aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* update ssh signing format proposalLinus Nordberg2021-11-301-39/+126
|
* add textLinus Nordberg2021-11-161-0/+140
| | | | | Punting on all crypto agility for now. Let's make a separate proposal out of the contents of the section "Related questions".
* added remove arbitrary bytes proposalRasmus Dahlberg2021-11-151-0/+32
|
* added open-ended shard interval proposalRasmus Dahlberg2021-11-151-0/+34
|
* add placeholder for the ssh sig format ideaLinus Nordberg2021-11-151-0/+0
|
* added project launch linkRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-131-1/+1
|
* reordered shard hint and domain hint in §4Rasmus Dahlberg2021-10-131-22/+22
| | | | | | After our refactor rate limits are no longer mentioned in §3. The domain hint subsection contains that text now, and should therefore be before the shard hint subsection that assumed it is already explained.
* fixed typoRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-131-1/+1
|
* added history.md documentRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-131-0/+38
|
* defined what type of hex encoding is permittedRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-121-4/+4
|
* cleaned-up more questions sectionRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-121-5/+1
| | | | | | | | | These questions are to some extent answered as part of our refactor, or addressed as things we are still open to think more about. I think we can leave them out for now and add them later _with answers_ if needed. I kept the privacy concerns question because that is not addressed anywhere yet. We think that the answer is "mostly none".
* removed comments about partial enforcementRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-121-10/+0
| | | | | | | To be re-added at a later time somewhere else. It is not helpful for a reader that is trying to understand the basic design for the first time. Spotted by ln5.
* renamed section 4.4Rasmus Dahlberg2021-10-121-1/+1
| | | | Discussed with ln5.
* minor wordingLinus Nordberg2021-10-121-6/+6
|
* added additional witnessing thoughts in FAQRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-101-4/+22
|
* emphasized "attacker" instead of "log operator"Rasmus Dahlberg2021-10-101-2/+2
|
* explained property of usage pattern that relates to shardingRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-101-5/+13
|
* fixed overflowing lines, no content changesRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-102-44/+55
|
* added a few minor editsRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-102-16/+14
|
* keep summary session at its current locationRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-101-1/+0
| | | | | | | | | | | | I don't think it improves our design document by being moved. We already have a summary of properties in the introduction, and an easier primer at the start of Section 3 that is strongly coupled to Figure 1. Perhaps it is no longer necessary though. When we wrote this we did not have a summary of properties in introduction, or a relatively detailed walk-through of the log's intended usage-pattern. I'm fine with both keeping as is or deleting if it feels redundant.
* reworked partial enforcement of verification criteriaRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-101-9/+10
| | | | | - Expanded into two separate examples - Moved it into the verification subsection
* refactored extended domain hint text into FAQRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-101-21/+22
|
* fixed small/medium issues and left some commentsLinus Nordberg2021-10-101-63/+67
| | | | | | | | | | - Deleted unnecessary roadmap - Clarified distribution and verification section - Proposed down-to-the-point text for domain hint description - Left comments that we should consider addressing - A bunch of minor edits For transparency this commit was squashed and rebased by rgdd.
* updated terminology that was lagging behindRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-102-22/+24
| | | | | | | | | - s/verifier/monitor - s/claimant/signer - s/believer/verifier - s/opaque data/data - minor rewordings related to these substitutions - referenced a possible timestamp usage
* used the same examples on website and design.mdRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-071-2/+1
|
* emphasized that monitors look for unwanted key-usageRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-072-1/+1
|
* removed unnecessary sentence in threat modelRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-072-4/+3
|
* fixed bad formulationRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-071-2/+2
|
* added example of non-scope in our architectureRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-071-2/+4
|
* refactored Figure 1 and primer textRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-071-37/+34
| | | | | - Added anti-spam mechanism, completes figures without too much clutter - Minor rewordings that simplified description
* fixed s/transparent log/transparency log/gRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-071-8/+8
|
* expressed goal without higher-level use-cases in mindRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-071-6/+2
|
* refactored abstract to better describe sigsum loggingRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-071-5/+8
|
* rephrased "the right data" pitchRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-072-3/+3
| | | | | | | There is a risk that "the right data" is confused with "what do you mean, obviously it is the right data if there is a valid signature". Tried just reword.
* added a major refactor of design.mdRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-051-268/+270
| | | | | | | | | | | | | The claimant model was mostly pulled from this document. It is useful to define use-cases of sigsum in a succinct way, but not helpful to tell the reader about the concrete design that we have for a sigsum log. (We still have a separate document that uses the claimant model.) This refactor also tries to remove focus from use-cases that in general are messy, and instead focus on the simple sigsum logging design that has a very well-defined and thought-through usage-pattern. The result of this is that things should be a little bit more down-to-the-point.
* updated claimant model examplesRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-021-64/+24
| | | | | | | | | I think the claimant model is most helpful for us to describe the different use-cases of a sigsum log. Let's focus on claimant models for use-cases in this document, not claimant models for logs _as well_. I kept R-B as an example because it is concrete, and fixed the long-due updates that GeKo pointed out a while back about, e.g., "right data".
* updated q/a sectionRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-021-24/+16
| | | | | | | - Named it FAQ - Linked pad with design things that we still consider - Cleaned notes about what we should be adding - Removed empty concluding remarks section
* updated design descriptionRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-021-18/+10
| | | | | | - Minor rephrasing and white-space changes to make raw text nicer. - Avoid using sigsum as "signed checksum" in text. Not helpful. - Removed TODO in text about Figure 2. It works without it for now.
* updated threat modelRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-021-22/+22
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Minor rephrasing and white-space changes to make raw text nicer. - Avoid using sigsum as "signed checksum" in text. Not helpful. - Removed paragraph about risk-averse attacker. It is not needed to make our points right now. In a future revision, we should re-add this and explain why it is interesting. It would also be a good idea to then cite the two papers that z4lem mentioned a while back, see archive. - Clarified that we need a threshold of witnesses that follow the cosigning protocol for security. It is a start on addressing rohonk's comment about which parties may (not) follow protocol and why. - Emphasized that sigsum logging is only more course-grained than CT if the data is actually lost. Hence, more course-grained _in isolation_. - Added links to slow-down and split-view attacks.
* updated introductionRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-021-30/+43
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Minor rephrasing and white-space changes to make raw text nicer. - Avoid using sigsum as "signed checksum" in text. Not helpful. - Replaced TPM quote example. Not easy for everyone to relate to. - Added a paragraph with examples of how our design goals are not fulfilled by CT. This starts to address Rohon's comment about having comparative study. Elaborate later on, and include more than just CT. - Pointed out that our abstract setting is not 100% claimant model. For example, the claimant model does not say much about role interaction. - Fixed missing and broken links.
* updated abstractRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-021-6/+6
| | | | | | - Avoid using sigsum as "signed checksum" in text. Not helpful. - Promise less about use-case discussion. We are not there yet. - Emphasize that we want feedback by having that on a separate line.
* reverted checkpoint terminology for nowRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-021-10/+8
|
* don't require TrunnelLinus Nordberg2021-10-021-4/+5
|
* wordingLinus Nordberg2021-10-021-1/+1
| | | | Slightly more general claim -- "protocols" and "data formats".
* clarify distribution mechanismLinus Nordberg2021-10-021-1/+1
|
* trim whitespaceLinus Nordberg2021-10-021-11/+11
|
* s/github/git.sigsum/Linus Nordberg2021-10-021-1/+1
| | | | Yay!
* don't use "X" twiceLinus Nordberg2021-10-021-1/+1
| | | | Two "X" in the same section, unrelated, can be more confusing than clarifying.
* minor wording changesLinus Nordberg2021-10-021-3/+3
| | | | | | - more than two perspectives - avoid "deployment" to refer to "log operations" - don't say "idiot"
* "repository" is not yet definedLinus Nordberg2021-10-021-1/+1
| | | | So let's wait with using it. The sentence stands fine without it.
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.39.1) at 2024-11-22 15:28:49 +0000