Uploaded image for project: 'Gazelle Security Suite'
  1. Gazelle Security Suite
  2. GSS-513

Signature validation error with ID-based reference

    Details

    • Type: Bug
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: 5.7.0
    • Fix Version/s: 6.0.0
    • Labels:
      None
    • Account:
      KELA-003 (2018) (KELA2018_1)

      Description

      We have noticed that the signature validator works incorrectly with signatures in which references are ID-based. The validator works correctly with Filter2-based references.
      Here are two examples:
      https://testivalidointipalvelu.kanta.fi/EVSClient/detailedResult.seam?type=CDA&oid=1.2.246.556.11001.1.12353&privacyKey=ohGpa4akd3QgJtXN
      https://validointipalvelu.kanta.fi/EVSClient/detailedResult.seam?type=CDA&oid=1.2.246.556.11.1.48756
      for which the validator claims that “The Reference for xxxxxxx has no XMLSignatureInput” even though the referenced IDs are in fact present in the documents.
      Could you please investigate the issue? Note that the ID attributes signatureTimestamp/@ID and structuredBody/@ID are defined in the Finnish version of the CDA schema. The schema is correctly indicated in the object type. Java expects that the referenced attributes are of XML type ID, and this may be checked from the schema. However, perhaps the validator is not schema-aware?
      In addition to these attributes, Finnish CDA schema extension for social services defines an ID element nonXMLBody/@ID, which is also commonly referenced.

        Attachments

        1. acute2.xml
          14 kB
        2. a-todistus.xml
          37 kB
        3. fulltest.xml
          39 kB

          Activity

            People

            • Assignee:
              aberge Anne-Gaelle Berge
              Reporter:
              aberge Anne-Gaelle Berge
            • Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              1 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved:

                Potential Duplicates