Add support for DSSE envelope for attestation in imagetools #2194
Conversation
d2dbc26 to
8f248cc
Compare
util/imagetools/loader.go
Outdated
| @@ -283,7 +284,9 @@ func (l *loader) scanSBOM(ctx context.Context, fetcher remotes.Fetcher, r *resul | |||
| return nil, errors.Errorf("referenced image %s not found", dgst) | |||
| } | |||
| for _, layer := range mfst.manifest.Layers { | |||
| if layer.MediaType == "application/vnd.in-toto+json" && layer.Annotations["in-toto.io/predicate-type"] == "https://spdx.dev/Document" { | |||
| if (layer.MediaType == "application/vnd.in-toto+json" || | |||
| layer.MediaType == "application/vnd.in-toto.spdx+dsse") && | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you have an image we can look at with this mime type?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Supporting this for imagetools inspect is not a big issue I think but generally I don't see why the DSSE envelope should be needed for OCI structures. There is already envelope for referring to data in the form of OCI descriptor, it works natively and doesn't have the base64 overhead and obfuscation issues.
util/imagetools/loader.go
Outdated
| return nil, err | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| decoded, err := base64.StdEncoding.DecodeString(dsse.Payload) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should the payload be trusted if signatures (format) have not been verified?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One could argue it should be trusted at the same level as one that isn't signed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is there a mechanism in place to throw warnings for imagetools inspect commands? if so, adding a warning that the statements haven't been verified would help here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
could potentially use logrus here to print a warning along the lines of warning: sbom statements are not verified until if/when this code checks signatures. I haven't seen many examples in the code base other than
buildx/util/cobrautil/cobrautil.go
Line 37 in a6228ed
|
@tonistiigi is the provenance signed as well? |
|
If you are talking about attestations signed by buildkit then none of them are signed atm. Afaics these are for inspecting images from custom tooling. If SBOM can be wrapped with DSSE in this case then I don't see why provenance wouldn't as well. |
|
@tonistiigi the DSSE is used for signing the attestation so provenance should only need a DSSE envelope if it is signed as well. |
|
@LaurentGoderre are you just looking to sign the SBOM? Is there a reason why not just sign both SBOM and provenance attestations? |
|
@colinhemmings I am not sure if we are, I was asking. |
|
@tonistiigi said:
I agree here. Any format imagetools supports should also be supported when it is wrapped in a DSSE. SBOM, provenance, and whatever else imagetools supports that can be wrapped in a DSSE. |
8f248cc to
184f443
Compare
184f443 to
abf5f79
Compare
…tools Signed-off-by: Laurent Goderre <laurent.goderre@docker.com>
abf5f79 to
b748185
Compare
|
@tonistiigi @whalelines I made more generic so it can be expanded to other DSSE formats. |
Signed-off-by: Tonis Tiigi <tonistiigi@gmail.com>
When running
docker buildx imagetools inspect --format '{{ JSON .SBOM }}and the attestations use theapplication/vnd.in-toto+jsonmime type, the In-TOTO predicate is returned. However, then the attestation are wrapped in a DSSE envelope using theapplication/vnd.in-toto.spdx+dssemime type, the same command returns and empty object ({}).The changes add support for the DSSE mime type and base64 decode the envelope and returnb the payload object to stay consistent with images that do not use a wraper.