MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
legalxml-courtfiling message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Strawman non-repudiation issues
From: "Scott Came" <>
To:
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
Non-repudiation, in the sense meant so far on Blue, means that the recipient of a message is provided with some
mechanism to prove, at some later time, that the message originated with a holder of a private key that matches the
public key of some entity certified by a CA to be the holder of same.� (Whew.)� In less obtuse terms, the recipient
can later prove that a particular sender did in fact send a message with the specified contents.� This is presumably a
requirement for Blue (at least for some messages), no?
XML Signature (a part of WS-Security and therefore
the WS-I Basic Security Profile) accomplishes this, does it not?
To address your example, I don't think we
had envisioned clerks or judges denying having sent messages...the primary use case is allowing the court (clerk) to
have proof that a particular filer did in fact send a (filing) message.� Although filers may want the same assurance
on messages coming the other way as well.
A larger issue of non-repudiation (that was once raised but not
resolved on the requirements subcommittee) is that XML Signature does not deal with non-repudiation of attachments,
which for the short term at least will be the significant part of the "payload" (at least in the WS-*
profile.)
> The strawman suggests that message non-repudiation might be provided by WSS.
>
> The WSS SOAP message security 1.0 indicates that (excuse the double
> negative) non-repudiation is a
"non-goal". It is particularly not clear to
> me how proof can be provided back to the sender with
WSS.
>
> What threat scenarios is the message non-repudation services to protect
>
against?
>
> For example is a court considered to be an irrefutable source? If so would
>
non-repudiation protection against later denial by the court representatives
> the clerk and judge be
appropriate? (Excuse any inappropriate thinking from
> a security technician).
>
> The
message reciepts Court and sealing could have a role in providing a form
> of non-repudiation relating to
court submissions but it is not clear how
> this fits in with the requirements.
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. You may a
link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
> at:
>
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
Follow-Ups:
RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Strawman non-repudiation issues
From: "Nick Pope" <>
References:
Strawman non-repudiation issues
From: "Nick Pope" <>
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
