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

Fix inconsistency in root key migration paragraph #61

Merged

Conversation

lukpueh
Copy link
Member

@lukpueh lukpueh commented Nov 14, 2019

Fixes #56

Updates an outdated paragraph in section 6.1 that explained how root keys are rotated by backwards-verifying signatures from the latest root file available on the repository back to the latest root file available
on the client.

The correct (new) workflow, which is also described in step 1 of the client application workflow of section 5, performs verification in a forward-directed manner, i.e. starting at the latest root on the client and going forward to the latest root on the repo.

Updates an outdated paragraph in section 6.1 that explained how
root keys are rotated by backwards-verifying signatures from the
latest root file available on the repository back to the latest
root file available on the client.

The correct (new) workflow, which is also described in step 1 of
the client application workflow of section 5, performs verification
in a forward-directed manner, i.e. starting at the latest root
on the client and going forward to the latest root on the repo.
@lukpueh lukpueh force-pushed the fix-root-migration-inconsistency branch from f76b923 to 9da1787 Compare November 14, 2019 13:58
tuf-spec.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@trishankatdatadog trishankatdatadog left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM provisional on a few minor changes; thanks, Lukas!

I wonder if we might want to add a short note that this does not stop an attacker who is controlling the repository (but w/o any root keys) from launching freeze attacks, but that those attacks are limited by the earliest expiration timestamp of the versioned root metadata files being served.

tuf-spec.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
tuf-spec.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
tuf-spec.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@lukpueh
Copy link
Member Author

lukpueh commented Nov 15, 2019

Thanks for your typo fix and rewordings, @mnm678 and @trishankatdatadog. I squashed them into one commit and added another one that mentions the possibility and limits of a freeze attack. Let me know what you think.

tuf-spec.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@trishankatdatadog
Copy link
Member

@lukpueh Sorry, I have one more suggestion. Other than that, it's great, thank you so much!

@lukpueh
Copy link
Member Author

lukpueh commented Nov 15, 2019

It's a fine suggestion, @trishankatdatadog, thanks! Let me quickly re-fold the lines, squash the UI commit and force push.

@lukpueh lukpueh force-pushed the fix-root-migration-inconsistency branch from 8750443 to 890b383 Compare November 15, 2019 14:45
@lukpueh lukpueh merged commit 16dba58 into theupdateframework:master Nov 15, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Ambiguity between section 5.1.3 and 6.1 regarding updating root keys
3 participants