[Security] Re: e2e feedback
stpeter at jabber.org
Fri Mar 16 22:08:39 CDT 2007
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Matthias Wimmer wrote:
>>> But still I keep saying that the protocol we are looking for is XML
>>> Signature and XML Encryption, that have been defined by the W3C.
>>> This are standards specially made to sign and encrypt XML data, so it is
>>> exactly what we need. And even while I asked on the standards JID,
>>> could yet tell me, what would be a problem with this standards.
>> FWIW, Peter Guttmann has some piquant things to say about
>> xmlenc/xmldsig here:
>> Though he also thinks that RFC 3923 was a great idea, so YMMV...
> I always considered 3923 a pretty decent idea since it was practical ...
Practical, other than the PKI dependency (or can you use self-signed
certificates?) and the CPIM usage (which developers hate, there are no
CPIM parsers) and the MIME stuff (very much not jabberish). As someone
once said, S/MIME is the only known security technology with more
implementations than users. :)
> xml security related specs have always been a mess to implement (reminds
> me a lot of the SOAP bloat).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/security/attachments/20070316/fdbc4b09/smime.bin
More information about the Security