On 2018-05-14 19:40, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
Le lun. 14 mai 2018 17:12, Anders Rundgren <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :
On 2018-05-14 17:13, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> Hmm
Hi Romain :-)
>
> Actually order is not guaranteed - and believe me this is not a part i
like much - from the java side and will not by default - we discussed it.
As I understand JSON-B, property sorting like in my revised proposal is the
default:
3.13 Attribute order
Class properties MUST be serialized in lexicographical order into
the resulting JSON document. In case of inheritance, properties
declared in super class MUST be serialized before properties declared
in a child class.
Related: https://github.com/javaee/jsonb-spec/issues/81
Shouldnt and in 1.0 it was clear it was not the case.
This is information I got from the Oracle guys.
Anyway, does this mean that the following is incorrect as well?
4.2 Customizing Property Order
To customize the order of serialized properties, JSON Binding provides
javax.json.bind.config.PropertyOrderStrategy class.
Class javax.json.bind.config.PropertyOrderStrategy provides the most common
property order strategies.
• LEXICOGRAPHICAL
• ANY
• REVERSE
Here I would consider PREDICTIVE (like ECMAScript) because it is quite cool.
Way more useful than REVERSE and ANY at least.
Also it doent help signing since you must ensure what you sign goes last.
Ignoring the fact it assumes the formatting of the ending document (prettified
or not) and only uses the content (which opens security holes if not coupled to
other external solutions) then it only works assuming the signing headers are
first on the read side (validate before reading) and last on signing side (if
you want to avoid to have it all in mem).
You must indeed parse the entire object before you can validate the signature.
Globally it means signing either match the jwt constraint and ijson doesnt help
or you'd better sign outside the payload (http header or so).
FWIW, the MSFT person involved in this work (Mike Jones) is the actual designer
of JWT.
Binding a message to HTTP is an option, unfortunately not very universal.
For reference on johnzon ijson support:
https://github.com/apache/johnzon/blob/f9a916200233f8777addcbaf73807067aa7559f6/johnzon-jsonb/src/main/java/org/apache/johnzon/jsonb/JohnzonBuilder.java#L264
That is a rather sad interpretation of I-JSON since it doesn't accomplish what
it actually was designed for.
Im still not sure what your goal is,
Doing what the XML folks have done since 15Y+ back.
seems to add the signing in the message but what about properties conflicts?
A signature is just another property of a JSON object. You can assign it a
name as any other property.
Why not give it a try? It won't kill you, I promise :-)
https://mobilepki.org/jose-jcs/verify
Anders
Cheers,
Anders
> It is mainly for perf and ensure operability which doesnt rely on that.
Ijson mode should force it though no?
>
> Le lun. 14 mai 2018 15:21, Anders Rundgren <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>> a écrit :
>
> On 2018-05-14 15:04, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > Hi Anders
>
> Hi Romain,
>
> > I miss one thing I think.
> >
> > If you take jwt or derivatives it signs/validates json without
need of any
> > normalization cause it mainly works on the raw payload.
>
> Right. At the expense of obscuring both the message and the message
structure.
>
> Anybody can try out clear text JSON signatures in seconds if they
like: https://mobilepki.org/jose-jcs
>
>
> > Is the issue you speak about being idempotent?
>
> I'd rather describe this as accomplishing what the XML folks did
15Y+ ago.
>
>
> > If so what is the issue? while we use the same defaults it works,
no? If
> > not you need a business key which is quite common too since json
order is
> > never guaranteed too.
>
> This is a core issue. The IETF draft builds on exploiting the fact
that ECMAScript do guarantee property order.
> I implemented that in Java and it was dead simple:
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/LinkedHashMap.html
>
> However, I have recently changed my mind on that and now push for
canonicalization
> https://github.com/cyberphone/json-canonicalization#json-canonicalization
> because it can be provided as a "dumb filter" which is quicker than
standardizing features on the parser/serializer level.
>
> This is only really difficult part:
>
https://github.com/cyberphone/json-canonicalization/tree/master/dotnet/es6numberserialization
> Microsoft is actually testing their JS serializer with my 100
million test value set :-)
>
> Cordialement (we are both in France),
> Anders
>
> >
> >
> > Le lun. 14 mai 2018 11:45, Anders Rundgren <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>>
> > a écrit :
> >
> >> Hi Johnzoners!
> >>
> >> In case you want to digitally sign JSON messages/documents, the
> >> standardized way of doing that is dressing the JSON data in
Base64Url. IMO
> >> this defeats the value of clear text formats.
> >>
> >> Current standard (JWS):
> >>
eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJ1c2VySWQiOiJiMDhmODZhZi0zNWRhLTQ4ZjItOGZhYi1jZWYzOTA0NjYwYmQifQ.-xN_h82PHVTCMA9vdoHrcZxH-x5mb11y1537t3rGzcM
> >>
> >> The (AFAIK...) only workable solution around that problem is
normalization
> >> of JSON data so that it gets a unique/stable representation.
Proposed
> >> alternative (Cleartext JWS):
> >> {
> >> "now": "2018-04-16T11:23:06Z",
> >> "name": "Joe",
> >> "id": 2200063,
> >> "signature": {
> >> "alg": "ES256",
> >> "kid": "example.com:p256",
> >> "val":
> >>
"GagHnDBKhU7ynzLLH1Qs3tYmzbwxyokDtu7f0Iz1mB0GL-9ER_J5fJA9qz3IG6IR_jLHh3fsUEKAzB4GzLex2A"
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >> The "signature" property contains the signature, the other
properties are
> >> just arbitrary application data.
> >>
> >> The #1 problem is the serialization of JSON Numbers [1]. It
would be
> >> FANTASTIC if this feature (which is 100% compatible with JSON),
became a
> >> part of the Java/JSON standards.
> >>
> >> Recent standardization activity supported by Microsoft relying
on this
> >> feature:
> >>
https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-erdtman-jose-cleartext-jws-00.html
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Anders
> >>
> >> 1] The idea is using ECMAScript's definition which I currently
have
> >> running for Java, C# .NET and Python 3
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
