From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Fri Aug 1 11:43:46 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27016 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:43:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h71FNwqt006593 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 08:23:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h71FNwAi006592 for ietf-ediint-bks; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 08:23:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h71FNqqt006587 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 08:23:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nsyracus@cnri.reston.va.us) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26404; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 11:23:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200308011523.LAA26404@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: ietf-ediint@imc.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ediint-as3-01.txt Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 11:23:49 -0400 Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Electronic Data Interchange-Internet Integration Working Group of the IETF. Title : FTP Transport for Secure Peer-to-Peer Business Data Interchange over the Internet Author(s) : T. Harding, R. Scott Filename : draft-ietf-ediint-as3-01.txt Pages : 0 Date : 2003-7-31 This Applicability Statement (AS) describes how to exchange structured business data securely using the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) for XML, Binary, Electronic Data Interchange (EDI - ANSI X12 or UN/EDIFACT), or other data used for business-to-business data interchange for which MIME packaging can be accomplished using standard MIME content-types. Authentication and data confidentiality are obtained by using Cryptographic Message Syntax (S/MIME) security body parts. Authenticated acknowledgements employ multipart/signed replies to the original message. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ediint-as3-01.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ediint-as3-01.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ediint-as3-01.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-8-1114236.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ediint-as3-01.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ediint-as3-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-8-1114236.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Wed Aug 27 11:49:41 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10995 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:49:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h7RFNogc071344 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 08:23:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7RFNoYg071343 for ietf-ediint-bks; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 08:23:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from web40910.mail.yahoo.com (web40910.mail.yahoo.com [66.218.78.207]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with SMTP id h7RFNngc071335 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 08:23:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mikemilner2000@yahoo.com) Message-ID: <20030827152345.26654.qmail@web40910.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [4.64.250.69] by web40910.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 08:23:45 PDT Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 08:23:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Milner Subject: MIC calculation discrepancy? To: ietf-ediint@above.proper.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Hello, I am hoping someone can help me... we are testing some in-house software to do AS2 communications, and we have had problems connecting to Walmart. We can send signed and encrypted messages just fine and we receive a proper MDN; however we are not able to verify the Message Integrity Check returned in Walmart's MDN. In particular if we sign, encrypt, and send the same test message repeatedly we get a different value for the MIC each time! I am a bit confused as to how this could be, as RFC 3335 and the AS2 spec indicate that the MIC should be calculated over the original EDI data and MIME header. Moreover we have not had this issue connecting with other servers. Is this a known issue with Wal-Mart's EDI solution? Or am I doing something wrong? Thank you! Best regards, Michael Milner __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Wed Aug 27 12:26:43 