Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

9649Re: [soapbuilders] Re: Super-Encryption AND Digital Signatures

Expand Messages
  • mlong@bridgetonconsulting.com
    Dec 9, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Rich,

      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.

      Thoughts!?!

      -Thx,

      -Matt



      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
      > I-on-behalf-of-C?
      >
      > 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
      > messages.
      >
      > 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.
      > /r$
      >
      > --
      > 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
      >
      >
      >
    • Show all 22 messages in this topic