-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 173
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
support inclusive namespaces #48
Comments
So I am experiencing the problem described #43 , the xml response from the server contains to following
You mention in #43 there is a possible workaround that you will e-mail the user. Could you possibly post that work around? Thanks in advance. |
Hi I have manually added to his SAML Assertion element the definitions of xmlns:saml, xmlns:xsi and xmlns:xs (which appeared elsewhere in the document). I believe he then went and automated the addition of those elements (just be careful not to change any white spaces.) |
Ah, I see thanks. That did it. |
great! |
applies all inclusive namespaces for signature assertions onto assertion tag used as recommended workaround for xml-crypto library limitation with inclusive namespaces see node-saml/xml-crypto#48 (comment)
Follow up to #43
A reference like this:
means that we need to add definitions for xs, saml and xsi on the canonicalized value of the node we validate. they should be bound to whatever they are bound to in the context of that node.
for example if we need to sign X:
then X canonical form should be:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: