9621Re: [soapbuilders] Re: Super-Encryption AND Digital Signatures
- Dec 3 9:21 AMQuoting Rich Salz <rsalz@...>:
> In talking it over with a colleague here, we did find one weakness inYou are correct, but sender-2-recipient is secured AFAIK, e.g., using SSL to
> your scheme. Once the recipient has unwrapped the outer part, and then
> unwrapped the internal key, they can forge any message and make it
> appear as if it came from the sender. I don't know if you're worried
> about that or not. "But you promised me $10,000. not $1,000. See, I have
> your original message."
send credit card info to a processor doesn't guarantee the processor isn't
publishing the information to a chat room, but you inherently trust that VISA
isn't doing that. Only the sender and the intended recipient can see/decrypt
the information. Right!?!
>I have doubts about Kerberos in the short-term, because of the overhead of
> One way to fix this might be to include a signed hash of the original
> You should look at PKCS#7 (sorry I wasn't clear, when I said what's
> wrong with a standard I meant any standard, not just XML DSIG).
> As for your intermediary approach.. you know about Kerberos, right?
ticket exchange and the decentralization of KDCs. One can certainly utilize
Kerberos intra-enterprise effectively as generally you are working with a
single KDC, but once you start scaling with reckless abandon outside the
enterprise engineering issues compond rather quickly.
This is a good discussion.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>