Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

JWS supported algorithms. #1191

Closed
mehmooda opened this issue Nov 24, 2015 · 5 comments
Closed

JWS supported algorithms. #1191

mehmooda opened this issue Nov 24, 2015 · 5 comments

Comments

@mehmooda
Copy link

The spec states:

  • The JWS MUST NOT have the value “none” in its “alg” field

Whereas boulder checks for RS256 specifically ... This should be clarified somewhere

@jmhodges
Copy link
Contributor

RS256 is the only one boulder supports right now. It's unlikely that boulder will support every algorithm that the JWS spec allows.

If there's a specific algorithm you're looking to have supported, please make a ticket for it.

@jmhodges jmhodges reopened this Nov 24, 2015
@jmhodges
Copy link
Contributor

Anyway! That said, I'm not sure where we'd document what algorithms boulder or, perhaps more accurately, Let's Encrypt will support, off-hand. Open to suggestions.

@mehmooda
Copy link
Author

I think the best way would be to let the error message at say what algorithm is expected eg

"algorithm '%s' in JWS header not acceptable, expected %s", jwsAlgorithm, algorithm))

https://github.com/letsencrypt/boulder/blob/master/wfe/jose.go#L40

@benileo
Copy link
Contributor

benileo commented Jun 23, 2016

I believe Boulder now checks for RS256, ES256, ES384 and ES512. I think the current error message will suffice unless anyone has any suggestions? @jsha @rolandshoemaker @ccppuu

@rolandshoemaker
Copy link
Contributor

@benileo I think the best approach would be to switch the error to Signature type %s not supported, expected one of: ...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants