Adding support for using timestamp authority and CA certificates for verifying policy #124
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ChaosInTheCRD
changed the title
Signed-off-by: chaosinthecrd <tom@tmlabs.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: chaosinthecrd <tom@tmlabs.co.uk>
jkjell
force-pushed
the
policy-ca-and-timestamp
branch
from
192f0d5
to
f4c8f12
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
After discovering that the
policy-caflag ingithub.com/in-toto/witnesswas not wired up correctly, I noticed that some change was required in go-witness to feed it into the verification function for the policy DSSE envelope. I also noticed that there was no way of specifying a timestamp authority CA certificate for the policy. Given thatSignsupports specifying said timestamp authority, it seemed clear that adding support in Verify would be worthwhile.Note that currently, the way that we are verifying the policy is different from how we verify attestations. It seems that said disparity does not need to be there and I will therefore create another Issue to track the need to refactor this.
See Github issue here: #125