aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
...
* 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.
* BGP announcments might have higher requirements on timelinessLinus Nordberg2021-10-021-2/+1
| | | | | | | | They're also not typically communicated in a repository of any kind. BGP updates _could_ of course be logged for non-realtime historical storage (archiving) but as an example this early in the text it's mostly confusing.
* refactored design.md so that it is mostly up-to-dateRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-021-99/+116
| | | | | | | | | - Improved introduction so that it gives a better intuition of how we think about sigsum logging and what our contribution actually is - Clarified that monitoring is a 4th step (monkey-patched) - Added checkpoint as part of our design description - Emphasized witnessing at the start of 'how it works' - A bunch of minor edits and clarifications
* refactored introduction, mostly minor editsRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-021-22/+23
|
* started to restructure and refactor the q/a sectionRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-021-66/+34
|
* continued refactor of design description, bird's viewRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-021-116/+176
|
* started on a refactored design descriptionRasmus Dahlberg2021-10-021-19/+96
|
* clarified that what is logged is a minimal statementRasmus Dahlberg2021-09-281-1/+1
| | | | A claimant may add additional implicit claims via policy.
* fixed endpoint examplesRasmus Dahlberg2021-09-281-13/+28
| | | | | | - Better readability with full code blocks - Replaced localhost with <base url> - Generated new add-leaf example that should be valid
* minor edits and typo fixesRasmus Dahlberg2021-09-281-8/+9
|
* removed unused Trunnel structureRasmus Dahlberg2021-09-281-13/+5
|
* noted that verified timestamps have more use-casesRasmus Dahlberg2021-09-281-2/+4
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | A believer can be convinced that a sigsum was logged after time T. This is because witnesses do Verifier(append-only) and Verifier(Freshness). Outline: a claimant is about to log a sigsum. 1. Fetch the most recent cosigned tree head. - Timestamp is T - Tree size is N 2. Submit sigsum for logging. 3. Wait for inclusion at index N+k, k=>0. 4. Wait for next cosigned tree head. - Timestamp is T', where T' > T - Tree size is N', where N' > N+k 5. Download inclusion proof for tree size N'. Now you can convince a believer that a sigsum is publicly logged. Just reveal inclusion proof which leads up to the second cosigned tree head. Next, you can reveal the first cosigned tree head that _have not merged that entry yet_. This follows from the first cosigned tree head size, and makes it obvious that the entry must have been merge after time T.
* added a second take on api refactoringRasmus Dahlberg2021-09-061-178/+186
| | | | | | | | - Kept current formats and parsers - Added key_hash in tree_head to protect against an attack - Removed mentions of old terminology, e.g., submitter and end-user. - Referenced some of our persisted discuss pads for additional context. - Minor edits
* fixed s/st/sigsum in design.mdRasmus Dahlberg2021-06-251-17/+22
|
* fixed s/st/sigsum in api.mdRasmus Dahlberg2021-06-251-30/+27
|
* imported logging docs without any changesRasmus Dahlberg2021-06-223-0/+693
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.39.1) at 2024-11-22 19:05:21 +0000