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13368 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 12:26:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h7RG5ogc073351 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 09:05:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7RG5oRk073350 for ietf-ediint-bks; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 09:05:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from [4.22.147.194] (btcorp4.btradecorp.com [4.22.147.194]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with SMTP id h7RG5mgc073345 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 09:05:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from parcuri@bTrade.com) Received: from no.name.available by [4.22.147.194] via smtpd (for [208.184.76.39]) with SMTP; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:05:11 -0500 Received: FROM btcorp2.corp.btrade.com BY btcorp5.corp.btrade.com ; Wed Aug 27 11:05:47 2003 -0500 Received: from btcorp10.corp.btrade.com ([10.10.10.11]) by btcorp2.corp.btrade.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:05:48 -0500 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: MIC calculation discrepancy? X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0 Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:05:47 -0500 Message-ID: <4D7BF7DD2F767B4AB939C4152B749EE202B21B@btcorp10.corp.btrade.com> Thread-Topic: MIC calculation discrepancy? Thread-Index: AcNssLRXJQrb7nJPRQe4tEgh5uEoNAAA6nmQ From: "Phil Arcuri" To: "Michael Milner" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Aug 2003 16:05:48.0043 (UTC) FILETIME=[143565B0:01C36CB5] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id h7RG5mgc073346 Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Michael, We have many customers who trade with Walmart, and might be able to help. Walmart's AS2 vendor chose not to support MD5, and we have seen very peculiar behaviour when messages signed with MD5 are sent to Walmart. Are you using MD5 in your test messages? If not, someone in our Support group who regularly handles issues with Walmart/AS2 communications can work with you (at least for a little while...). Can you provide a copy of the test message sent to Walmart? - Phil Phil Arcuri, D.Phil. Director, Desktop Applications Development bTrade, Inc. 2324 Gateway Drive Irving, TX 75063 972-580-2916 -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Michael Milner Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 10:24 AM To: ietf-ediint@above.proper.com Subject: MIC calculation discrepancy? Hello, I am hoping someone can help me... we are testing some in-house software to do AS2 communications, and we have had problems connecting to Walmart. We can send signed and encrypted messages just fine and we receive a proper MDN; however we are not able to verify the Message Integrity Check returned in Walmart's MDN. In particular if we sign, encrypt, and send the same test message repeatedly we get a different value for the MIC each time! I am a bit confused as to how this could be, as RFC 3335 and the AS2 spec indicate that the MIC should be calculated over the original EDI data and MIME header. Moreover we have not had this issue connecting with other servers. Is this a known issue with Wal-Mart's EDI solution? Or am I doing something wrong? Thank you! Best regards, Michael Milner __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Wed Aug 27 13:25:41 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19855 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 13:25:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h7RH0ggc076332 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:00:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7RH0gEv076331 for ietf-ediint-bks; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:00:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from server2k.tbsi.com (adsl-065-082-196-178.sip.asm.bellsouth.net [65.82.196.178]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h7RH0Rgc076316 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:00:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from timm@trailblazersystems.com) Received: by tsbi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 13:00:21 -0400 Message-ID: From: Tim McCarthy To: "'Phil Arcuri'" , Michael Milner , ietf-ediint@above.proper.com Subject: RE: MIC calculation discrepancy? Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 13:00:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Hi Phil, it's been a while. Escaped the interops? I've seen the same thing that you have with regards to MD5 but every once in a while I see MDN's with bad MIC's returned for customers using SHA. If Michael is seeing different MICs for every retransmission then it's probably his software but if it's every once in a while I believe it could very well be iSoft. I'm still trying to get data from customers to nail this down but once they re-transmit and get a good MDN back they move on. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Phil Arcuri [mailto:parcuri@bTrade.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 12:06 PM To: Michael Milner; ietf-ediint@above.proper.com Subject: RE: MIC calculation discrepancy? Michael, We have many customers who trade with Walmart, and might be able to help. Walmart's AS2 vendor chose not to support MD5, and we have seen very peculiar behaviour when messages signed with MD5 are sent to Walmart. Are you using MD5 in your test messages? If not, someone in our Support group who regularly handles issues with Walmart/AS2 communications can work with you (at least for a little while...). Can you provide a copy of the test message sent to Walmart? - Phil Phil Arcuri, D.Phil. Director, Desktop Applications Development bTrade, Inc. 2324 Gateway Drive Irving, TX 75063 972-580-2916 -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Michael Milner Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 10:24 AM To: ietf-ediint@above.proper.com Subject: MIC calculation discrepancy? Hello, I am hoping someone can help me... we are testing some in-house software to do AS2 communications, and we have had problems connecting to Walmart. We can send signed and encrypted messages just fine and we receive a proper MDN; however we are not able to verify the Message Integrity Check returned in Walmart's MDN. In particular if we sign, encrypt, and send the same test message repeatedly we get a different value for the MIC each time! I am a bit confused as to how this could be, as RFC 3335 and the AS2 spec indicate that the MIC should be calculated over the original EDI data and MIME header. Moreover we have not had this issue connecting with other servers. Is this a known issue with Wal-Mart's EDI solution? Or am I doing something wrong? Thank you! Best regards, Michael Milner __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Wed Aug 27 15:25:53 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00578 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 15:25:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h7RJ0vgc080351 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 12:00:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7RJ0v2K080350 for ietf-ediint-bks; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 12:00:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from web40910.mail.yahoo.com (web40910.mail.yahoo.com [66.218.78.207]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with SMTP id h7RJ0ugc080344 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 12:00:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mikemilner2000@yahoo.com) Message-ID: <20030827190053.76314.qmail@web40910.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [4.64.250.69] by web40910.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 12:00:53 PDT Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 12:00:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Milner Subject: RE: MIC calculation discrepancy? To: Phil Arcuri , ietf-ediint@above.proper.com In-Reply-To: <4D7BF7DD2F767B4AB939C4152B749EE202B21B@btcorp10.corp.btrade.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0-306502643-1062010853=:75378" Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: --0-306502643-1062010853=:75378 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Id: Content-Disposition: inline Thanks for your help. I'm attaching wmrequest.bin which is the signed, encrypted request to Walmart. I'm also attaching testcase.bin which is the signed data that was encrypted with Walmart's certificate. The MIC returned is always different -- even though I am encrypting the same data each time. (I suppose Walmart is somehow calculating the MIC on the encrypted data?!) p.s. Am using SHA1. Thanks. