Add support for verifying attestations #8
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
Different images will require different verification options. This commit adds configuration that allows you to define different 'verifiers' for specific image references, or image reference patterns. At the moment it supports verification by public key, or the existing options, but should be expanded to include all supported options. Also modifies the response from the provider to include an error per-image checked, rather than returning any error as a 'system' error. I've also removed the _invalid suffix from the key returned in the response when there's an error. The presence of the 'error' field indicates this better, I think. Signed-off-by: Rob Best <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Tom Meadows <[email protected]>
An image can have multiple signatures and therefore in some cases you'll want multiple verifiers for the same images. Signed-off-by: Rob Best <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Tom Meadows <[email protected]>
ChaosInTheCRD
force-pushed
the
verify-attestations
branch
from
48270d1
to
9353f2a
Compare
Signed-off-by: Tom Meadows <[email protected]>
ChaosInTheCRD
force-pushed
the
verify-attestations
branch
from
5975933
to
0368d29
Compare
ChaosInTheCRD
commented
Jan 12, 2022
| var pm map[string]interface{} | ||
| json.Unmarshal(p, &pm) | ||
|
|
||
| payload := strings.Trim(fmt.Sprintf("%v", pm["payload"]), "\"") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not very happy with this line. It seemed that when I got the payload on line 213, I still needed to get the payload field within it and remove the " fields around the base64 encoded value.
@ribbybibby @developer-guy @dlorenc feel free to input if you have any ideas
Modify the configuration so that multiple verifiers can be associated directly with an image reference/pattern. Images will only be verified for the first pattern they match. This makes it possible to provide multiple verification options for a specific image pattern/reference but also fall through to a less-specific pattern (with different verification options) for images that don't match a more specific pattern. Signed-off-by: Rob Best <[email protected]>
Checking the count of errors is enough. Signed-off-by: Rob Best <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Tom Meadows <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Rob Best <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Rob Best <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Tom Meadows <[email protected]>
ChaosInTheCRD
force-pushed
the
verify-attestations
branch
from
9dfaf68
to
f23b1f2
Compare
|
@ChaosInTheCRD @Dentrax @developer-guy is this still relevant? if yes can we rebase and do a new batch of review? otherwise let's close |
|
@ChaosInTheCRD bump! We would very much like to be able to verify attestations as well |
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.
Adding support to verify attestations for an image.
Based on #6 so must be merged after.