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

Recommend that RPs store the signature algorithm? #926

Closed
subyraman opened this issue May 31, 2018 · 3 comments
Closed

Recommend that RPs store the signature algorithm? #926

subyraman opened this issue May 31, 2018 · 3 comments

Comments

@subyraman
Copy link

subyraman commented May 31, 2018

Hello all! The spec indicates that during registration RPs should store the public key and credential ID. Later it says that during authentication the RP should verify that the authenticator produced a valid signature using the public key.

It seems to me like the RP should also store the signature algorithm (credentialPublicKey.alg) during registration in order to know how to properly verify assertion signatures for a given credential, since the algorithm is not provided in the PublicKeyCredential object received during authentication.

Does that seem correct?

@equalsJeffH
Copy link
Contributor

well, the section you cite, 7.1. Registering a new credential, says (in pertinent part):

  1. ... register the new credential with the account that was denoted in the options.user passed to create(), by associating it with the credentialId and credentialPublicKey ...

..and credentialPublicKey is a "COSE_Key-encoded" value and it "... MUST contain the optional "alg" parameter..." as well as the credential public key itself (and other stuff). See the examples in 6.3.1.1. Examples of credentialPublicKey Values encoded in COSE_Key format .

So I'm thinking we're good and we already effectively "store the signature algorithm (credentialPublicKey.alg)", yes?

If so then we can close this?

@emlun
Copy link
Member

emlun commented May 31, 2018

Thanks @subyraman for asking! I was just about to say the same thing as @equalsJeffH; I agree we can close this.

@subyraman
Copy link
Author

Thanks for the fast clarification @emlun and @equalsJeffH! You both are correct, I was not thinking about the 'credentialPublicKey' as an object. Closing.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants