Reject non-canonical badge encodings in Verify#25
Closed
TeoSlayer wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
Conversation
Contributor
Author
|
Looks superseded. The non-canonical-encoding guard already shipped in #24 (common v0.5.6) — Recommendation: close, unless it covers a case #24/#26 missed (if so, please note which). |
Contributor
Author
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Scrub hardening (info-level, defense-in-depth). Verify now re-encodes the parsed badge via Canonical and rejects any input that doesn't round-trip (leading zeros, '+' signs, etc.) before checking the signature — foreclosing byte-string-vs-parsed-fields malleability for downstream consumers. The issuer always signs the canonical form, so production badges are unaffected (golden vectors still pass). Test added.