Minor refactoring of Fulcio SCT handling #1259
Open
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
|
Looks ok to me even with fresh eyes, marking ready for review. @javanlacerda do you want to have a look? |
Functionality should not change: Except a few more errors are handled. The sct module API changes but it is internal. * Remove one unnecessary internal exception and one unused exception * We only support a single SCT: simplify the sct module API * Make sure all errors raised in sct.get_signed_certificate_timestamp() are actually handled (by only raising ValueError and handling that) * Handle SCT parsing errors during verify Signed-off-by: Jussi Kukkonen <[email protected]>
Simplify FulcioCertificateSigningResponse by removing sct field from it. This changes the (internal) fulcio module API. The only place that needs the SCT is verify_sct() and it already gets the certificate which it can trivially get the SCT from. This makes get_signed_certificate_timestamp() an internal implementation detail of verify_sct() which is nice. FulcioSigningCert.post() changes in that it could now return a response without an SCT: this is ok as it is immediately verified in the callsite in Signer._signing_cert(). Signed-off-by: Jussi Kukkonen <[email protected]>
jku
force-pushed
the
fulcio-sct-minor-refactor
branch
from
97c854f to
41b8609
Compare
|
/gcbrun |
|
I have no idea how to remove the old failed GCB check from the results:
|
Probably not necessary since the check is not required, but I agree that's annoying! |
|
Yeah, weird -- I was thinking it might be a Pulimi thing but it's not configured there either. Hopefully it just expires at some point, but agreed with @di about it being a nonblocker 🙂 Edit: Yeah, looks like it got invalidated and removed. |
woodruffw
reviewed
Dec 19, 2024
| f"Unexpected embedded SCT count in response: {len(precert_scts_extension)} != 1" | ||
| if len(timestamps) != 1: | ||
| raise VerificationError( | ||
| f"Expected one certificate timestamp, found {len(timestamps)}." |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nitpick: no periods in exceptons
Suggested change
| f"Expected one certificate timestamp, found {len(timestamps)}." | |
| f"Expected one certificate timestamp, found {len(timestamps)}" |
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.
Summary
Simplify SCT management in fulcio client and the sites that need to call verify_sct()
verify_sct(): Make them an implementation detail and stop exposing them in FulcioCertificateSigningResponse (which is internal, so this is not an API change)FulcioCertificateSigningResponsemay now exist without a valid SCT: In practice Signer works just like before since we callverify_sct()on the cert immediately after getting the responseThere are two commits but I recommend reviewing the PR as a whole.
Fixes #1258.
Release Note
N/A: No public API changes or CLI changes are expected.