Profile Configuration and meaning of "conditional" setting

[Cantor, Scott]

On 4/27/12 8:52 AM, "Lukas Hämmerle" <lukas.haemmerle at switch.ch> wrote:
>
>If not and given that there are people who think that the agent (user)
>should not be allowed to see the assertion containing information about
>him and given that there may be use cases were this is justified, I
>wonder: Are there other reasons that speak against adding another
>setting besides "always", "never", "conditional" that would allow
>sending unencrypted assertions via the user agent if the transport is
>secure?

I believe (I'm sure Brent or Chad will correct me) that the plan for V3
was to make that a plug point instead of a hardwired set of options.

But for the record, this issue touches on the complex problems with XML
Encryption that have pretty much broken it. We can't move to authenticated
ciphers thanks to OpenSSL not including them, so using encryption now
means signing responses and enforcing that requirement at the SP (coming
in 2.5).

Since that's a very difficult thing to make happen (it means touching lots
of systems), it's best to think of encryption as non-trivial obfuscation
at this point.

-- Scott