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com --0-306502643-1062010853=:75378 Content-Type: text/plain; name="wmrequest.bin" Content-Description: wmrequest.bin Content-Disposition: inline; filename="wmrequest.bin" POST / HTTP/1.0 Host: gem.wal-mart.com:5080 User-Agent: Test Agent AS2-To: ***** AS2-From: ***** AS2-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:25:04 GMT Subject: TEST IGNORE TEST Message-Id: x@y Disposition-Notification-To: ***** Disposition-Notification-Options: signed-receipt-protocol=optional, pkcs7-signature; signed-receipt-micalg=optional, sha1 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-mime; smime-type=enveloped-data; name="smime.p7m" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7m" Content-Length: 2512 MIIHJgYJKoZIhvcNAQcDoIIHFzCCBxMCAQAxggEOMIIBCgIBADBzMF8xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMQsw CQYDVQQIEwJBUjEUMBIGA1UEBxMLQmVudG9udmlsbGUxETAPBgNVBAoTCFdhbC1NYXJ0MQwwCgYD VQQLEwNFREkxDDAKBgNVBAMTA0FTMgIQIAMIBw0gDByoSjdcA01x8DANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAASB gIn85SDuDxbowd/aLCMfnhVS+NidyZ+qGZSCP4papLBEhu94JlAh2Qiy4MENM4hvlX6uDtFp3HEP 3Y4X5WUpMA0K1XJiXVC3X5A5OiQ5Y9PT/lOQnG2nOTbP9ar4eY5WxBOijkimsgcO7VpdSySfSzNP iFJIbbb/T30xVN0lAcggMIIF+gYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBkGCCqGSIb3DQMCMA0CAToECCAplaTFX8Ge gIIF0NI9KO+/TLL6NrE0JBANPnjIPGU8+4kOnlW0gIywRlkH1CFZ4gDkSL51faEmbg6oSyDEvbkK qDunrKtBEgQmgeR6FBtZOB2FT162mVaaDPcPdXeP4FwOgJS/OzD63RoHCsFZmQXY9Cr05vUb1X5f GmaLcjFMcgXRh1fdYdbJYxPzFyYSIFaY4o8ZL4aZx2ohnKQTtgoAzk0vsprie0n6cM5fAr/cHOHB MiA4eJPC90bQfSvAz2sEDohvlDjA1CaTA8ngI7YMIkW5RTxTlHA/+shcl5iGKELD6zSuTAA1Ambe skWoIysGF8n0Ptf7BcDPa+gEuO4NeArHvNouPxAOp08jxZFxplzpNdwWW+wV4lfgTlGlPHDujnJ6 bMtFwJdUb/2Y4Gxq92A36vTknfa9qpKDWFDDfe3sOqe/SjmLqZeVZTBTAMCLyjiReUNsV17SlMo1 A1EpzNK7GEMN5Ywk/5b9/mmXfOsyC3Y/AmfMSwXoLwUr4PkrqpZ+aMJNC0PMMfzPX10+3xDybIzY tYrUiFOU0+oz20rCVk4smC3O5XZIIbrC0OFZYWLW96PG7MVm8GcoVPP1fe9UmDwU7Du16j2SM4dX Xc7ZIB/PttQpvny+s8NH05CSSNxFB5ATD4PaSIZwm4rf3b9XHfhPIIcscnDGo3NR8Jd2coTzmH1x R5nlBmgdmWh+F6jp26Fyg5GNFMq/ZlgtXf1uIUaXpa7BlB6KvbI/Oc3saFxfQmYOl7IXw1tXYg9I j0+q3U7IUQPMdeEHDw6H09ZzqeERpWzYXlTBS588gmft8H6Y026cP4W3+XBnyzwTSLTsLK3n71eV BOwTg4MlNbuuAdfQzcRGa93g+ydhWK6SXNXz8365ydU4J07J5xYqhtdkj0W8eq0FNKf2KlC44OjA 99uAj2q6DuMbJD9u6UVCBC1/qU+AsFhR8RcnFnOYbmOcscpZTvgcLU2x9N6jtwyUbGv0YXou9wCE 8gPWE47kMDrF27nB1qT66ztDiqQzi++wDjW5OeUbdiq8xr9Fc0u5SHpN4r/HsJS5W45v2a9X9mcU dQyT8wFB1/rmpQaEcOzHIOHSfGYQdoc/Va9jCzKtFN0+nyRTR0QY3uvgPzwyHN9vrWoMFXbQPZWQ RY3HRHXgaBUIDFRihRTylssPXPTO8m63DjFK3vQjWi62ucC8s300C2dhmguKKE6vIP1OBl3LRXbl Khz8uxdZ3GUA6yVP48N5ejF6jt0QLXed3/Jt9eVT+2o/mCB4BhxBncJ2OT/9vPO6KLFm809rsi47 xRh2k6KOlzKE9H6gThGsLT4WUufWHE1GYlafjQSbyfpVRmAZO3XC4AcbTxaxcyScHNl3TL311n0a sEg2rT+ljqI+pMkxwKbT9mTIT9HuxQ3X6/fnT8ujHqSzOP+/9Vo3oCet4yTZI7aTP7sO/dSw3j6I HsvlSUTCdC7prcu4U+45PeF4pISA10Ua31db0UpaGU0OnTzzdla4kjwJ6i29c/cSAHTcsZL79fPT CpdPcSEct2mrIKIJFr5gpZbDMKA6alqfYTUy57GhzrwjLTCrvGZtnbU9AC4g0sEsXNT2cc+Jo8Gj 2fdc0m5v1xo7vEomPPR7KUCqe7EhMFNpmoqdS3sv9mQljCD7VBfl4Yc/xd+hlaAJdEqgxxzKAjsC bu8fqPJam/vBiYDReVrXZgoV5aUEGC+btPe4Rr8gjFl2PLbScstxCJh7ZSZ75+F7Cqlz8e9ZLe/Y nDaAQ/qC5xU7HEdaLZQLkZao/gXa2fiJoYneIfxFb0HYFXSW/hps1r3773+8pmz7Mrjab2cY34SP amsam8XGeHddPlZLJVSHiJYRID6z2axYra8f+m2rslTXhcM7SbFU8FXQjc4DnLOO2Bb63dDBc/JJ XslFXn7qfS1d3EkEqTSo3KA6ZeEVgVKscMjkEJkpge3yLdqag/lzVZychM/1+iiGPwKuH76tUQUZ qfn/lnaLdzRUYA== --0-306502643-1062010853=:75378 Content-Type: text/plain; name="testcase.bin" Content-Description: testcase.bin Content-Disposition: inline; filename="testcase.bin" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; boundary="abcdeabcdeabcde"; micalg=sha1 --abcdeabcdeabcde Content-Type: application/edi-x12 Content-Disposition: Attachment; filename=rfc1767.edi TEST - IGNORE --abcdeabcdeabcde Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIIC5gYJKoZIhvcNAQcCoIIC1zCCAtMCAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMAsGCSqGSIb3DQEHAaCCAegw ggHkMIIBTaADAgECAhBqlvGP3dRPvkGKx5gaE9z8MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBAUAMA4xDDAKBgNVBAMT A0ZvbzAeFw0wMzA2MTcyMTA4MDRaFw0zOTEyMzEyMzU5NTlaMA4xDDAKBgNVBAMTA0ZvbzCBnzAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOBjQAwgYkCgYEAqVgZbNLY7NXd7CSe9tUEu5CPC/JCWAHNfcWKgI6KR27Z gBiNAkvjba27lPz9Q2kAF2TkbsuOOq7VL7qgzUmyXJE/MaK5Lo/PeAPvDQ3kjV1ruDL4w7oL9HTy rFt11sWA0fJaJGHgK59rbwykBspYJKDwRYwIDdnQL76rtoYreKECAwEAAaNDMEEwPwYDVR0BBDgw NoAQvT1j8cQBF0apfY8f4tMfyqEQMA4xDDAKBgNVBAMTA0Zvb4IQapbxj93UT75BiseYGhPc/DAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQB/N8YLZoBMFQo5gNZIsBAwGWg5yqY7ZQsz1MHSxxK/kHTeMFVSW/jw VBMSSYbUHwBahhsPmw8XmDWoSs4DJdfy5OsJ86kcGUChJd28eLZmEYh3fMl7ZXTyJQaSepVf6sco ssRSqnu2QZ1VxhaVTRfZCE7X11uwNyC22HWZ2dwVzzGBxzCBxAIBATAiMA4xDDAKBgNVBAMTA0Zv bwIQapbxj93UT75BiseYGhPc/DAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIGAfztCtDOUYGRq 4eoP62TJ6Xr5lS/3ejvVMF6boVY4FKllMAEScY30U96z4KNTflLDCcuzC49Jw1mBAY4kEXL3MIl1 h6GdtaU0bjZSM5B5FULV2TQKRx8XedFRGWQ6pXhZZKj/dxGhB2ndur/jx745AvUVcT1ymxme7x02 ZUP7Mxo= --abcdeabcdeabcde-- --0-306502643-1062010853=:75378-- From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Wed Aug 27 17:29:29 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA10048 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:29:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h7RL2Egc085235 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:02:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7RL2Eu4085234 for ietf-ediint-bks; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:02:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from [4.22.147.194] (btcorp4.btradecorp.com [4.22.147.194]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with SMTP id h7RL2Cgc085229 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:02:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from parcuri@bTrade.com) Received: from no.name.available by [4.22.147.194] via smtpd (for [208.184.76.39]) with SMTP; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 16:01:36 -0500 Received: FROM btcorp2.corp.btrade.com BY btcorp5.corp.btrade.com ; Wed Aug 27 16:02:11 2003 -0500 Received: from btcorp10.corp.btrade.com ([10.10.10.11]) by btcorp2.corp.btrade.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 27 Aug 2003 16:02:11 -0500 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: MIC calculation discrepancy? X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0 Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 16:02:10 -0500 Message-ID: <4D7BF7DD2F767B4AB939C4152B749EE202B220@btcorp10.corp.btrade.com> Thread-Topic: MIC calculation discrepancy? Thread-Index: AcNszYq3kkl56xgbRxOIO1Bk+Yas/wAB14BA From: "Phil Arcuri" To: "Michael Milner" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Aug 2003 21:02:11.0208 (UTC) FILETIME=[7BCD0880:01C36CDE] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id h7RL2Dgc085230 Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit No problem. I think you will find that interoperability may be somewhat elusive without going thru the UCC/DGI Interop tests - that is, to be interoperable with a wide range of vendors. Although we have a spec for AS2, each vendor has their own little peculiarities - some won't handle folded headers, for example. I think it likely that some products will not correctly handle some case which they have never encountered before due to a previously undiscovered bug or two. Each AS2 Interop test round brings new bugs to light in existing previously certified products because new vendors join the mix and do something a little differently. Finding the lowest common denominator rather than following the various RFCs and drafts is what it boils down to. If you only want to interoperate with Wal-Mart, then you will only have to learn their peculiarities, but since you will not have the weight of the Interop Test forum to help, it may be a bit painful. The vendor of the product that Wal-Mart uses has passed the DGI AS2 interop tests, and unless you were unlucky and Wal-Mart happened to have just upgraded their software to a new and buggy release (which seems unlikely), then it can be argued that the problem is probably with your software. That is, if you change your software you can probably get Wal-Mart's software to send you back good MDNs. To your attached messages: (1) The encrypted message looks OK in general. Some comments: - Some vendors include 'To:', 'From:', 'Reply-To:' headers in the top-most message header (they are not required but be prepared for them). - AS2-Version 1.0 implies that you will not support compression using ZLIB and an SMIME compressed-data CMS object (this is the only standard compression for AS2 to date). - Some vendors leave out the Subject header. - Many vendors do not base64 encode their AS2 messages, since this adds significantly to the overall message size. - I assume your message-ID value was changed to hide it, and that you use a globally unique message-Id generation scheme. You can't generate two messages with the same message-ID. If you did you would cause all kinds of problems for those receiving systems which assume it will be a unique value (and have it as a primary key) (2) The signed message (which was subsequently encrypted for Wal-Mart) is probably the problem with respect to the Received-Content-MIC. While you may argue that you have followed the various RFCs and draft RFCs, until you argue your case in a Interop Test setting, the Wal-Mart vendor is unlikely to change their product at your request even if you can prove it is their fault. To change their product would