Re: WSsecurity: SignatureMethod error

Andreas Veithen <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.text.xml.axis.user
Message-ID <CADx4_uVh8pgu+SrFHtk8zTG8dYDpjHEvnQU1wcLCb55q20Ur9w@mail.gmail.com>
I looked at the version history and the following commit seems to be
related:

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1087600&view=rev

Maybe that's the change between 1.6.4 and 1.7.0 that explains your issue.

Andreas

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Enrique Soriano <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hi Martin, I really appreciate your efforts to help me, but I think you
> didn’t understand the problem.
>
> The client stubs generated by Axis2 1.7.1 were sending rsa-sha256
> signatures, this is a fact.
>
> The server I need to use requires rsa-sha1 signatures, this is a fact.
>
> The client stubs generated by Axis2 1.6.4 are sending rsa-sha1 signatures,
> this is a fact.
>
> The client and the server can *now* verify the request/responses, this is
> a fact.
>
> My question was not a no-op.
>
>
> Thanks again.
> Regards.
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Martin Gainty <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> for my understanding and to be clear
>>
>> 1)you are not implementing rsa-sha256 on Initiator or recipient so the
>> rsa-sha256 question is a no-op
>>
>> 2)you are not implementing EncryptedKeySHA1  which is for
>> encryption/decryption only
>>
>> 3)if the web-service is implementing rsa-sha1
>> Martin Gainty
>> ______________________________________________
>>
>>  _____ _          _____             _          _____     ___ _                        _____               _     _   _
>> |_   _| |_ ___   |  _  |___ ___ ___| |_ ___   |   __|___|  _| |_ _ _ _ ___ ___ ___   |   __|___ _ _ ___ _| |___| |_|_|___ ___
>>   | | |   | -_|  |     | . | .'|  _|   | -_|  |__   | . |  _|  _| | | | .'|  _| -_|  |   __| . | | |   | . | .'|  _| | . |   |
>>   |_| |_|_|___|  |__|__|  _|__,|___|_|_|___|  |_____|___|_| |_| |_____|__,|_| |___|  |__|  |___|___|_|_|___|__,|_| |_|___|_|_|
>>                        |_|
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:57:11 +0100
>> > Subject: Re: WSsecurity: SignatureMethod error
>> > From: [email protected]
>> > To: [email protected]
>> >
>> > Hi Martin, thanks for your response (again).
>> >
>> > I've solved the problem by downgrading to axis2-1.6.4. Now the client
>> > stubs generated by wsdl2java work ok.
>> >
>> > Maybe it's just a bug in Axis2 2-1.7.1 (??).
>> >
>> > >> how would client signing with rsa-sha1 algorithm be able to
>> communicate with any webservice expecting rsa-sha256 signature?
>> >
>> > This web service expects a rsa-sha1, as I said in previous messages.
>> >
>> > According to [1] and [2], WS SecurityPolicy specifies that rsa-sha1
>> > must be the signature algorithm. I'm not familiar with WS Security
>> > anyway.
>> >
>> > Regards.
>> > Enrique
>> >
>> > Refs:
>> >
>> > [1]
>> https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_JBoss_Fuse/6.0/html/Web_Services_Security_Guide/files/MsgProtect-SOAP-SpecifyAlgorithmSuite.html
>> MG>this is what Fuse supports..one work around is to implement with
>> Apache ESB which supports OASIS spec
>> MG>speaking of which ..lets reference the OASIS spec on Asymmetric
>> Binding to make sure we are on the same page
>> MG>if for no other reason than 99% of Financial Institutions only
>> implement X509 tokens..so if your implementation
>> MG>does not support X509 you wont be able to implement in majority of
>> financial institutions
>> MG>below is a verbatim parroting of OASIS spec:
>>
>> C.3.1 Policy
>>
>> The following example shows a policy indicating an Asymmetric Binding,
>> an X509 token as the [Initiator Token],
>> an X509 token as the [Recipient Token],
>> an algorithm suite, a requirement to encrypt the message parts before
>> signing,
>> a requirement to encrypt the message signature,
>> a requirement to include tokens in the message signature and the
>> supporting signatures,
>> a requirement to include wsse11:SignatureConfirmation elements,
>> a username token attached to the message, and finally an X509 token
>> attached to the message and endorsing the message signature.
>> Minimum message protection requirements are described as well.
>>
>> <!-- Example Endpoint Policy -->
>> <wsp:Policy xmlns:wsp="..." xmlns:sp="...">
>>   <sp:AsymmetricBinding>
>>     <wsp:Policy>
>>       <sp:RecipientToken>
>>         <wsp:Policy>
>>           <sp:X509Token sp:IncludeToken=".../IncludeToken/Always" />
>>         </wsp:Policy>
>>      </sp:RecipientToken>
>>      <sp:InitiatorToken>
>>        <wsp:Policy>
>>          <sp:X509Token sp:IncludeToken=".../IncludeToken/Always" />
>>        </wsp:Policy>
>>      </sp:InitiatorToken>
>>      <sp:AlgorithmSuite>
>>        <wsp:Policy>
>>          <sp:Basic256 />
>>        </wsp:Policy>
>>      </sp:AlgorithmSuite>
>>      <sp:Layout>
>>         <wsp:Policy>
>>           <sp:Strict />
>>         </wsp:Policy>
>>      </sp:Layout>
>>      <sp:IncludeTimestamp />
>>      <sp:EncryptBeforeSigning />
>>      <sp:EncryptSignature />
>>      <sp:ProtectTokens />
>>    </wsp:Policy>
>>   </sp:AsymmetricBinding>
>>   <sp:SignedEncryptedSupportingTokens>
>>     <wsp:Policy>
>>       <sp:UsernameToken sp:IncludeToken=".../IncludeToken/Once" />
>>     </wsp:Policy>
>>   </sp:SignedEncryptedSupportingTokens>
>>   <sp:SignedEndorsingSupportingTokens>
>>     <wsp:Policy>
>>       <sp:X509Token sp:IncludeToken=".../IncludeToken/Once">
>>
>>         <wsp:Policy>
>>
>>           <sp:WssX509v3Token10 />
>>
>>         </wsp:Policy>
>>
>>       </sp:X509Token>
>>     </wsp:Policy>
>>   </sp:SignedEndorsingSupportingTokens>
>>   <sp:Wss11>
>>     <wsp:Policy>
>>       <sp:RequireSignatureConfirmation />
>>     </wsp:Policy>
>>   </sp:Wss11>
>> </wsp:Policy>
>>
>>
>>
>> <!-- Example Message Policy -->
>> <wsp:All xmlns:wsp="..." xmlns:sp="...">
>>   <sp:SignedParts>
>>     <sp:Header Name="Header1" Namespace="..." />
>>     <sp:Header Name="Header2" Namespace="..." />
>>     <sp:Body/>
>>   </sp:SignedParts>
>>   <sp:EncryptedParts>
>>     <sp:Header Name="Header2" Namespace="..." />
>>     <sp:Body/>
>>   </sp:EncryptedParts>
>> </wsp:All>
>>
>>
>> MG>by Jboss Fuse doc the Algorithm Suite sp:Basic256 for signature
>> encryption is wrong?
>>  <sp:AlgorithmSuite>
>>        <wsp:Policy>
>>          <sp:Basic256 />
>>        </wsp:Policy>
>>      </sp:AlgorithmSuite>
>> MG>Jboss Fuse requirements states there is no algorithm other than
>> dsa-rsa1 supported?
>> MG>but OASIS standards DO support encryption of SIGNATURES with
>> sp:Basic256
>> MG>is OASIS incorrect?
>>
>> > [2] http://cxf.apache.org/docs/ws-securitypolicy.html
>> MG>assertions are misleading but the CYA statement is DOB accurate when
>> they point to the original OASIS spec with this statement:
>>
>> TheWS-SecurityPolicy specification
>> <http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/ws-securitypolicy/v1.3/ws-securitypolicy.html> allows
>> for specifying things like asymmetric/symmetric keys, using transports
>> (https) for encryption, which parts/headers to encrypt or sign, whether to
>> sign then encrypt or encrypt then sign, whether to include timestamps,
>> whether to use derived keys, etc... Basically, it describes what actions
>> are necessary to securely interact with the service described in the WSDL.
>>
>> MG>Additional Note: does CXF tell you that if you use camelcase names for
>> ComplexElements you will fubar CXF wsdl2java?
>> MG>i have a 4 year old string of emails that documents this fatal error
>>
>> MG>CONCLUSION
>> MG>take everything you read from vendors with a grain of salt
>> MG>its is always a good idea to go back to the original specification for
>> the source of truth
>> MG>Saludos Enrique
>>
>> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Martin Gainty <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > > Item1:
>> > >
>> > > SHA1 is used for encryption/decryption only
>> > >
>> > >
>> http://coheigea.blogspot.com/2013/03/signature-and-encryption-key.html
>> > >
>> > > Item2:
>> > >
>> > > <sp:AsymmetricBinding >
>> > > <wsp:Policy>
>> > > <sp:InitiatorToken>
>> > > <wsp:Policy>
>> > > <sp:X509Token
>> > > sp:IncludeToken="
>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/ws-securitypolicy/200702/IncludeToken/AlwaysToRecipient
>> ">
>> > > <wsp:Policy>
>> > > <sp:WssX509V3Token10/>
>> > > </wsp:Policy>
>> > > </sp:X509Token>
>> > > </wsp:Policy>
>> > > </sp:InitiatorToken>
>> > > <sp:RecipientToken>
>> > > <wsp:Policy>
>> > > <sp:X509Token
>> > > sp:IncludeToken="
>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/ws-securitypolicy/200702/IncludeToken/AlwaysToRecipient
>> ">
>> > > <wsp:Policy>
>> > > <sp:WssX509V3Token10/>
>> > > </wsp:Policy>
>> > > </sp:X509Token>
>> > > </wsp:Policy>
>> > > </sp:RecipientToken>
>> > > <sp:AlgorithmSuite>
>> > > <wsp:Policy>
>> > > <sp:Basic128/>
>> > > </wsp:Policy>
>> > > </sp:AlgorithmSuite>
>> > >
>> > > notice that AlgorithmSuite sp:Basic128 is common to both initiator and
>> > > recipient
>> > >
>> > > how would client signing with rsa-sha1 algorithm be able to
>> communicate with
>> > > any webservice expecting rsa-sha256 signature?
>> > >
>> > > Please explain
>> > > Martin
>> > > ______________________________________________
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ________________________________
>> > > Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 19:34:04 +0100
>> > > Subject: RE: WSsecurity: SignatureMethod error
>> > > From: [email protected]
>> > > To: [email protected]
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Mar 9, 2016 15:34, "Martin Gainty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> 2000 spec you are
>> > >> currently implementing:
>> > >> <ds:KeyInfo xmlns:ds="http://
>> > >>www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#">
>> > >>
>> > >> does not acommodate
>> > >>256 bit signatures
>> > >>
>> > >> your current option will only
>> > >>allow 2000 xmldsig spec which is why
>> > >>you are defaulting to rsa-sha1
>> > >>algorithm in SignatureMethod
>> > >
>> > > I want to use rsa-sha1, I don't want to use rsa-sha256 (which is the
>> > > signature method my client is currently using).
>> > >
>> > > Regards.
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>> >
>>
>
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.