XML Signature Requirements

Reagle, J.

doi:10.17487/rfc2807

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, a computer science department may not have an exclusionary policy towards female students, but privileging a narrow and obsessive focus might miss female candidates. Similarly, while some might argue any effort to block problematic users is a step away from openness, a chaotic culture of undisciplined vandals would equally disenfranchise those who wish to make a positive contribution [12]. Hence, following Freeman, one might distinguish between formal and informal forms of discrimination.…”

Section: Opennessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Free as in sexist?” Free culture and the gender gap

Reagle

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the values of freedom and openness, the free culture movement's gender balance is as skewed (or more so) as that of the computing culture from which it arose. Based on the collection and analysis of discourse on gender and sexism within this movement over a six-year period. I suggest three possible causes: (a) some geek identities can be narrow and unappealing; (b) open communities are especially susceptible to difficult people; and, (c) the ideas of freedom and openness can be used to dismiss concerns and rationalize the gender gap as a matter of preference and choice.

show abstract

Section: Opennessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Free as in sexist?” Free culture and the gender gap

Reagle

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The processing rule and syntax of XML Signature meet some requirements [Reagle 2008]: XML-signature data structures are based on the RDF data model. Multiple XML-signatures must be able to co-exist over the content of an XML Document given varied keys, content transformations, and algorithm specifications (signature, hash, canonicalization, etc.).…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Canonical Form for PROV Documents and Its Application to Equality, Signature, and Validation

Moreau

2017

ACM Trans. Internet Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a canonical form for PROV that is a normalized way of representing PROV documents as mathematical expressions. As opposed to the normal form specified by the PROV-CONSTRAINTS recommendation, the canonical form we present is defined for all PROV documents, irrespective of their validity, and it can be serialized in a unique way. The article makes the case for a canonical form for PROV and its potential uses, namely: comparison of PROV documents in different formats, validation, and signature of PROV documents. A signature of a PROV document allows the integrity and the author of provenance to be ascertained; since the signature is based on the canonical form, these checks are not tied to a particular encoding, but can be performed on any representation of PROV.

show abstract

“…The XML Signature specification (hereafter 'xmldsig'; see [5] and [6]) is also a complicated document, servicing an elaborate set of requirements [7]. These requirements include being able to sign arbitrary fragments of a document, support for detached signatures, the ability to sign composite documents listed in a manifest, signatures in the presence of XLink and XPointer external references, and being able to sign various transformations of the input including XSLT transformations.…”

Section: Xml Canonicalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Xoxa: a lightweight approach to normalizing and signing XML

Gray

2015

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cryptographically signing XML, and normalizing it prior to signing, are forbiddingly intricate problems in the general case. This is largely because of the complexities of the XML Information Set. We can define a more aggressive normalization, which dispenses with distinctions and features which are unimportant in a large class of cases, and thus define a straightforwardly implementable and portable signature framework.

show abstract

XML Signature Requirements

Abstract: This document lists the design principles, scope, and requirements for the XML Digital Signature specification. It includes requirements as they relate to the signature syntax, data model, format, cryptographic processing, and external requirements and coordination.

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

“Free as in sexist?” Free culture and the gender gap

“Free as in sexist?” Free culture and the gender gap

A Canonical Form for PROV Documents and Its Application to Equality, Signature, and Validation

Xoxa: a lightweight approach to normalizing and signing XML

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About