Maybe I’m missing something, but all of the disclosures are covered by the SD-JWT signature and so (a) are protected, and are (b) immutable.
— Neil > On 8 Aug 2024, at 19:18, Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries> wrote: > > That's fair : ) > > Let's replace "suspicion" with "I would have argued for a different design". > > In JOSE, ~ is just used as a placeholder for "missing unprotected header". > > You still need to validate that the correct mutable data was included, and > that no "unexpected mutable data" was included. > > That's a "verifier policy over mutable data". > > In the context of SD-JWT that means checking disclosures, matching their hash > to the kbt and making sure the kbt is signed by the cnf. > > That is very similar to the kind of unprotected header processing that COSE > supports, see: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9338.html#section-2 > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9338.html#section-2> > > Sure maybe it's less obvious that jwt (cnf) -> disclosures -> hash -> kbt > signed by cnf is a kind of counter signature. > > But it is a second signature, over a specific set of disclosures that is > grouped together with the first signature, which are verified together. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt-10#section-9.1 > > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-selective-disclosure-jwt-10#section-9.1> > > """ > Unprotected headers other than disclosures are not covered by the digest, and > therefore, as usual, are not protected against tampering. > """ > > This is similar to how values in unprotected headers in COSE are not > protected, unless there is some "verification process" such as checking a > counter signature, or merkle tree inclusion proof. > > Isn't JWP meant to replace SD-JWT in some cases that require stronger > unlinkability? > > IIRC SD-JWT and OAUTH had good reasons to define a JSON Serialization, and if > it's used, those users should be able to switch to JWP or CWP in the future. > > OS > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 12:33 PM Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com > <mailto:bcampb...@pingidentity.com>> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 11:27 AM Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries> wrote: > <snip> > > If JWTs had unprotected headers, I suspect SD-JWT would have used them for > the mutable part (disclosures). > > That suspicion is entirely incorrect. > > <snip> > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged > material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, > distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by > e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your computer. > Thank you. > > > -- > > ORIE STEELE > Chief Technology Officer > www.transmute.industries <http://www.transmute.industries/> > <https://transmute.industries/> > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list -- jose@ietf.org <mailto:jose@ietf.org> > To unsubscribe send an email to jose-le...@ietf.org > <mailto:jose-le...@ietf.org>
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list -- jose@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to jose-le...@ietf.org
