couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Anderson <jch...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Proposal for digital signatures of documents
Date Mon, 13 Apr 2009 07:16:06 GMT
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Mark Hammond <skippy.hammond@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/04/2009 9:47 AM, Chris Anderson wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Chris Anderson<jchris@apache.org>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Brian Candler<B.Candler@pobox.com>
>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Inventing new cryptosystems is dangerous. Why not an OpenPGP armored
>>>> detached signature?
>>
>> Does this hand-waving version of a signed document look like it could
>> work?
>>
>>     {
>>       "_id" : "89a7stdg235",
>>       "_rev" : "1-26476513",
>>       "signed-content" : {
>>         "message" : "I said this and I meant it.",
>>         "date" : "2009/04/09 15:54:08",
>>         "author" : {
>>           "name" : "J. Chris Anderson",
>>           "url" : "http://jchrisa.net",
>>           "photo" : "http://jchrisa.net/profile.jpg"
>>         }
>>       },
>>       "signature" : {
>>         "content-hash" : "s7d23fiu7g34awb47e32rso7d54fn3sdf==",
>>         "content-serializer" : {
>>           "code" : "http://jchrisa.net/repeatable-json-0.2.2.js",
>>           "decimal-precision" : 4
>>         },
>>         "public-key" :
>>
>> "5s2457d357f47io46u135h35as5df135oi235ugs4a35df57ou7y5g1s5d5f58ou1s3d4f==",
>>         "signed-hash" : "h235h345h3147j23j35g1235344j3246h46jg3245j==",
>>       },
>>       "foo" : ["this content is not signed", "it's just here"]
>>     }
>
> Would it be possible to just list the field names rather than forcing
> another object into the mix?  Eg, let's say I've an existing couch DB I'd
> like to add signature support to - IIUC, the scheme above would force both
> the database and the 'application' to be converted to use the new enforced
> 'signed-content' container.
>

Good point. I totally agree that it should be possible to add
signatures to existing documents. Another objective would be allowing
multiple independent signatures. Moving the list of signed fields to
the signature itself might help.

This would allow more than one key to sign the same fields, as well as
allow sets of signed fields to be moved between documents while
preserving the signature.

Something like this then? (also a list of signatures, here)

     {
       "_id" : "89a7stdg235",
       "_rev" : "1-26476513",
       "message" : "I said this and I meant it.",
       "date" : "2009/04/09 15:54:08",
       "author" : {
         "name" : "J. Chris Anderson",
         "url" : "http://jchrisa.net",
         "photo" : "http://jchrisa.net/profile.jpg"
       }
       "foo" : "not signed but still a normal field",
       "signatures" : [{
         "signed-fields: [ "message", "date", "author"],
         etc as described...
       }]
    }

> To be concrete, I'm suggesting something like:
>
>      {
>        "_id" : "89a7stdg235",
>        "_rev" : "1-26476513",
>        "signed-fields: [ "message", "date", "author"]
>        "message" : "I said this and I meant it.",
>        "date" : "2009/04/09 15:54:08",
>        "author" : {
>          "name" : "J. Chris Anderson",
>          "url" : "http://jchrisa.net",
>          "photo" : "http://jchrisa.net/profile.jpg"
>        }
>        "foo" : "not signed but still a normal field",
>        "signature" : etc as described...
>     }
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark
>



-- 
Chris Anderson
http://jchrisa.net
http://couch.io

Mime
View raw message