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

ACMEv2: Don't echo keyAuthorization (or unmarshal from chal. POSTs) #3514

Closed
cpu opened this issue Mar 2, 2018 · 0 comments
Closed

ACMEv2: Don't echo keyAuthorization (or unmarshal from chal. POSTs) #3514

cpu opened this issue Mar 2, 2018 · 0 comments

Comments

@cpu
Copy link
Contributor

cpu commented Mar 2, 2018

Boulder needs to catch up to this recent ACME change: ietf-wg-acme/acme@4bdfe04

@cpu cpu added this to the Sprint 2018-02-27 milestone Mar 5, 2018
rolandshoemaker pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 6, 2018
This commit updates the RA to make the notion of submitting
a KeyAuthorization value as part of the ra.UpdateAuthorization call
optional. If set, the value is enforced against expected and an error is
returned if the provided authorization isn't correct. If it isn't set
the RA populates the field with the computed authorization for the VA to
enforce against the value it sees in challenges. This retains the legacy
behaviour of the V1 API. The V2 API will never unmarshal a provided
key authorization.

The ACMEv2/WFEv2 prepChallengeForDisplay function is updated to strip
the ProvidedKeyAuthorization field before sending the challenge object
back to a client. ACMEv1/WFEv1 continue to return the KeyAuthorization
in challenges to avoid breaking clients that are relying on this legacy
behaviour.

For deployability ease this commit retains the name of the
core.Challenge.ProvidedKeyAuthorization field even though it should
be called core.Challenge.ComputedKeyAuthorization now that it isn't
set based on the client's provided key authz. This will be easier as
a follow-up change.

Resolves #3514
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

1 participant