Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Planning for first stable release? #6

Open
hafkenscheid opened this issue May 27, 2020 · 1 comment
Open

Planning for first stable release? #6

hafkenscheid opened this issue May 27, 2020 · 1 comment
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@hafkenscheid
Copy link

Hi there,
I am curious if you have a planning for releasing the first stable version.
Maybe you need some help?

@madwizard-thomas
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi,
There is no real strict planning but I'm aiming for July. The basic verification of keys is already functional and I actually use the library in production already. The main reasons there is not a stable version yet are:

  • The API interface needs to be stabilized, use of interfaces is not always consistent and I may refactor some namespaces around to make things more logical
  • Parsing and validation of all attestation types is complete but verification against trust anchors, specific policies (e.g. allow None or Self, require MDS) is still a work in progress.
  • Support for the metadata service (MDS) is a work in progress. Even though in it's current state MDS is pretty much useless it would be nice to support it.
  • I'd like to pass the FIDO conformance tests. I've passed these tests 100% in some test versions but that code needs to be refactored into something more structured.
  • Certificate revocation checks (CRL) are difficult in PHP. The only implementation I know of is phpseclib but it doesn't support EC CRL signatures. It seems version 3 does but that is not stable yet, I'm hoping that will happen soon. I have tried parsing CRL's myself which is doable, although it is very slow with large CRL's. The conformance tests require CRL's to pass the tests. In practice I think the MDS data in itself would be sufficient since it allows to explicitly mark compromised keys anyway.
  • A builder or similar pattern needs to be figured out to setup the server object. This is a bit complex to do manually.

I'ts difficult to pinpoint a specific point to help with since it's all related but if I think of something I'll create some separate issues for it.
More test coverage is also something that is always welcome or any issues that may pop up from code review.

@madwizard-thomas madwizard-thomas added the question Further information is requested label Sep 24, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants