9649Re: [soapbuilders] Re: Super-Encryption AND Digital Signatures
- Dec 9, 2003Rich,
RSA_Encrypt(SHA1(message) + key1) this looks promising. Also, doesn't
eliminate the need for a xml digital signature.
You see what I'm after, i.e., high security + scalable implementable features
+ compact wire format.
Quoting Rich Salz <rsalz@...>:
> A simpler fix is for the sender to do SHA1(message), and then
> encrypt (key1+digest) with their private key. That's simpler
> because it's a classic digital signature, and its properties are
> well understood.
> The two biggest problems with your current idea are that
> 1. "I" must be online and completely trusted for every single
> message exchange. This gives up all the benefits of public-
> key crypto.
> 2. There's no end-to-end security link. What prevents P from
> using his own keypair to forge a message that looks like
> A simpler fix for your first scheme might be for the sender to include
> RSA_Encrypt(SHA1(message)) alongside the encrypted key1. Then perhaps
> you include a timestamp, so adversaries can't capture and reply old
> I know you think that the standard mechanisms are expensive and full
> of overhead. There's a reason: without them, you leave yourself
> open to various attacks.
> Rich Salz Chief Security Architect
> DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com
> XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
> XML Security Overview http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>