-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 71
Add length check for JWK key import #428
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
Open
devgianlu
wants to merge
1
commit into
w3c:main
Choose a base branch
from
devgianlu:jwk-import-len
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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 think this text is a bit in an awkward middle state where it has a lot of detailed steps, but still doesn't quite state exactly what to do; particularly this step is a bit handwavy in referring to RFC8037. I'm not opposed to being handwavy, but then I'd like to be more succinct as well. The step before this could also be argued to cover this already. Perhaps we can just make that one a bit more explicit by stating something like
and call it a day? (And similarly below.)
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.
Btw, we might want to say something similar for the spki and pkcs8 formats.
If we have to add (more) detailed parsing steps for all of them, I think it'll get a bit unwieldy.
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 agree it's a bit handwavy, but the spec is generally pretty explicit about the length of things, and I feel like it would a still ambigous when the JWK contains both public and private key material. For example, if the JWK is a private key you need to check both the public and private keys indipendently. So does the WPT test (see
Bad key length: importKey(jwk).Perhaps we can change
interpretedtodecoded:Let jwkPublic be the x field of jwk decoded according to Section 2 of [RFC8037].There is no need to have length checks for SPKI and PKCS8 becuse the length is already encoded in the format so parsing will fail for invalid length data. Raw has already a very specific length check.