Skip to content
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

Add support for different signing and verification certificates #822

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

tomerazran
Copy link

I added support for situations where the signing certificate is different from the response signature verification certificate.
The code added will is fully compatible with older versions, since the signature verification certificate will only be used if it is passed to the constructor - otherwise the signing certificate is used (same as used to be before the change).

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 31, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #822 into master will increase coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #822      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   89.37%   89.38%   +<.01%     
==========================================
  Files          65       65              
  Lines        4774     4775       +1     
  Branches      831      831              
==========================================
+ Hits         4267     4268       +1     
  Misses        327      327              
  Partials      180      180
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/zeep/wsse/signature.py 93.18% <100%> (+0.07%) ⬆️

@mvantellingen
Copy link
Owner

Thanks. I don't think it's fully backwards compatible because kwargs are renamed. If we can keep those the same as now and only add a new optional keyword argument then i can merge it

@zanchey
Copy link
Contributor

zanchey commented Dec 16, 2018

Will there ever be a case, other than testing via round-trip, where the certificate used for sending messages is the same as the one that signs received messages?

@mvantellingen
Copy link
Owner

@zanchey I build this originally for a use case were it was the case that the certificates were the same. If that is best practice I'm not sure :-)

Either way, it should be pretty easy to keep this backwards compatible by not renaming the kwargs

@gil-obradors
Copy link

gil-obradors commented Jan 12, 2020

Hi!

I confirm that this scenario is actually real with a bigger National ISP WS
Would be nice to pull.
If anyone can mentor me, I will do the work as the documentation.

Thanks to all

@epetrovski
Copy link

epetrovski commented Apr 15, 2020

I have the same issue with a government SOAP api - signing and verification certificates are different. Any plans for this?

@epetrovski
Copy link

Using the BinarySignatureTimestamp() class from #996 (comment) fixed the issue for me.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants