7 Commits (c23a7fce4e0a4faebe8a4fe4ca2ad6e6eea68e40)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
James Bardin	a4a6b40bee	update getproviders tests for new key	5 years ago
Martin Atkins	ef64df950c	getproviders: Prepare for having multiple valid hashes per package ... As we continue iterating towards saving valid hashes for a package in a depsfile lock file after installation and verifying them on future installation, this prepares getproviders for the possibility of having multiple valid hashes per package. This will arise in future commits for two reasons: - We will need to support both the legacy "zip hash" hashing scheme and the new-style content-based hashing scheme because currently the registry protocol is only able to produce the legacy scheme, but our other installation sources prefer the content-based scheme. Therefore packages will typically have a mixture of hashes of both types. - Installing from an upstream registry will save the hashes for the packages across all supported platforms, rather than just the current platform, and we'll consider all of those valid for future installation if we see both successful matching of the current platform checksum and a signature verification for the checksums file as a whole. This also includes some more preparation for the second case above in that signatureAuthentication now supports AcceptableHashes and returns all of the zip-based hashes it can find in the checksums file. This is a bit of an abstraction leak because previously that authenticator considered its "document" to just be opaque bytes, but we want to make sure that we can only end up trusting _all_ of the hashes if we've verified that the document is signed. Hopefully we'll make this better in a future commit with some refactoring, but that's deferred for now in order to minimize disruption to existing codepaths while we work towards a provider locking MVP.	6 years ago
Martin Atkins	6694cfaa0e	getproviders: Add a real type Hash for package hashes ... The logic for what constitutes a valid hash and how different hash schemes are represented was starting to get sprawled over many different files and packages. Consistently with other cases where we've used named types to gather the definition of a particular string into a single place and have the Go compiler help us use it properly, this introduces both getproviders.Hash representing a hash value and getproviders.HashScheme representing the idea of a particular hash scheme. Most of this changeset is updating existing uses of primitive strings to uses of getproviders.Hash. The new type definitions are in internal/getproviders/hash.go.	6 years ago
Martin Atkins	b2c0ccdf96	internal/getproviders: Allow PackageMeta to carry acceptable hashes ... The "acceptable hashes" for a package is a set of hashes that the upstream source considers to be good hashes for checking whether future installs of the same provider version are considered to match this one. Because the acceptable hashes are a package authentication concern and they already need to be known (at least in part) to implement the authenticators, here we add AcceptableHashes as an optional extra method that an authenticator can implement. Because these are hashes chosen by the upstream system, the caller must make its own determination about their trustworthiness. The result of authentication is likely to be an input to that, for example by distrusting hashes produced by an authenticator that succeeds but doesn't report having validated anything.	6 years ago
Martin Atkins	146e983c36	internal/getproviders: package authenticator for our new-style hashes ... Earlier we introduced a new package hashing mechanism that is compatible with both packed and unpacked packages, because it's a hash of the contents of the package rather than of the archive it's delivered in. However, we were using that only for the local selections file and not for any remote package authentication yet. The provider network mirrors protocol includes new-style hashes as a step towards transitioning over to the new hash format in all cases, so this new authenticator is here in preparation for verifying the checksums of packages coming from network mirrors, for mirrors that support them. For now this leaves us in a kinda confusing situation where we have both NewPackageHashAuthentication for the new style and NewArchiveChecksumAuthentication for the old style, which for the moment is represented only by a doc comment on the latter. Hopefully we can remove NewArchiveChecksumAuthentication in a future commit, if we can get the registry updated to use the new hashing format.	6 years ago
Paul Tyng	22ef5cc99c	Modify language for reporting signing state ... Be more explicit about the signing status of fetched plugins and provide documentation about the different signing options.	6 years ago
Alisdair McDiarmid	a5b3d497cc	internal: Verify provider signatures on install ... Providers installed from the registry are accompanied by a list of checksums (the "SHA256SUMS" file), which is cryptographically signed to allow package authentication. The process of verifying this has multiple steps: - First we must verify that the SHA256 hash of the package archive matches the expected hash. This could be done for local installations too, in the future. - Next we ensure that the expected hash returned as part of the registry API response matches an entry in the checksum list. - Finally we verify the cryptographic signature of the checksum list, using the public keys provided by the registry. Each of these steps is implemented as a separate PackageAuthentication type. The local archive installation mechanism uses only the archive checksum authenticator, and the HTTP installation uses all three in the order given. The package authentication system now also returns a result value, which is used by command/init to display the result of the authentication process. There are three tiers of signature, each of which is presented differently to the user: - Signatures from the embedded HashiCorp public key indicate that the provider is officially supported by HashiCorp; - If the signing key is not from HashiCorp, it may have an associated trust signature, which indicates that the provider is from one of HashiCorp's trusted partners; - Otherwise, if the signature is valid, this is a community provider.	6 years ago