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

include skipped signatures in VerificationResult #237

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

ggrangel
Copy link

@ggrangel ggrangel commented Jul 20, 2024

Summary

Solves #48.

Ideally, I would return the unverified signatures from here (TSA) and here (logs). However, this would require me to change the signature of exported functions, which I'm not sure if I should.

To avoid this, for each signature type, I've created a function that loops through all available signatures and mark the ones that weren't verified.

Additionally, I couldn't find a reliable way to address this comment since the timestamp-authority package doesn't generate distinct errors for different failure cases. We would have to parse the error strings which I consider a weak approach because they're easily changed as code base evolves. Also, this would likely require changes to the API of exported functions, which, again, I'm not sure if it's desirable.

Release Note

NONE

Documentation

No documentation update required

Addresses sigstore#48. Instead of just ignoring the signatures the trust bundle
couldn't verify, we want to pass this information back to the caller.

To avoid API changes, in order to detect the unsinged entries, for each
signature type, we loop through all available signatures and mark the
ones the weren't verified.

Signed-off-by: Gustavo Rangel <[email protected]>
Copy link
Contributor

@cmurphy cmurphy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ideally, I would return the unverified signatures from here (TSA) and here (logs). However, this would require me to change the signature of exported functions, which I'm not sure if I should.

This library is pre-1.0, and this issue is one of several that are slotted to be addressed before the 1.0 in case there are any breaking changes, so if it is a better solution to change the function signature, please go for it. Also, please mention the breaking changes in the Release Note section of the PR description.

Could you add some unit tests?

Could you update the example serialized result in the docs?

@ggrangel ggrangel closed this Jul 30, 2024
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.

2 participants