DRAFT: v7.x

[ahacker1-securesaml]

This significantly improves the security logic around xml-crypto.

Currently, it is an outline, i.e. the code doesn't actually work

Reviewers:

• Let me know about the security of this, does it make it easier to read, so more secure?
• is there a better way to design this?
  Currently we remove the checkSignature method from the SignedXML class to simplify the logic, and put it in XMLVerifier

Release process debate:

• Do we even want to release 7.x
  If feel like the best we can do is to deprecate the library entirely,
  because xml signatures as a whole is unsafe, and using it will ensure the other side will be insecure. (since other implementations are insecure)

[cjbarth]

Given the number of people using xml-crypto and the lack of an alternative (that I'm aware of). It seems prudent to continue developing this. Otherwise, we should provide a migration guide to some other method of doing what this library does.

[ahacker1-securesaml]

I definitely don't want to encourage users to use xml signatures if they are building some new feature/product/spec.
Let's link something like: https://paseto.io/ , which is actually designed by security experts for them to use. Remember any PASETO's works for any data.

For SAML implementations, we can still support xml-crypto.