Add draft of TAP-17

Signed-off-by: Aditya Sirish <[email protected]>

Author: adityasaky

README.md

@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
 * [TAP 14: Managing TUF Versions](tap14.md)
 * [TAP 15: Succinct hashed bin delegations](tap15.md)
 * [TAP 16: Snapshot Merkle Trees](tap16.md)
+* [TAP 17: Replace signature envelope with SSL signing-spec](tap17.md)
 
 ## Rejected
 

tap17.md

@@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
+* TAP: 17
+* Title: Replace signature envelope with SSL signing-spec
+* Version: 0
+* Last-Modified: 30/04/2021
+* Author: Aditya Sirish A Yelgundhalli
+* Type: Standardization
+* Status: Draft
+* Content-Type: markdown
+* Created: 30/04/2021
+* +TUF-Version:
+* +Post-History:
+
+# Abstract
+
+This TUF Augmentation Proposal (TAP) proposes switching to a new signature
+envelope, namely the new
+[SSL signature specification](http://github.com/secure-systems-lab/signing-spec).
+This has the following benefits over the current state:
+
+1. Avoids canonicalization for security reasons (i.e., to not parse untrusted
+   input)
+
+2. Reduces the possibility of misinterpretation of the payload. The serialized
+   payload is encoded as a string and verified by the recipient before
+   de-serializing.
+
+The old signature envelope would still be supported but deprecated, possibly to
+be removed in a future release. This TAP follows a near identical proposal in
+TUF's sister project, in-toto. The proposal there is detailed in an in-toto
+Enhancement (ITE),
+[ITE-5](https://github.com/in-toto/ITE/blob/master/ITE/5/README.adoc).
+
+# Specification
+
+The specification adopted will be the SSL Signing Spec 0.1, as linked above. As
+such, we defer to that document to describe the specifics of signature
+generation and verification.
+
+The envelope's `payloadType` is `application/vnd.tuf+json` for all TUF roles.
+This means that the payload is expected to be a JSON file with a
+`_type` field identifying the specific role.
+
+The envelope's `payload` is the JSON serialization of the message, equivalent to
+the `signed` object in the current format.
+
+## Pseudocode
+
+Implementations should process the authentication layer as follows:
+
+Inputs:
+
+*   `file`: JSON-encoded TUF document
+*   `recognizedSigners`: collection of (`name`, `publicKey`) pairs
+
+Outputs:
+
+*   `message`: the signed message as an implementation-language-specific object
+*   `signers`: set of recognized names that have signed the message
+
+Steps:
+
+*   `envelope` := JsonDecode(`file`); raise error if the decoding fails
+*   If `envelope.payload` exists (new-style envelope):
+    *  If `payloadType` != `application/vnd.tuf+json`, raise error
+    *  `preauthEncoding` := PAE(UTF8(`envelope.payloadType`),
+        `envelope.payload`) as per signing-spec
+    *  `signers` := set of `name` for which Verify(`preauthEncoding`,
+        `signature.sig`, `publicKey`) succeeds, for all combinations of
+        (`signature`) in `envelope.signatures` and (`name`, `publicKey`) in
+        `recognizedSigners`
+    *  `message` := JsonDecode(`envelope.payload`)
+*   Else if `envelope.signed` exists (old-style envelope):
+    *  `preauthEncoding` := CanonicalJsonEncode(`envelope.signed`)
+    *  `signers` := set of `name` for which Verify(`preauthEncoding`,
+        `signature.sig`, `publicKey`) succeeds, for all combinations of
+        (`signature`) in `envelope.signatures` and (`name`, `publicKey`) in
+        `recognizedSigners`
+    *  `message` := `envelope.signed`
+*   Else, raise error
+*   Raise error if `signers` is empty
+*   Return `message` and `signers`
+
+# Motivation
+
+TUF's sister project, in-toto, reused the current signature envelope to maximize
+code reuse. Both projects currently use the same crypto provider. However, the
+current envelope is detailed in both projects, and as time has shown, keeping
+them synchronized has been difficult.
+
+Further, due to interactions in both communities, the signature envelopes have
+evolved to better fit their use cases. Adopting a common source of truth, i.e.,
+a separate signature specification, should help increase cohesion between
+these projects while maintaining the original goal of code reuse and transparent
+integration.
+
+In addition, keeping the signature envelope specification *outside* of the
+current TUF specification will also simplify the specification, which can now
+focus on describing TUF specifics, rather than cryptographic building blocks.
+
+# Rationale
+
+Our goal was to adopt a signature envelope that is as simple and foolproof as
+possible. Alternatives such as [JWS](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7515) are
+extremely complex and error-prone, while others such as
+[PASETO](https://github.com/paragonie/paseto/blob/master/docs/01-Protocol-Versions/Version2.md#sig)
+are overly specific. (Both are also JSON-specific.) We believe the SSL signing
+spec strikes the right balance of simplicity, usefulness, and security.
+
+Further, the SSL signing spec is a "natural evolution" of the current signature
+envelope, which was defined in both the TUF and in-toto specifications. As such,
+it allows for a transparent upgrade via their cryptographic provider,
+[securesystemslib](https://github.com/secure-systems-lab/securesystemslib).
+
+Further information on the reasoning behind the envelope's specifics is provided
+in the [signing specification](https://github.com/secure-systems-lab/signing-spec)
+repository.
+
+# Security Analysis
+
+At first sight this proposal is central to security, yet the actual
+contribution is to allow for a signature provider to be disaggregated from the
+specification. As such, no software update-specific security properties are
+removed from the system through this TAP.
+
+The adoption of SSL signing spec slightly improves the security stance of
+implementations because they are no longer parsing untrusted input.
+
+# Backwards Compatibility
+
+Implementations should continue to support old-style envelope as well as
+new-style SSL Signing Spec envelopes, as defined in the
+[pseudocode](#pseudocode) above.
+
+# Augmented Reference Implementation
+
+None yet.
+
+# Copyright
+
+This document has been placed in the public domain.
+
+# References
+
+* [Canonical JSON](http://gibson042.github.io/canonicaljson-spec/)
+* [JWS](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7515)
+* [PASETO](https://github.com/paragonie/paseto/blob/master/docs/01-Protocol-Versions/Version2.md#sig)
+* [ITE-5](https://github.com/in-toto/ITE/blob/master/ITE/5/README.adoc)
+
+# Acknowledgements
+
+This document was significantly inspired by the authors of ITE-5, Santiago
+Torres-Arias (@SantiagoTorres) and Mark Lodato (@MarkLodato).