On 06/09/2017 09:25 PM, sha.ji...@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.ji...@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.ji...@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.ji...@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