invalidate their interop certification. You should be able to get it to work by changing your end (I know, but nobody said it was fair...). A couple of things about your signed message: - The content-type header is folded - some vendors may not handle this. Certainly, some vendors do NOT handle this at the top message level because of a bug in IIS that Microsoft has been very slow to fix. - Your choice of boundary text is not a good one - if your data or signature happened to contain the same text, the message syntax would be corrupt. - You seem to have an extra CRLF after the header before the first boundary. Not sure if this is legal or not, and it doesn't matter. This may be causing your problem - try using just two CRLF's - one to end the last header line and one signify the end of the headers. - Some vendors actually require that the edi data be valid edi data, as wrong as that sounds -- AS2 is about transport, right?. Since your payload claims to be X12 data, you might try including a simple syntactically correct X12 payload instead of your "TEST". - As mentioned above - many vendors do not filter their data - you have filtered your signature - because it adds unnecessary bytes. Probably no big deal on signatures since they are always small. That's all I see at a casual glance. While it seems very peculiar that the Received-Content-MIC has a different value in every MDN you receive for the same payload message sent to them, and you may very well have uncovered a problem in their software, you may need to change your code to work around it. Of course, I may be missing something obvious, too. Others in this list may see something more - anyone? - Phil Phil Arcuri, D.Phil. Director, Desktop Applications Development bTrade, Inc. 2324 Gateway Drive Irving, TX 75063 972-580-2916 -----Original Message----- From: Michael Milner [mailto:mikemilner2000@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 2:01 PM To: Phil Arcuri; ietf-ediint@above.proper.com Subject: RE: MIC calculation discrepancy? Thanks for your help. I'm attaching wmrequest.bin which is the signed, encrypted request to Walmart. I'm also attaching testcase.bin which is the signed data that was encrypted with Walmart's certificate. The MIC returned is always different -- even though I am encrypting the same data each time. (I suppose Walmart is somehow calculating the MIC on the encrypted data?!) p.s. Am using SHA1. Thanks. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com From owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Wed Aug 27 18:09:09 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA12868 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:09:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h7RLqAgc087569 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:52:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7RLqA9U087568 for ietf-ediint-bks; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:52:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from server2k.tbsi.com (adsl-065-082-196-178.sip.asm.bellsouth.net [65.82.196.178]) by above.proper.com (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h7RLq8gc087559 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:52:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from timm@trailblazersystems.com) Received: by tsbi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:52:05 -0400 Message-ID: From: Tim McCarthy To: "'Phil Arcuri'" , Michael Milner , ietf-ediint@above.proper.com Subject: RE: MIC calculation discrepancy? Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:52:01 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-ietf-ediint@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: I thought Wal-Mart had stated that they would only test with certified products? -----Original Message----- From: Phil Arcuri [mailto:parcuri@bTrade.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 5:02 PM To: Michael Milner; ietf-ediint@above.proper.com Subject: RE: MIC calculation discrepancy? No problem. I think you will find that interoperability may be somewhat elusive without going thru the UCC/DGI Interop tests - that is, to be interoperable with a wide range of vendors. Although we have a spec for AS2, each vendor has their own little peculiarities - some won't handle folded headers, for example. I think it likely that some products will not correctly handle some case which they have never encountered before due to a previously undiscovered bug or two. Each AS2 Interop test round brings new bugs to light in existing previously