[xmlsec] namespace definition significant ?
roland.hedberg at adm.umu.se
Wed Apr 13 07:20:03 PDT 2011
Hmm, looking at the XML again I'm not so sure anymore.
Sorry, I might have misled you, not giving you the whole picture.
The fact is that what I'm verifying is a SAML Response where the Assertion is signed.
The whole document contains a xmlns:xsi specification, namely at the top, in the Response element.
But if you only look at the Assertion element by itself there is none.
The Assertion element is a child to the Response element, hence it doesn't have to have the xmlns:xsi specification since a parent has it.
The same goes for the Attributes elements that exist below the Assertion element.
But this is only if you look at the Reponse as a XML document.
Does the fact that the Assertion element is a signed element force the inclusion of a xmlns:xsi specification in the Assertion tree ?
Ignoring what is defined in unsigned parent elements ?
Phrased differently *MUST* the Assertion element be self contained ?
On Apr 13, 2011, at 15:42, Aleksey Sanin wrote:
> On 4/13/11 6:41 AM, Roland Hedberg wrote:
>> Trying to find out why a signature verification failed.
>> So, I compared what I got and what xmlsec1 has as predigest data.
>> Nothing that I could see except for the fact that xmlsec1 in the predigest data has add xmlns specifications for xsi.
>> <ns1:Attribute FriendlyName="eduPersonEntitlement" Name="urn:oid:18.104.22.168.4.1.5922.214.171.124.7" NameFormat="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:attrname-format:uri"><ns1:AttributeValue xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:type="xs:string">foo</ns1:AttributeValue></ns1:Attribute>
>> The original was:
>> <ns1:Attribute FriendlyName="eduPersonEntitlement" Name="urn:oid:126.96.36.199.4.1.59188.8.131.52.7" NameFormat="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:attrname-format:uri"><ns1:AttributeValue xsi:type="xs:string">foo</ns1:AttributeValue></ns1:Attribute>
>> Is this significant ??
>> xmlsec mailing list
>> xmlsec at aleksey.com
More information about the xmlsec