On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 10:08 +0100, Raul Benito wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 22:43 -0600, Samuel Meder wrote:
> >> This may very well have fixed one of the problems, but it still did not
> fix the signature mismatch error I'm getting due to c14n. I'll follow
> up
On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 22:43 -0600, Samuel Meder wrote:
> This may very well have fixed one of the problems, but it still did not
> fix the signature mismatch error I'm getting due to c14n. I'll follow up
> with a lot more detail in a bit.
I've attached the following:
ass
On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 20:50 +0100, Raul Benito wrote:
> Samuel Meder wrote:
>
> >We just upgraded to the xmlsec 1.2 RC1 release and started noticing
> >problems with the exclusive c14n implementation. In particular SAML
> >assertion signature validation started to fail
This may very well have fixed one of the problems, but it still did not
fix the signature mismatch error I'm getting due to c14n. I'll follow up
with a lot more detail in a bit.
/Sam
On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 21:26 +0100, Raul Benito wrote:
> Raul Benito wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Shouldn't the xm
We just upgraded to the xmlsec 1.2 RC1 release and started noticing
problems with the exclusive c14n implementation. In particular SAML
assertion signature validation started to fail after the assertion was
sent over the wire (using axis).
The assertion when initially generated declared several red
