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

Update TUF client to support options and add LiveTrustedRoot #41

Merged
merged 35 commits into from
Feb 10, 2024

Conversation

codysoyland
Copy link
Member

@codysoyland codysoyland commented Dec 11, 2023

Summary

This PR implements #38. This adds:

  • TUF client options consistent with Sigstore TUF client spec
  • Switch to go-tuf v2
  • A live-updating TrustedRoot implementation which is compatible with long-running processes to ensure that TUF metadata is synchronized daily.

Credit to @kommendorkapten for some parts of the client code, which we developed in collaboration at GitHub.

To do:

  • Update examples and commands
  • Update go.mod
  • Add tests

Release Note

Documentation

Copy link
Contributor

@haydentherapper haydentherapper left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Super excited to see the spec implemented!

go.mod Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/root/trusted_root.go Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/tuf/options.go Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/tuf/options.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/tuf/options.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
func checkEmbedded(tufRootURL string, fileJSONStore *filejsonstore.FileJSONStore) (json.RawMessage, error) {
embeddedRootPath := path.Join("repository", tufRootURL, RootTUFPath)
// Refresh forces a refresh of the underlying TUF client.
// As the tuf client does not support multiple refreshes during its
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Out of scope, is this something that's being tracked in go-tuf-metadata?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is a deliberate choice to maintain consistency with the reference implementation (python-tuf) which does not support multiple Refresh invocations: https://github.com/theupdateframework/python-tuf/blob/f711997a08cbb558fc8ab91406a846bbe4883d1a/tuf/ngclient/updater.py#L115

It has been discussed in this issue: rdimitrov/go-tuf-metadata#86

I don't think this is a blocker for go-tuf, as in the majority of cases I would reckon a TUF client is a short lived client, so multiple calls to Refresh() would not be needed.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I can chime in there, but I think the issue will come up if TUF is used by a server rather than client. Not a blocker for Sigstore since the services don't depend on TUF though.

pkg/tuf/client.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/tuf/client.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
}
return c.up.Refresh()
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How is concurrency handled with calling Refresh in paralell? By the underlying TUF repo?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No, this should be documented as a method unsafe for concurrent use. For concurrency it appears the LiveTrustedRoot implements required serialization via a Mutex.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'll add an issue for that in go-tuf-metadata so we can work on it 👍

pkg/root/trusted_root.go Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/tuf/options.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/tuf/options.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@ramonpetgrave64
Copy link

fyi, with slsa-verifier, we are planning to use the npmjs delegation, pending this sigstore-go PR and in
slsa-framework/slsa-verifier#731

TrustedRoot: tr,
mu: sync.RWMutex{},
}
ticker := time.NewTicker(time.Hour * 24)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should be configurable if metadata expires more frequently than 24 hours.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That makes sense to me, however since tuf.Options.CacheValidity is using days as the unit, I wonder if we should also change that? If that config value is >= 1, then this ticker will have no effect if configured <= 24 hours, as it will just pull the cached data.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To confirm, cache validity ignores whether the metadata is still valid?

Maybe it should be max(24 hours, CacheValidity)? If cache validity is set, just refresh once the cache expires, otherwise refresh every 24 hours?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thinking more on this, I think it's simpler to leave this as-is and let the client initialization handle the check for cache validity. Worst case, it just means an unnecessary reinitialization of the TUF client from disk.

@kommendorkapten
Copy link
Member

The go-tuf-metadata repo are expected to be the official v2 package in go-tuf soon, so we should wait with this PR for that to happen, to avoid too many changes.

@haydentherapper
Copy link
Contributor

haydentherapper commented Jan 26, 2024

Move has begun: theupdateframework/go-tuf#583

codysoyland and others added 10 commits January 29, 2024 11:02
Signed-off-by: Cody Soyland <codysoyland@github.com>
Signed-off-by: Fredrik Skogman <kommendorkapten@github.com>
Signed-off-by: Fredrik Skogman <kommendorkapten@github.com>
Signed-off-by: Fredrik Skogman <kommendorkapten@github.com>
Signed-off-by: Fredrik Skogman <kommendorkapten@github.com>
Signed-off-by: Fredrik Skogman <kommendorkapten@github.com>
Signed-off-by: Fredrik Skogman <kommendorkapten@github.com>
Signed-off-by: Fredrik Skogman <kommendorkapten@github.com>
Signed-off-by: Fredrik Skogman <kommendorkapten@github.com>
Signed-off-by: Fredrik Skogman <kommendorkapten@github.com>
Signed-off-by: Fredrik Skogman <kommendorkapten@github.com>
@kommendorkapten
Copy link
Member

go-tuf is now updated with the new v2 package, so I updated this PR to use that.

codysoyland and others added 4 commits January 29, 2024 14:05
Co-authored-by: Hayden B <hblauzvern@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Cody Soyland <codysoyland@github.com>
Signed-off-by: Cody Soyland <codysoyland@github.com>
Signed-off-by: Cody Soyland <codysoyland@github.com>
Signed-off-by: Cody Soyland <codysoyland@github.com>
@codysoyland codysoyland changed the title WIP: Update TUF client to support options and add LiveTrustedRoot Update TUF client to support options and add LiveTrustedRoot Jan 29, 2024
@codysoyland
Copy link
Member Author

I added a basic test to initialize a TUF repo and client in 96326fa.

I was hoping to use the RepositorySimulator from go-tuf to create the repo, but I think there are some bugs with the target support in that utility, and it looks like the authors intend to move it to an internal package. So using the basic_repository.go example as a starting point, I roughly created a TUF repo that I can use in tests. I also partially implemented the Fetcher interface, so we don't need to open a port for tests.

Assuming I'm on the right path, I can continue to add more tests based on this to validate the caching behavior.

/cc @kommendorkapten

kommendorkapten and others added 3 commits February 6, 2024 09:06
Signed-off-by: Fredrik Skogman <kommendorkapten@github.com>
Signed-off-by: Fredrik Skogman <kommendorkapten@github.com>
Signed-off-by: Cody Soyland <codysoyland@github.com>
Signed-off-by: Cody Soyland <codysoyland@github.com>
Signed-off-by: Cody Soyland <codysoyland@github.com>
Signed-off-by: Cody Soyland <codysoyland@github.com>
Signed-off-by: Cody Soyland <codysoyland@github.com>
It is impossible to reach the timestamp checks in loadMetadata, as the preceeding code to load metadata and verify it will force an online refresh anyway, so at this point, the cache has already been updated.

Setting RemoteTargetsURL is not necessary as go-tuf will set that correctly by default.

Signed-off-by: Cody Soyland <codysoyland@github.com>
@codysoyland
Copy link
Member Author

I added tests for the tuf package, so we're up to 88.0% statement coverage in that package.

It turns out that writing some tests has already paid off as I was able to identify a few bugs and dead code.

kommendorkapten
kommendorkapten previously approved these changes Feb 8, 2024
Copy link
Member

@kommendorkapten kommendorkapten left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice cody!

@haydentherapper Have some time to give this a review?

@haydentherapper
Copy link
Contributor

Yep reviewing now!

Copy link
Contributor

@haydentherapper haydentherapper left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just a few questions! This looks really good, nice work on the tests.

// Based on that metadata we take a decision if a full TUF
// refresh should be done or not. As so, the tmpCfg is only needed
// here and not in future invocations.
tmpCfg.UnsafeLocalMode = true
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To confirm, this means that if the timestamp along with all other metadata is not expired, then we will not make any network connections, correct?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Correct.

examples/oci-image-verification/go.mod Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/root/trusted_root.go Show resolved Hide resolved
pkg/root/trusted_root.go Show resolved Hide resolved
TrustedRoot: tr,
mu: sync.RWMutex{},
}
ticker := time.NewTicker(time.Hour * 24)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To confirm, cache validity ignores whether the metadata is still valid?

Maybe it should be max(24 hours, CacheValidity)? If cache validity is set, just refresh once the cache expires, otherwise refresh every 24 hours?

pkg/tuf/client.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
// Fall back to using a TUF repository in the temp location
home = os.TempDir()
}
opts.CacheValidity = 1
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we have a cache by default? I think cache is expected to be used in the case of airgapped environments, so should we have this be 0 and just rely on timestamp expiration for when to fetch metadata by default?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Back in the summer of 2022 when we where discussing this, 1 day was proposed https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QWBvpwYxOy9njAmd8vpizNQpPti9rd5ugVhji0r3T4c/edit#heading=h.s9pcbj5k0o1z

In retrospect, I think that the tuf package maybe should set the cache validity to 0 (i.e no cache) but each client should set the value to the best in their domain. This way we minimize any possible footguns (i.e secure by default). Even if a single is quick, I could still see possible issues being opened when the client (e.g. cosign) does not immediately get the new root.

I can change this. cc @codysoyland

Copy link
Contributor

@haydentherapper haydentherapper Feb 9, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How does this interact with the target cache files? I don’t believe it does, correct? As in, the client will still cache targets on disk regardless of this configuration.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reading this comment again:

Should we have a cache by default? I think cache is expected to be used in the case of airgapped environments, so should we have this be 0 and just rely on timestamp expiration for when to fetch metadata by default?

This is not really how it works. If caching is not used, the client will always try to get a new timestamp and root, regardless if the local timestamp is expired or not (this is according to the TUF spec).

The cache allows us to control if this (full TUF online refresh) should be performed on every invocation, or only once per day. But I'm still thinking that maybe having the cache off by default is a better option, as a full TUF update is not that expensive, if the client is up to date, it's two egress HTTP requests (one for root and one for timestamp). So the cache is not really with arigapped, it's more a way to speed up invocations where e.g. frequent cosign verify is performed in a short period of time.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How does this interact with the target cache files? I don’t believe it does, correct? As in, the client will still cache targets on disk regardless of this configuration.

Exactly, it's only the metadata that is cached in non-standard way to avoid a full metadata refresh against the remote TUF repository.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Since we're using the UnsafeLocalMode updater for the initial update, won't cache validity only matter if the timestamp is expired?

