fix(attestation): verify sig during validation #1037
Conversation
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
sinui0
requested changes
Oct 28, 2025
|
@sinui0 , ready for review. I also made |
sinui0
requested changes
Oct 28, 2025
| #[derive(Debug, thiserror::Error)] | ||
| #[error("signature verification failed: {0}")] | ||
| pub struct SignatureError(String); | ||
| pub struct SignatureError(pub String); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please add a from_str(msg: &str) -> Self method instead
| pub fn validate( | ||
| &self, | ||
| attestation: &Attestation, | ||
| provider: &SignatureVerifierProvider, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should accept CryptoProvider instead, in case this method ever changes to validate more things than the signature
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR adds the missing verification of the signature during attestation validation.
I realized that we can use a simpler approach than what we discussed in #794
Closes: #622