Support for EC crypto?

[Stefan Santesson]

Let me immediately expand the question also to the use of RSASSA-PSS (http://www.w3.org/2007/05/xmldsig-more#rsa-pss) for signatures.

A main reason for my question is that I currently review the new EU interop specifications for corss-border SAML.
It seems to be anything but main-stream.

It requires RSASSA-PSS 3072 for signatures on SAML messages and AES-128-gcm or AES-256-gcm for encrypting XML objects such as assertions.
It also allows EC

I have a feeling that this will cause major problems and use of custom code that will introduce far more security problems than the algoritms ans modes they try to ban.

/Stefan



On 13/09/15 22:35, "users on behalf of Stefan Santesson" <users-bounces at shibboleth.net on behalf of stefan at aaa-sec.com> wrote:

>Thanks Scott!
>
>On the same subject, what about AEAD instead of CBC for encrypted Assertions?
>
>/Stefan
>
>
>
>
>
>On 13/09/15 19:55, "users on behalf of Cantor, Scott" <users-bounces at shibboleth.net on behalf of cantor.2 at osu.edu> wrote:
>
>>On 9/13/15, 5:16 AM, "users on behalf of Stefan Santesson" <users-bounces at shibboleth.net on behalf of stefan at aaa-sec.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Is there any known limitations of Shibboleth and other major SAML product with regards to algorithm support, in particular EC.
>>
>>It's never gotten much testing, and zero interest, so I'm not prepared to even speculate much on what might work or not.
>>
>>The SP's support for it would be dependent on the OpenSSL build. EC support was added I think to xml-security-c 1.7.0 and I'm fairly sure doesn't go back before V2.5.
>>
>>Don't know about the old IdP. It's in about the same state in V3 as with the SP, largely untested.
>>
>>I would be surprised if it worked much at all on any other implementations.
>>
>>-- Scott
>>
>>-- 
>>To unsubscribe from this list send an email to users-unsubscribe at shibboleth.net
>
>-- 
>To unsubscribe from this list send an email to users-unsubscribe at shibboleth.net