No, timestamp expiration is always respected. As the timestamp may expire at any time, or a new root (or target) can be published, so the client always looks for that on every invocation. This is the behaviour that's controlled via CacheValidity

Also, should cache validity be checked in GetTarget too? Otherwise GetTargetInfo forces a refresh if metadata is expired.

Yes, if the metadata is expired, this will happen. If this is in an airgapped environment this would fail, but for that, I would think a better approach is to just provide the trusted_root.json instead of using TUF, as we won't get any real security benefit from it. And also, I would think that the normal scenario is that a client does:

  1. Create a TUF client
  2. Get trusted_root.json target
    and the two calls happens during initialization, pretty close to each other in time. And once the trusted_root.json is retrieved, it's used for the rest of the program's execution?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah, I took another pass over the code and now see what I was missing. In the current Sigstore TUF client, we have it set up where if the timestamp is not expired, no additional metadata is fetched. With the current implementation, if you wanted to replicate that behavior, you would set CacheValidity to be greater than the timestamp expiration - Then it would not refresh until the timestamp expires, which will then force a refresh.

Have you considered having this behavior controlled via a boolean rather than a time period? The current implementation does give finer control though. One idea to improve UX, maybe a NO_CACHE and MAX_CACHE constant, set to 0 and MAX_INT respectively? Then when setting up the config, you can choose to a) follow the TUF spec with NO_CACHE, b) only refresh when absolutely necessary with MAX_CACHE, or c) fine-tune based on needs.

I might also add a comment making this explicit that CacheValidity is not for airgapped environments, since it still does respect timestamp expiration.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Have you considered having this behavior controlled via a boolean rather than a time period?

I can't speak for @kommendorkapten, but in my opinion, the CacheValidity flag works well for systems that perform a lot of verifications, without having to manually bump the cache daily, and avoids the risk of missing new metadata if the repo's timestamp interval is long. However, I could see the argument of changing it to hours or time.Duration, or adding a few constants as you suggested.

I might also add a comment making this explicit that CacheValidity is not for airgapped environments, since it still does respect timestamp expiration.

What is your opinion on the correct behavior for airgapped environments? Would you suggest having an option to disregard an expired timestamp? That is certainly possible, but I would probably want to slap the Insecure prefix in front of that option. 😆

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

CacheValidity flag works well for systems that perform a lot of verifications, without having to manually bump the cache daily, and avoids the risk of missing new metadata if the repo's timestamp interval is long

This sounds good. I think the constants are a nice compromise for those who are configuring the client and want a simple "boolean" approach of "no cache" vs "cache up to timestamp expiration".

What is your opinion on the correct behavior for airgapped environments? Would you suggest having an option to disregard an expired timestamp?

I think we should omit airgapped support for now, there's much more nuance with getting this right, given it doesn't follow the TUF spec. I agree with @kommendorkapten that for airgapped clients, a reasonable approach is to fetch the trust root out of band. The python client has been thinking about what it means to be truly offline too.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Got it, I missed @kommendorkapten's comment on that, but I agree with you both!

Signed-off-by: Fredrik Skogman <kommendorkapten@github.com>
Signed-off-by: Fredrik Skogman <kommendorkapten@github.com>
Signed-off-by: Fredrik Skogman <kommendorkapten@github.com>
@kommendorkapten
Copy link
Member

I broke some tests when I updated to latest go-tuf, I will fix that.

kommendorkapten and others added 2 commits February 9, 2024 08:53
Signed-off-by: Fredrik Skogman <kommendorkapten@github.com>
Signed-off-by: Cody Soyland <codysoyland@github.com>
haydentherapper
haydentherapper previously approved these changes Feb 9, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@haydentherapper haydentherapper left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Left one comment about how to clarify the purpose of cache validity and use consts, but it's not a blocker. Thanks for all of the work on this!

Signed-off-by: Cody Soyland <codysoyland@github.com>
Copy link
Contributor

@haydentherapper haydentherapper left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🎉

@codysoyland codysoyland merged commit 40d7422 into main Feb 10, 2024
9 checks passed
@codysoyland codysoyland deleted the tuf-client-2 branch February 10, 2024 18:29
ramonpetgrave64 added a commit to slsa-framework/slsa-verifier that referenced this pull request Apr 16, 2024
Addresses: #547
 - [x] Pending: sigstore/sigstore-go#41
Uses the new
[sigstore-go@0.2.0](https://github.com/sigstore/sigstore-go/releases/tag/v0.2.0)

Currently slsa-verifier has npmjs' attestation key hardcoded. But
sigstore now stores the same key within their own TUF root.

This PR 
- dynamically use the keyid specified in the sigstore bundle, rather
than the hardcoded keyid.
- uses an updated ([pending](
sigstore/sigstore-go#41)) sigstore-go library
that allows us to fetch a signed and verified copy of the same key.

---------

Signed-off-by: Ramon Petgrave <ramon.petgrave64@gmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants