c: Potential bug in canonicalization from an XPathNodeList

Can you please file all of that in the bugzilla? I'm very reluctant to make changes to that code because I don't understand it, and don't have any easy way to run any regressions using test vectors, but I'll take a look at it. One question, is this just Enveloped by itself, or is any actual use o

[PATCH] xml-security-c: Potential bug in canonicalization from an XPathNodeList

ies but not xml-security-c, so I believe xml-security-c is at fault. By dumping out the byte stream at the point of digest generation, I think I've narrowed this down to the XSECC14n20010315 canonicalization in the case where it's fed by a XPathNodeList as provided by an enveloped signa

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 45961] verify with own canonicalization method

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45961 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 45961] verify with own canonicalization method

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45961 --- Comment #9 from Anton Kosyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-15 03:24:53 PST --- I sign document with enveloped transform and own canonicaliztion method. Document verification is finishing with error in a work of transformer Transfor

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 45961] verify with own canonicalization method

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45961 Anton Kosyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 45961] verify with own canonicalization method

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45961 --- Comment #8 from Anton Kosyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-15 03:01:24 PST --- Created an attachment (id=22732) --> (https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22732) Bug 45961 test case 3. -- Configure bugmail: http

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 45961] verify with own canonicalization method

||FIXED --- Comment #7 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-14 08:18:12 PST --- Fixed in the latest source tree. The problem was that if you define a custom canonicalization method, the SignedInfo element is canonicalized and replaced before validating the signature and

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 45961] verify with own canonicalization method

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45961 Anton Kosyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|NEW --- Co

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 45961] verify with own canonicalization method

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45961 Anton Kosyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 45961] verify with own canonicalization method

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45961 Anton Kosyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #22689|0 |1 is o

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 45961] verify with own canonicalization method

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45961 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 45961] verify with own canonicalization method

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45961 Anton Kosyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED -

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 45961] verify with own canonicalization method

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45961 --- Comment #3 from Anton Kosyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-07 21:51:17 PST --- > You say you parsed it into a new document, so did you use Document.importNode > when replacing the SignedInfo in the original document? See org.apach

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 45961] verify with own canonicalization method

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45961 --- Comment #2 from Anton Kosyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-07 21:48:06 PST --- Created an attachment (id=22689) --> (https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22689) Bug 45961 test case. (Eclipse project) -- Configur

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 45961] verify with own canonicalization method

from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-10-07 06:55:04 PST --- (In reply to comment #0) > I developed own canonicalization method and register it. Sign with my method > perform successful, but verify finished with error: Cannot find SignatureValue > in Signature. Constructor SignedInfo(Elemen

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 45961] New: verify with own canonicalization method

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45961 Summary: verify with own canonicalization method Product: Security Version: unspecified Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows XP Status: NEW Severity: normal

Re: Cannot reproduce #41462 (canonicalization issue with non-ascii chars)

Rafael wrote: Hi, Our software is using xmlsec-1.4.1. However, we are very interested on reproducing that canonicalization issue that showed up in 1.4.0 by replacing 1.4.1 with 1.4.0 in our software and testing. After a quick look into the bug description and the CanonicalizerBase.java file, we

Cannot reproduce #41462 (canonicalization issue with non-ascii chars)

Hi, Our software is using xmlsec-1.4.1. However, we are very interested on reproducing that canonicalization issue that showed up in 1.4.0 by replacing 1.4.1 with 1.4.0 in our software and testing. After a quick look into the bug description and the CanonicalizerBase.java file, we expected the

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 41846] - Canonicalization failed with some latin2 characters

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40156] - Canonicalization fails with German umlauts

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Re: canonicalization

frofis sdm.ru> writes: > > Whether instead of exists the project under C ++ Builder > or > help to connect xsec_1.lib to C ++ Builder > implib does not help > > I have made a feat - have collected xsec under C ++ Builder6 to whom it is necessary - address

canonicalization

Whether instead of exists the project under C ++ Builder or help to connect xsec_1.lib to C ++ Builder implib does not help

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 41846] - Canonicalization failed with some latin2 characters

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 41846] New: - Canonicalization failed with some latin2 characters

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41846 Summary: Canonicalization failed with some latin2 characters Product: Security Version: unspecified Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows XP Status: NEW Severity: critical Priority: P1 Com

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40032] - subtree canonicalization produces incorrect result

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40031] - subtree canonicalization produces incorrect result

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 36638] - Canonicalization of a DocumentFragment node always throws a c14n exception

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40031] - subtree canonicalization produces incorrect result

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40156] - Canonicalization fails with German umlauts

