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

Enterprise attestaion is a bool in WebAuthn and an Int in CTAP2.1 #1795

Closed
ve7jtb opened this issue Sep 7, 2022 · 3 comments
Closed

Enterprise attestaion is a bool in WebAuthn and an Int in CTAP2.1 #1795

ve7jtb opened this issue Sep 7, 2022 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
priority:low @Risk Items that are at risk for L3 type:editorial

Comments

@ve7jtb
Copy link
Contributor

ve7jtb commented Sep 7, 2022

Proposed Change

Describe your proposed change. If you have suggested text, please file a corresponding Pull Request.
The current WebAuthn text uses options enterprise to set enterpriseAttestationPossible state to true if present.

In CTAP enterpriseAttestation can have two values 1 for Vendor-facilitated enterprise attestation and 2 for Platform-managed enterprise attestation.

This might cause confusion if the CTAP2.1 spec is not read closely
Sec 5.1.3 point 20.5 should probably be something like:

Let enterpriseAttestationPossible be an Intiger value, as follows. If options.attestation

is set to enterprise
Let enterpriseAttestationPossible be 2 if the user agent wishes to support enterprise attestation for options.rp.id (see Step 8, above). Otherwise 1.

otherwise
Let enterpriseAttestationPossible be absent.

@ve7jtb ve7jtb changed the title Enterprise attestaion is a bool in WebAuthn and an int in CTAP Enterprise attestaion is a bool in WebAuthn and an Int in CTAP2.1 Sep 7, 2022
@Firstyear
Copy link
Contributor

Given that webauthn sits atop ctap, could we actually use an enumeration of this value to make it clearer?

@nadalin nadalin added the @Risk Items that are at risk for L3 label Jun 27, 2023
@nadalin
Copy link
Contributor

nadalin commented Jan 3, 2024

@ve7jtb Do we just want to close this ?

@ve7jtb
Copy link
Contributor Author

ve7jtb commented May 1, 2024

No action

@ve7jtb ve7jtb closed this as completed May 1, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
priority:low @Risk Items that are at risk for L3 type:editorial
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants