-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 547
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
--insecure-ignore-sct=true required to verify in v2.2.1 when using own keys #3386
Labels
bug
Something isn't working
Comments
I now believe the culprit is sigstore/scaffolding#873, this is not an issue in |
Thanks for filing, #3236's logic is flipped, we shouldn't require CT log keys if a key is provided. |
haydentherapper
added a commit
to haydentherapper/cosign
that referenced
this issue
Dec 5, 2023
Fixes sigstore#3386. The logic was inverted for this check. Signed-off-by: Hayden Blauzvern <hblauzvern@google.com>
haydentherapper
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 5, 2023
Fixes #3386. The logic was inverted for this check. Signed-off-by: Hayden Blauzvern <hblauzvern@google.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Description
In v2.2.1 I fail to verify when using my own keys and my own rekor instance with an error about ctlog public key not being available. However I can verify successfully with the
--insecure-ignore-sct=true
in v2.2.1. I'm working with my own deployment of sigstore, using thescaffold
chart: that is trillian, ctlog, rekor, fulcio and tuf. I did not configure ctlog ingress, which may explain the error message?First initialise cosign, generate the keys and then sign. Everything ok.
Then I verify:
--insecure-ignore-sct=true
flag both version fail:--insecure-ignore-sct=true
only 2.2.1 failI think the behaviour in 2.2.1 is a bug. But also I do not understand why the
--insecure-ignore-sct=true
is required in 2.2.0. I understand that rekor works as a timestamp authority... so why does one need that flag? I think this is similar or at least related to #3236 and possibly to #3368Version
v2.2.0 and v2.2.1
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: