RFR JDK-8179614: Test for jarsigner on verifying jars that are signed and timestamped by other JDK releases

sha.jiang at oracle.com sha.jiang at oracle.com
Tue Jun 13 15:47:14 UTC 2017


Sean and Max,
Please review this updated webrev: 
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jjiang/8179614/webrev.03/

The main changes are:
1. It provides two new properties, tsaList and tsaListFile, for 
specifying a list of TSA services.
And a new report column [TSA] is introduced. This column just display 
the TSA indices and all of TSA services are displayed at the top of the 
report.
2. If property strict is true, the cases on failed signing are not 
ignored. They still be listed in the test report, and the status of 
verifying are NONE.

Best regards,
John Jiang

On 13/06/2017 06:51, sha.jiang at oracle.com wrote:
> Hi Max,
>
> On 12/06/2017 17:29, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Great. Only 2 questions:
>>
>>  459     // Return key sizes according to the specified key algorithm.
>>  460     private static int[] keySizes(String digestAlgorithm, String 
>> keyAlgorithm) {
>>  461         if (digestAlgorithm == DEFAULT) {
>>  462             return new int[] { 0 };
>>  463         }
>>  464
>>  465         if (keyAlgorithm == RSA || keyAlgorithm == DSA) {
>>  466             return new int[] { 1024, 2048 };
>>  467         } else if (keyAlgorithm == EC) {
>>  468             return new int[] { 384, 571 };
>>  469         }
>>  470
>>  471         return null;
>>  472     }
>>
>> Why is keysize dependent on digestalg? I mean, is it possible to 
>> always return {1024,2048,0} and {384,571,0}?
> Get it, thanks!
>>
>>  379     // If signing fails, the following verifying has to
>>  380     // be ignored.
>>  381     if (signingStatus == STATUS.ERROR) {
>>  382         continue;
>>  383     }
>>
>> Now that you've already checked sigalg support earlier in what cases 
>> it could go wrong here?
> Jar signing still could fail. For example, TSA service is unavailable.
>
> Best regards,
> John Jiang
>>
>> Thanks
>> Max
>>
>> On 06/12/2017 03:20 PM, sha.jiang at oracle.com wrote:
>>> Hi Max,
>>> Would you like to review the updated webrev: 
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jjiang/8179614/webrev.02/
>>> It can create certificate without -sigalg and -keysize, and jar 
>>> signing also can use this certificate.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> John Jiang
>>>
>>> On 09/06/2017 22:04, Weijun Wang wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 06/09/2017 09:25 PM, sha.jiang at oracle.com wrote:
>>>>> Hi Max,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/06/2017 20:05, Weijun Wang wrote:
>>>>>> The test can be more friendly with default values.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For example, in createCertificates(), you can generate certs that 
>>>>>> use default sigalg and keysize (i.e. without specifying -siglag 
>>>>>> and -keysize), and give them aliases with "default" or "null" 
>>>>>> inside.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And in jar signing when signing with one -sigalg you can also 
>>>>>> choose cert generated with different or default sigalgs.
>>>>> I supposed this test just focus on signed jar verifying, but not 
>>>>> certificate creating and jar signing. So, I'm not sure such cases 
>>>>> are necessary.
>>>>
>>>> Well sometimes a test can do many things. If you only care about 
>>>> jar verification, why bother creating certs with different digest 
>>>> algorithms?
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, if you do care about more, then in
>>>>
>>>>  338     // If the digest algorithm is not specified, then it
>>>>  339     // uses certificate with SHA256 digest and 1024 key
>>>>  340     // size.
>>>>  341     if (digestAlgorithm == DEFAULT) {
>>>>  342         certDigest = SHA256;
>>>>  343         certKeySize = 1024;
>>>>  344     }
>>>>
>>>> it seems a little awkward to hardcode the algorithm and keysize. If 
>>>> signing is using a default algorithm, it seems natural to use the 
>>>> cert that was generated with a default algorithm. In fact, this 
>>>> test case is quite useful that it ensures our different tools are 
>>>> using the same (or at least interoperable) default algorithms.
>>>>
>>>> --Max
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, I remember certain pairs of -keysize and -sigalg do not work 
>>>>>> together. For example, 1024 bit of DSA key cannot be used with 
>>>>>> SHA512withDSA signature algorithm. Have you noticed it?
>>>>> It looks SHA512withDSA is not supported yet.
>>>>> I was using JDK10 build 10. When the test tried to create 
>>>>> certificate with -keyalg DSA -sigalg SHA512withDSA -keysize 1024, 
>>>>> the below error raised:
>>>>> keytool error: java.security.NoSuchAlgorithmException: 
>>>>> unrecognized algorithm name: SHA512withDSA
>>>>>
>>>>> If used -keyalg DSA -sigalg SHA1withDSA -keysize 2048, the error was:
>>>>> keytool error: java.security.InvalidKeyException: The security 
>>>>> strength of SHA-1 digest algorithm is not sufficient for this key 
>>>>> size
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, this test focus on signed jar verifying. If some problems 
>>>>> are raised on certificate creating or jar signing, the associated 
>>>>> verifying cases will be ignored.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> John Jiang
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Max
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/09/2017 04:44 PM, sha.jiang at oracle.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Sean and Max,
>>>>>>> Thanks for your comments.
>>>>>>> Please review the updated webrev: 
>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jjiang/8179614/webrev.01/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The test has been modified significantly. The main points are:
>>>>>>> 1. Adds cases on EC. Now the test supports key algorithms RSA, 
>>>>>>> DSA and EC.
>>>>>>> 2. Adds cases on SHA-512. Now the test supports digest 
>>>>>>> algorithms SHA-1, SHA-256 and SHA-512.
>>>>>>> 3. Adds cases on key size. Exactly, [384, 571] for EC, [1024, 
>>>>>>> 2048] for RSA and DSA.
>>>>>>> 4. Adds cases on default signature algorithm. Now the test 
>>>>>>> report can display the default algorithmat column [Signature 
>>>>>>> Algorithm].
>>>>>>> 5. Adds property -Djava.security.egd=file:/dev/./urandom for 
>>>>>>> keytool and jarsigner commands.
>>>>>>> 6. Create a separated application, JdkUtils.java, to determine 
>>>>>>> the JDK build version (java.runtime.version) and check if a 
>>>>>>> signature algorithm is supported by a JDK.
>>>>>>> 7. Introduces a new property, named javaSecurityFile, for 
>>>>>>> allowing users to specify alternative java security properties 
>>>>>>> file.
>>>>>>> 8. Renames report column [Cert Type] to [Certificate]. This 
>>>>>>> column displays the certificate identifiers, which is a 
>>>>>>> combination of key algorithm, digest algorithm, key size and 
>>>>>>> expired mark (if any).
>>>>>>> 9. The test summary also be updated accordingly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> John Jiang
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 07/06/2017 23:11, Sean Mullan wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/6/17 9:14 PM, sha.jiang at oracle.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Sean,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 07/06/2017 04:27, Sean Mullan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This looks like a very useful test. I have not gone through 
>>>>>>>>>> all of the code, but here are a few comments for now until I 
>>>>>>>>>> have more time:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - add tests for EC keys
>>>>>>>>>> - add tests for SHA-512 variants of the signature algorithms
>>>>>>>>>> - add tests for larger key sizes (ex: 2048 for DSA/RSA)
>>>>>>>>>> - you can use the diamond operator <> in various places
>>>>>>>>>> - might be more compact if jdkList() used Files.lines() to 
>>>>>>>>>> parse the file into a stream then an array
>>>>>>>>> I did consider about the above two points. Because the test 
>>>>>>>>> will be backported to JDK 6, so I only used the features those 
>>>>>>>>> supported by JDK 6.
>>>>>>>>> I supposed that would make the backport easier. Does it make 
>>>>>>>>> sense?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, that makes sense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --Sean
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>> John Jiang
>>>>>>>>>> - did you consider using the jarsigner API 
>>>>>>>>>> (jdk.security.jarsigner) instead of the command-line? I think 
>>>>>>>>>> this would be better (if possible) and it would give us some 
>>>>>>>>>> more tests of that API.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --Sean
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/17 6:31 AM, sha.jiang at oracle.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>> Please review this manual test for checking if a jar, which 
>>>>>>>>>>> is signed and timestamped by a JDK build, could be verified 
>>>>>>>>>>> by other JDK builds.
>>>>>>>>>>> It also can be used to check if the default timestamp digest 
>>>>>>>>>>> algorithm on signing is SHA-256.
>>>>>>>>>>> For more details, please look through the test summary.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8179614
>>>>>>>>>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jjiang/8179614/webrev.00/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> John Jiang
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>



More information about the security-dev mailing list