certified products because new vendors join the mix and do something a little differently. Finding the lowest common denominator rather than following the various RFCs and drafts is what it boils down to. If you only want to interoperate with Wal-Mart, then you will only have to learn their peculiarities, but since you will not have the weight of the Interop Test forum to help, it may be a bit painful. The vendor of the product that Wal-Mart uses has passed the DGI AS2 interop tests, and unless you were unlucky and Wal-Mart happened to have just upgraded their software to a new and buggy release (which seems unlikely), then it can be argued that the problem is probably with your software. That is, if you change your software you can probably get Wal-Mart's software to send you back good MDNs. To your attached messages: (1) The encrypted message looks OK in general. Some comments: - Some vendors include 'To:', 'From:', 'Reply-To:' headers in the top-most message header (they are not required but be prepared for them). - AS2-Version 1.0 implies that you will not support compression using ZLIB and an SMIME compressed-data CMS object (this is the only standard compression for AS2 to date). - Some vendors leave out the Subject header. - Many vendors do not base64 encode their AS2 messages, since this adds significantly to the overall message size. - I assume your message-ID value was changed to hide it, and that you use a globally unique message-Id generation scheme. You can't generate two messages with the same message-ID. If you did you would cause all kinds of problems for those receiving systems which assume it will be a unique value (and have it as a primary key) (2) The signed message (which was subsequently encrypted for Wal-Mart) is probably the problem with respect to the Received-Content-MIC. While you may argue that you have followed the various RFCs and draft RFCs, until you argue your case in a Interop Test setting, the Wal-Mart vendor is unlikely to change their product at your request even if you can prove it is their fault. To change their product would invalidate their interop certification. You should be able to get it to work by changing your end (I know, but nobody said it was fair...). A couple of things about your signed message: - The content-type header is folded - some vendors may not handle this. Certainly, some vendors do NOT handle this at the top message level because of a bug in IIS that Microsoft has been very slow to fix. - Your choice of boundary text is not a good one - if your data or signature happened to contain the same text, the message syntax would be corrupt. - You seem to have an extra CRLF after the header before the first boundary. Not sure if this is legal or not, and it doesn't matter. This may be causing your problem - try using just two CRLF's - one to end the last header line and one signify the end of the headers. - Some vendors actually require that the edi data be valid edi data, as wrong as that sounds -- AS2 is about transport, right?. Since your payload claims to be X12 data, you might try including a simple syntactically correct X12 payload instead of your "TEST". - As mentioned above - many vendors do not filter their data - you have filtered your signature - because it adds unnecessary bytes. Probably no big deal on signatures since they are always small. That's all I see at a casual glance. While it seems very peculiar that the Received-Content-MIC has a different value in every MDN you receive for the same payload message sent to them, and you may very well have uncovered a problem in their software, you may need to change your code to work around it. Of course, I may be missing something obvious, too. Others in this list may see something more - anyone? - Phil Phil Arcuri, D.Phil. Director, Desktop Applications Development bTrade, Inc. 2324 Gateway Drive Irving, TX 75063 972-580-2916 -----Original Message----- From: Michael Milner [mailto:mikemilner2000@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 2:01 PM To: Phil Arcuri; ietf-ediint@above.proper.com Subject: RE: MIC calculation discrepancy? Thanks for your help. I'm attaching wmrequest.bin which is the signed, encrypted request to Walmart. I'm also attaching testcase.bin which is the signed data that was encrypted with Walmart's certificate. The MIC returned is always different -- even though I am encrypting the same data each time. (I suppose Walmart is somehow calculating the MIC on the encrypted data?!) p.s. Am using SHA1. Thanks. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com