Aleksey: Thanks for making these changes. I've pushed aside what I was working on in my application so that I can work with this change. I pulled the XMLSec tips with your changes from CVS and built it on Win32. With one minor problem it builds and runs without any regression errors. I haven't yet tried the new function bit but that is next. As for the one build problem I had, I don't really understand the change you made but if I put it back like it was before, everything is fine. Here's the diff's:
diff -b backup/errors.h errors.h 326c326,327 < #if !defined(__GNUC__) && !defined(_MSC_VER) --- > #if !defined(__GNUC__) Without removing the !defined(_MSC_VER) and allowing the following line ... #define __FUNCTION__ ... to be compiled, I get zillions of errors complaining about __FUNCTION__ being undefined. If this isn't the correct change, please let me know what I'm missing and I'll try that instead. More on the cert verification as soon as I can figure out your example and make the appropriate changes in my code to do something similar. Thanks! Ferrell -----Original Message----- From: Aleksey Sanin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 3:53 AM To: Moultrie, Ferrell (ISSAtlanta) Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [xmlsec] Verify signature after certificate expired I understand the problem with using 0.9.7 and I am waiting for it for a very long time myself :) I've changed XMLSec library so now this "expired certs feature" is supported for both 0.9.6 and 0.9.7. Also I added a test case to my suite to test it. The code is not complicated but it's new code and I would appreciate if you will try this new feature in your environment. I would be glad to help you and fix any bugs you find. The fixed XMLSec version should be in tonight's snapshot or you can get it from GNOME CVS. Thank you in advance, Aleksey Moultrie, Ferrell (ISSAtlanta) wrote: >Aleksey: > I *must* have this stuff -- there's not really another way to do this >without using a never-expiring cert from a private CA -- and that has >it's own set of risks and hazards that are commisurate with, or greater >than, the risk you point out of not expiring a signature after it's >released. For a code and/or data signing application intended *only* to >say that the data was valid at the time it was signed -- and should >remain valid forever -- not having a signature expire is the >proper/desired/required behavior. >For your notes below: > (1) My XML has a timestamp in a predictable format that correspond >precisely to the time of signing so this isn't an issue in my case. Not >a problem. > (2) Yucky because this is extra work in the application which I was >avoiding -- but that's still not a big problem since verification setup >time isn't absolutely critical to my application. > (3) I believe I understand your POV and the tradeoffs -- they just >don't change how my application *must* behave. > > If you can either prototype the required code for 0.9.6g or give me as >good a pointer as you can to what should be done and where, I'll check >it out and test it with my application. I'm very appreciative of what >you've done so far -- but I just can't use 0.9.7 in our general-release >applications at this time. Too much testing -- too many unknowns -- too >hard to explain if it turns out to have a critical security >issue/bug/etc. Thanks again for whatever you can do to help me move >forward. Finding out about this today is painful/inconvenient -- but >much better than finding out about it next year when all our >applications suddenly shut down. Hopefully QA would have found this soon >(I just turned the X509 stuff over to them) but if we'd missed it, it >would have been very painful. >Ferrell > > > _______________________________________________ xmlsec mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.aleksey.com/mailman/listinfo/xmlsec
