mirror of
https://codeberg.org/openpgp/notes.git
synced 2025-09-10 11:49:40 +02:00
More refinements
This commit is contained in:
parent
ed75ebbecd
commit
eb2ab7beff
1 changed files with 8 additions and 9 deletions
|
@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
|
|||
Signature verification in the OpenPGP protocol is a complex process.
|
||||
Some signatures can be verified standalone, while others require the verification of a chain-like structure of other signatures, mostly on the issuers certificate.
|
||||
|
||||
## Self-authorizing and non-self-authorizing signatures
|
||||
|
||||
We will call the former category *self-authorizing* signatures.
|
||||
Typically, self-authorizing signatures are self-signatures, meaning signatures issued by an OpenPGP key over its own components.
|
||||
Examples for self-authorizing signatures are direct-key self-signatures (0x1F), User-ID self-certifications (0x10-0x13), key-revocation self-signatures (0x20), certification revocation self-signatures (0x30) or signatures used to bind or revoke subkeys (0x18, 0x19, 0x28).
|
||||
|
@ -17,6 +19,8 @@ For example, a data signature over an email body may be issued by a subkey only
|
|||
Similarly, certification signatures over third-party certificates require the issuer key to carry a self-signature authorizing it to **C**ertify other keys.
|
||||
|
||||
Self-authorizing signatures have no such limitations.
|
||||
For example, a certificate consisting only of a primary key and a single key-revocation self-signature contains everything needed to verify the revocation, as key-revocation self-signatures are self-authorizing.
|
||||
This construct is referred to as a [revocation certificate](https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-openpgp-crypto-refresh-12.html#name-openpgp-v6-revocation-certi).
|
||||
|
||||
## When are signatures valid?
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -29,27 +33,23 @@ First and foremost, a signature must be cryptographically correct, meaning the s
|
|||
### Temporal validity
|
||||
|
||||
A signature is valid only for a constrained period of time.
|
||||
A hard, lower constraint for the validity period is the creation time of the signature.
|
||||
A lower constraint for the validity period is the creation time of the signature.
|
||||
An upper constraint might be its expiration time.
|
||||
|
||||
When checking a signature for validity, a reference time is defined.
|
||||
For an email that might be the signature creation time itself, or the reception date.
|
||||
For the signature to qualify as valid, it needs to be effective, in other words, the reference time must fall into the period from signature creation to signature expiration.
|
||||
|
||||
Futhermore, signatures on a certificate form a chain, or rather a tree of signatures, originating from the certificates primary key down to signatures issued by the certificate.
|
||||
In order to verify, whether a signature is valid, the whole signature chain must be checked, taking expiration dates, capabilities and revocations into account.
|
||||
Futhermore, when verifying a signature which is not self-authorizing, other signatures on the certificate need to verified as well to establish authorization.
|
||||
|
||||
For example, in order to verify a data signature over a text document, an implementation would need to verify not only the data signature itself, but also the binding signature (and back-signature) of the signing subkey, as well as the direct-key signature on the primary key of the issuer certificate.
|
||||
|
||||
The signature might be invalidated by corruption of the text document, corruption of the data signature packet, expiration or revocation of the primary or signing subkey, or revocation/expiration of the primary User ID.
|
||||
Furthermore, the signature might not be valid in the first place, due to a missing subkey binding signature, or a missing `SIGN_DATA` keyflag on the subkey binding signature.
|
||||
Furthermore, a non-self-authorizing signature might not be valid in the first place, due to a missing subkey binding signature, or a missing `SIGN_DATA` keyflag on the subkey binding signature. In this case, the signature is not authorized.
|
||||
|
||||
```{include} mermaid/09-sigtree.md
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
- Validity as a tree of signatures
|
||||
|
||||
## Which signatures take precedence?
|
||||
|
||||
An OpenPGP certificate can have multiple signatures with conflicting information in them.
|
||||
|
@ -74,11 +74,10 @@ For each certificate, there is at most one "active" direct-key signature, for ea
|
|||
TODO: Direct-Key Signaures can be revoked, canceling them, meaning an older one might get active?
|
||||
|
||||
## Complexity of the packet format
|
||||
|
||||
Unfortunately, the OpenPGP packet format allows for quite a lot of flexibility when composing certificates.
|
||||
User-ID packets for example, are not fixed with regards to their position, which means that an attacker (or canonicalizer) can change the order in which User-IDs appear in the certificates packet sequence.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
As a concrete example, consider a certificate with multiple User-IDs, all marked as primary. Or equaly, a certificate with multiple User-IDs of which none is marked as primary.
|
||||
Clients might apply different heuristics to figure out, which User-ID actually qualifies as the primary User-ID here.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue