Hi Ella
On 21/07/16 02:26, ellachen wrote:
Hi Sergey,

We are very looking forward to getting the release. Currently, there isn't
any other decent implementation for multiple recipient yet.

It just a matter of time before more than one implementation appears :-)

FYI, I've created
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-6974

You might want to experiments with those tests too, such as this one:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7520#section-5.13

We'll start adding these tests to the source code later on (def later on this time :-))

Cheers, Sergey
Cheers,
Ella



Sergey Beryozkin wrote
Hi Ella
On 20/07/16 06:32, ellachen wrote:
Hi Sergey,

Thanks for the quick response and fix the problem in such a short time.
Np, some work still needs to be done to make it a bit simpler.

Specifically, extending JweJsonProducer to get CEK & IV shared is all
right but ideally one would just reuse the same instance of
ContentEncryptionProvider initialized with CEK & IV - but currently
ContentEncryptionProvider implementations (AES GCM, etc which can accept
CEK and IV in constructors) would fail if they are asked to return IV
for more than once - this is correct but in this case it is safe as the
cipher text is created only once, it is only CEK which is encrypted more
than once.

There's also some sub-optimal code there that results in a redundant (
but harmless) Cipher creation for the 2nd/etc recipient

Could you please let us know when are we going to have version 3.1.7?
We are working toward the release, I honestly hope it will be out by the
end of the month

Cheers, Sergey

Cheers,
Ella



--
View this message in context:
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/Multiple-Recipient-for-JAX-RS-JOSE-tp5770495p5770521.html
Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



--
Sergey Beryozkin

Talend Community Coders
http://coders.talend.com/





--
View this message in context: 
http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/Multiple-Recipient-for-JAX-RS-JOSE-tp5770495p5770547.html
Sent from the cxf-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Reply via email to