Modified Signature checks #4
Merged
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
This adds signature checks via the use of `status-fd` Notes: * This will probably obsololte the checking of different output stream since status-fd will specify which one to check * The use of `[...].Matches.Groups[1].Value` shouldn't cause an error. (Or at least it didn't in my testing) it would be possible to rewrite this to handle strange edge case which could cause a null index error WARNING: this may break Signature Checking for keys which aren't already within the current keystore. The `correct` way to handle that should be to import said key before checking the signature. This could maybe be handled within this module but that would _probably_ fall out of the scope of this PR.
|
I've tried to think of something else... But I'm not quite happy either way... |
rhymeswithmogul
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 3, 2023
Thank you for your hard work on this pull request. In the context of this module, I consider a "good" signature to be one that is valid, regardless of whether or not the key is in GPG's keyring. This is in contrast to what GPG calls a "good" signature. I've corrected your code to comply with my different definition, and I've also enabled it to properly report bad signatures, too. I will add documentation notes when I can.
rhymeswithmogul
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 3, 2023
This is an improved version of the pull request originally submitted. Signed-off-by: Colin Cogle <colin@colincogle.name>
|
Sorry that it took me so long to sit down and review this one, but it looks good! I didn't know that the I made some minor changes to your PR because SecurityTxtToolkit and GnuPG disagree on what a "good" signature is. |
rhymeswithmogul
added
enhancement
rhymeswithmogul
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 3, 2023
I accidentally used PowerShell 7.1's new operators (??= and ?[]) when finishing that last pull request. This, for obvious reasons, would have made the script fail to run on Windows PowerShell 5.1. The code has been refactored to remove those.
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.
This adds signature checks via the use of
status-fdNotes:
[...].Matches.Groups[1].Valueshouldn't cause an error. (Or at least it didn't in my testing) it would be possible to rewrite this to handle strange edge case which could cause a null index errorWARNING:
this may break Signature Checking for keys which aren't already within the current keystore.
The
correctway to handle that should be to import said key before checking the signature.This could maybe be handled within this module but that would probably fall out of the scope of this PR.
fixes #3