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40156] - Canonicalization fails with German umlauts

import javax.xml.parsers.DocumentBuilderFactory; import org.apache.xml.security.signature.XMLSignatureInput; import org.apache.xml.security.transforms.Transforms; import org.w3c.dom.Document; import org.w3c.dom.Node; public class CanonByTransform { // The äöü in line 5 causes canonicalization to fail static String

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40156] - Canonicalization fails with German umlauts

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40156] New: - Canonicalization fails with German umlauts

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40156 Summary: Canonicalization fails with German umlauts Product: Security Version: Java 1.3 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: critical Priority: P1 Component: Canonicali

Re: Canonicalization bug

Strange, Please fill a bug. We are going to make a relese anytime soon. And that is a important bug. On 7/25/06, Dominik Schadow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello, I discovered a problem when canonicalizing German umlauts like ä (ä in html in case it gets lost in my mail) in version 1.3 with J

Canonicalization bug

Hello, I discovered a problem when canonicalizing German umlauts like ä (ä in html in case it gets lost in my mail) in version 1.3 with Java 1.5 (probably with different Java versions too). This happens when calling the Canonicalizer directly, like in the three samples provided (CanonDirect.jav

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40032] - subtree canonicalization produces incorrect result

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40032] New: - subtree canonicalization produces incorrect result

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40032 Summary: subtree canonicalization produces incorrect result Product: Security Version: Java 1.3 Platform: Other OS/Version: other Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P1 Com

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 40031] New: - subtree canonicalization produces incorrect result

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40031 Summary: subtree canonicalization produces incorrect result Product: Security Version: Java 1.3 Platform: Other OS/Version: other Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P1 Com

Re: subtree c14n canonicalization

Hi Robert, You found a bug and a strange one, thanks a lot. The fix is only one line(really). Can you write a bug report, so we can track the problem. Thanks again, Regards, Raul On 7/12/06, Robert Shanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Raul Benito apache.org> writes: > > It seems really weir

Re: subtree c14n canonicalization

Raul Benito apache.org> writes: > > It seems really weird to me > the correct one mast be with xmlns="" > http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#";> > Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315";> > > But this case is really tested and stressed in real life. > Can you post the co

Re: subtree c14n canonicalization

(Keytools and xml-sec). I've slightly altered the XML from the CanonSubtree sample by adding xmlns="" to the CanonicalizationMethod element. The second chunk of XML is the result of Apache xml-sec 1.3 subtree (SignedInfo) canonicalization. http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#";&

subtree c14n canonicalization

="" to the CanonicalizationMethod element. The second chunk of XML is the result of Apache xml-sec 1.3 subtree (SignedInfo) canonicalization. http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#";> http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315";> http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#rsa-sha1";

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 36638] - Canonicalization of a DocumentFragment node always throws a c14n exception

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 36638] - Canonicalization of a DocumentFragment node always throws a c14n exception

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 36638] New: - Canonicalization of a DocumentFragment node always throws a c14n exception

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36638 Summary: Canonicalization of a DocumentFragment node always throws a c14n exception Product: Security Version: Java 1.2.1 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity:

RE: Exclusive canonicalization problem

évrier 2005 10:14 > À : security-dev@xml.apache.org > Objet : Re: Exclusive canonicalization problem > > Of course, You must use setAttributeNS always don't ever use a DOM > call without the suffixs NS. (In my humble opinion they must burried > the DOM api for this ;) ). >

Re: Exclusive canonicalization problem

sh"); > > Do I have to create it using setAttributeNS()? > > The parser is the latest xerces version. > Thks in advance > Regards > > Cédric > > > -Message d'origine- > > De : Raul Benito [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Envoyé : jeudi 10 fév

RE: Exclusive canonicalization problem

AttributeNS()? The parser is the latest xerces version. Thks in advance Regards Cédric > -Message d'origine- > De : Raul Benito [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Envoyé : jeudi 10 février 2005 07:29 > À : security-dev@xml.apache.org > Objet : Re: Exclusive canonicalizat

Re: Exclusive canonicalization problem

Hi Cedric, Your case is very strange indeed. I use this kind of c14n and I've never found a problem(and is a very common case so more people and the test cases will also fail). So I thinking that perhaps the DOM parser to blame, so: which java version and in which OS are you using? Which DOM par

Exclusive canonicalization problem

I have a problem with the exclusive canonicalizer without comments class in the xml security 1.2 source code.   I have the following document :     1.0         sk+4JImZCG+IV4/c+Pw9FeAbhuc=         316532319             If I canonicalize the previous document

Re: Canonicalization problem of XML containing a XML signature

the last source code > from CVS and the associated library. > > Cédric > > -Message d'origine- > De : Cédric POTHIN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Envoyé : mardi 25 janvier 2005 15:54 > À : security-dev@xml.apache.org > Objet : Canonicalization problem of X

Re: Possible bug in exclusive canonicalization

Hi, This fix will be unnecesary in the next release of xmlsec(1.2.1 release). Are you going to write a book(or chapter) about xml-sec? Are you goint to strees the library a little. If you find any problem please don't hesitate to report, in order to be include in the 1.2.1 release. Regards, Raul

xml:base bug in exclusive canonicalization

This probably isn't a bug in XML-Security. However I suspect it's a problem with more recent versions of Xalan or Xerces or some such that affects XML-security. The same program that I wrote about in my earlier message generates output like the following when it's pulling in elements from exter

Re: Possible bug in exclusive canonicalization

On further investigation this bug appears to be related to the reuse of the Canonicalizer object. Changing the processTests method to create a new Canonicalizer before canonicalizing each document as follows fixes the problem. private static void processTests(DocumentBuilder domBuilder, Ele

Possible bug in exclusive canonicalization

When processing xmltest/invalid/002.xml from the W3C XML conformance test suite using exclusive canonicalization with comments in XML-Security 1.2, the results are: However, the input document is: 002.ent is The result should be This bug is seen by my program which follows. It would be

RE: Canonicalization problem of XML containing a XML signature

Sorry I forget to say that I use the last source code from CVS and the associated library. Cédric -Message d'origine- De : Cédric POTHIN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé : mardi 25 janvier 2005 15:54 À : security-dev@xml.apache.org Objet : Canonicalization problem of XML contain

Canonicalization problem of XML containing a XML signature

Hi all, I have a strange issue regarding the canoncicalization of a XML Document containing a XML signature. This canonicalization is required to insert a signature value of the whole document at the end of the document. If I don't insert the XML signature in my document the canonicalizati

RE: XML-Signature + canonicalization

-2004-05-12.html   --Larry -Original Message-From: Blake Dournaee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 2:15 PMTo: 'von Neefe, Achim'Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: XML-Signature + canonicalization Achim,   Canonicalization is i

RE: XML-Signature + canonicalization

Title: Message Achim,   Canonicalization is intended to normalize changes during XML parsing and processing, and doesn’t normalize all white space in general. The reason why is because white space is significant in an XML document, so adding white space in between elements is the same as

RE: XML-Signature + canonicalization

PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Girish Juneja'Subject: RE: XML-Signature + canonicalization Hello Achim,   I think it would be fair to say that when XML Signature was just maturing most of the implementation details that caused trouble had to do with one form of canoni

RE: XML-Signature + canonicalization

Title: XML-Signature + canonicalization Hello Achim,   I think it would be fair to say that when XML Signature was just maturing most of the implementation details that caused trouble had to do with one form of canonicalization or another. If you add to this the additional exclusive

XML-Signature + canonicalization

Title: XML-Signature + canonicalization Hi all, I apologize if this is not the right forum for the following questions. One of our partners intended to use XML-Signature, but now claims that there are too many interoperability problems with the canonicalization algorithm. Can someone

Canonicalization with external DTD

I provide a BaseURI for the canonicalization? xml:base=”URI” in root element doesn’t work. My Java code looks like that: DocumentBuilderFactory dbf = DocumentBuilderFactory.newInstance(); dbf.setNamespaceAware(true); DocumentBuilder db = dbf.newDocumentBuilder(); db.setErrorHandler(new

RE: canonicalization fails

Title: canonicalization fails Hi,   I found the problem. I had to use element.setAttributeNS( namespaceUri, namespacePrefix + ":" + attributeName, attributeValue ). Also, for the namespace definition attributes, the syntax I use is element.setAttributeNS( "http://www.w3

canonicalization fails

Title: canonicalization fails Hi all, Here is the scenario:  - I parse an XML from an stream.  - I use the Document instance to create a new Element node (elNode). I add two attributes to it. One of these attributes is a namespace definition. I add it using elNode.setAttribute

Re: [C++] - varification, canonicalization, serialization

Hi, I did as you said but the problem is still unresolved :(. When I've looked into doc, etc. a have discovered, that problem is in XSECCanon. When my xml doc return from there to node attributes are sorted in such (in my opinion) strange way: and it should be (as far as I understand r

Re: [C++] - varification, canonicalization, serialization

Andrew, You should not need to canonicalise prior to serialisation. The main point of canonicalisation is that it will take an XML input and produce the same byte sequence every time, provided the input has not materially changed. So in the serialised XML, you can do things like change to

[C++] - varification, canonicalization, serialization

Hi, I create xml document, add Singature node, create signature and then serialize document in such way: --begin- XMLCh tempStr[100]; XMLString::transcode("LS", tempStr, 99); DOMImplementation *impl =DOMImplementationRegistry::getD