[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Require creation time to be unique and hashed (PR #1912)

[Justus Winter]

@teythoon commented on this pull request.



>  	    impl = *p;
-	    if (!(_digp->saved & PGPDIG_SAVED_TIME) &&
-		(sigtype == PGPSIGTYPE_POSITIVE_CERT || sigtype == PGPSIGTYPE_BINARY || sigtype == PGPSIGTYPE_TEXT || sigtype == PGPSIGTYPE_STANDALONE))

> @teythoon _All_ of your criticisms are valid. Fixing RPM’s implementation is a _massive_ amount of work, though. So I am trying to do the best I can in my spare time.
> 
> Right now, for example, I am not even sure where RPM should _store_ revocation information. In the rpmdb? In the filesystem somewhere?

Revocations are signatures that can be stored with the certificate itself.
 
> > > > * the subkey is marked as signing-capable?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > RPM does not know either of these. I actually consider this to be a security vulnerability, but I do not know if upstream does. In any case there is no point in an embargo since this is already public.
> > 
> > 
> > It is a security vulnerability, but upstream disagrees.
> 
> Have you made a report to [secalert at redhat.com](mailto:secalert at redhat.com)?

No.  Feel free to.

> > I have written the most comprehensive OpenPGP test suite ever created that found countless bugs across multiple implementations.
> 
> Is this test suite open source?

Of course: 

- https://gitlab.com/sequoia-pgp/openpgp-interoperability-test-suite
- https://tests.sequoia-pgp.org/

> I would like to use it to test rpm-oxide’s signature parsing code.

Great!  The easiest way is to implement https://docs.rs/sop . Doing so will give you a SOP cli interface for free that we can plug into the test suite.

> > `gpgv` canonicalizes certificates. Not doing so is unsafe. Saying RPM implements a subset of that is like saying `/bin/true` implements a subset of `gpgv`.
> 
> Is there a specification for certificate canonicalization anywhere?

Not that I'm aware, but Paul has a good write-up on how to properly verify signatures: https://blog.jabberhead.tk/2021/04/03/why-signature-verification-in-openpgp-is-hard/

In terms of looking at code, I recommend looking at Sequoia and PGPainless.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1912#discussion_r811319987
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1912/review/888951249 at github.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/attachments/20220221/fc7f1b61/attachment-0001.html>