Oh, I stand mistaken then. This is something I haven't yet read about. Glen
Steve Shaw wrote: > > That is generally true. I would much rather sign the messages using a > PKI, but it looks like signing with the UT is a concept that has been > popularized by .NET's WSE and that is the model that is used by the > specification I am implementing. > > As far as I can tell, WSS4J supports this via the WsConstants.UT_SIGN > and WsHandlerConstants.SIGN_WITH_UT_KEY actions. > > I was hoping that CXF was able to support this extension of the > standard. If that is not the case then I'm going to have to roll my own > solution. > > -Steve > > On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 23:34 -0700, Glen Mazza wrote: >> Your premise seems bad. You sign messages with a private key, not a >> username. >> >> http://www.jroller.com/gmazza/entry/implementing_ws_security_with_the >> >> Glen > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/WS-Security-UsernameToken-signature-with-CXF-tp19187950p19216904.html Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
