-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 23
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
Add support for verifying attestations #8
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
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 <robertbest89@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Tom Meadows <thomas.meadows@jetstack.io>
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 <robertbest89@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Tom Meadows <thomas.meadows@jetstack.io>
48270d1
to
9353f2a
Compare
Signed-off-by: Tom Meadows <thomas.meadows@jetstack.io>
5975933
to
0368d29
Compare
var pm map[string]interface{} | ||
json.Unmarshal(p, &pm) | ||
|
||
payload := strings.Trim(fmt.Sprintf("%v", pm["payload"]), "\"") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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 <robertbest89@gmail.com>
Checking the count of errors is enough. Signed-off-by: Rob Best <robertbest89@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Tom Meadows <thomas.meadows@jetstack.io>
Signed-off-by: Rob Best <robertbest89@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Rob Best <robertbest89@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Tom Meadows <thomas.meadows@jetstack.io>
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 |
Adding support to verify attestations for an image.
Based on #6 so must be merged after.