Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Arcitura Education S90.18 Exam - Topic 5 Question 107 Discussion

Actual exam question for Arcitura Education's S90.18 exam
Question #: 107
Topic #: 5
[All S90.18 Questions]

Service A carries out XML canonicalization and creates a message digest. It then encrypts the message digest using asymmetric encryption. Service B. upon receiving the message, decrypts the message hash and calculates the hash of the original message. However, upon comparison, the received message digest and the calculated message digest do not match. How can this problem be avoided?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: D

by Annice at Feb 08, 2025, 07:59 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium S90.18 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Earleen
5 months ago
Definitely B. If they don't match, it's all about the order of operations!
upvoted 0 times
...
Alesia
5 months ago
Wait, why would we skip canonicalization? Isn't it important for XML?
upvoted 0 times
...
Cristina
5 months ago
A is interesting, but how would Service B know the exact sequence?
upvoted 0 times
...
Laquita
5 months ago
I disagree, C is right. Canonicalization just complicates things.
upvoted 0 times
...
Roosevelt
6 months ago
Sounds like B is the way to go! Canonicalization first makes sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
Theodora
6 months ago
I thought we learned that transforms are important, but I'm not clear on how they apply here. Shouldn't Service B just hash the original message directly?
upvoted 0 times
...
Dortha
6 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I feel like if they both use the same canonicalization process, it should work out.
upvoted 0 times
...
Becky
6 months ago
I think we discussed something similar in class, where the order of operations really matters. Maybe Service B needs to follow the same steps as Service A?
upvoted 0 times
...
Werner
6 months ago
I remember that XML canonicalization can change the structure of the message, which might be why the hashes don't match.
upvoted 0 times
...
Desirae
6 months ago
I think the key here is making sure Service B knows the exact sequence of steps used by Service A. Option A seems to be the best solution, as it explicitly states that Service B needs to be provided the sequence of actions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Pearline
6 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit confused. Why would XML canonicalization be the issue? Wouldn't that just ensure the message is in a consistent format before hashing and encrypting? I'm not sure I fully understand the problem.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jodi
6 months ago
Okay, let me see if I can break this down. It sounds like we need to make sure Service B is performing the same steps as Service A to calculate the message digest. I think option B is the way to go here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Brett
7 months ago
This seems like a tricky question. I'll need to carefully think through the sequence of steps to make sure I understand what's happening.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vonda
11 months ago
Wait, we're supposed to avoid the problem, not create a new one! Guess I'll have to 'hash' it out with the others on this one. *winks*
upvoted 0 times
...
Breana
11 months ago
Option C is tempting, but let's not throw the canonicalization baby out with the bathwater. B is the way to go, folks.
upvoted 0 times
Temeka
10 months ago
B) Transforms need to be used so that Service B is provided the sequence of actions used by Service A. That way, Service B will know that it has to perform XML canonicalization on the original message first, then calculate its hash, and only then compare it against the decrypted message hash
upvoted 0 times
...
Lacey
10 months ago
A) Transforms need to be used so that Service B is provided the sequence of actions used by Service A. That way, Service B will know that it has to calculate the original message's hash first, and then perform XML canonicalization on the original message, and only then compare it against the decrypted message hash
upvoted 0 times
...
Desmond
11 months ago
B) Transforms need to be used so that Service B is provided the sequence of actions used by Service A. That way, Service B will know that it has to perform XML canonicalization on the original message first, then calculate its hash, and only then compare it against the decrypted message hash
upvoted 0 times
...
Clarence
11 months ago
B) Transforms need to be used so that Service B is provided the sequence of actions used by Service A. That way, Service B will know that it has to perform XML canonicalization on the original message first, then calculate its hash, and only then compare it against the decrypted message hash
upvoted 0 times
...
Osvaldo
11 months ago
A) Transforms need to be used so that Service B is provided the sequence of actions used by Service A. That way, Service B will know that it has to perform XML canonicalization on the original message first, then calculate its hash, and only then compare it against the decrypted message hash
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Justine
12 months ago
This is a tricky one, but I think Option B is the right choice. Gotta love those XML shenanigans, am I right? *chuckles*
upvoted 0 times
Shawnee
11 months ago
Definitely, Option B provides a clear solution to avoid mismatch in message digests.
upvoted 0 times
...
Eileen
11 months ago
XML canonicalization can be tricky, but following the correct sequence of actions is key in ensuring message integrity.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cruz
11 months ago
I agree, using transforms to align the actions of Service A and Service B is crucial in avoiding this issue.
upvoted 0 times
...
Corazon
11 months ago
Option B is definitely the way to go. It ensures that the sequence of actions is followed correctly.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Salena
1 year ago
That's a valid point, but I still think option A is more appropriate to avoid the mismatch issue.
upvoted 0 times
...
Linn
1 year ago
I disagree, I believe option B is better because it first performs XML canonicalization on the original message before calculating the hash.
upvoted 0 times
...
Salena
1 year ago
I think option A is the correct answer because it ensures that Service B follows the same sequence of actions as Service A.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carman
1 year ago
I agree with Micah. Option B is the way to go. Doing the canonicalization first is crucial to make sure the hashes match.
upvoted 0 times
Marcos
11 months ago
I agree with you, option A seems like the best way to ensure the message digests match.
upvoted 0 times
...
Beatriz
11 months ago
I think option A is the correct solution. Service B needs to follow the same sequence of actions as Service A to avoid the mismatch.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Micah
1 year ago
Option B seems to be the correct answer. Performing XML canonicalization before calculating the hash makes sense, as it ensures the message is in a standard format before the hash is generated.
upvoted 0 times
Moon
12 months ago
Definitely. It's important for Service B to follow the exact steps as Service A to ensure the integrity of the message digest.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rosalind
12 months ago
I agree. Consistency in the sequence of actions between the two services is crucial to avoid any discrepancies in the message digest.
upvoted 0 times
...
Hassie
12 months ago
Yes, that's right. Following the same sequence of actions as Service A will ensure that the message digest matches when decrypted by Service B.
upvoted 0 times
...
Bette
12 months ago
Option B seems to be the correct answer. Performing XML canonicalization before calculating the hash makes sense, as it ensures the message is in a standard format before the hash is generated.
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel