It's best practice to define as much code, especially exported API, in
files that can build on any platform. With as little code as possible in
OS specific files.
Ensure files with build tags don't contain any exported APIs. This helps
us not accidentally define API that only works on one platform, or have
incompatible method defintions between OSes.
TODO: follow up with an "unsupported" implementation so this builds on
Mac or without CGO (e.g. for servers)?
Ensure an attacker can't alter the value we interpret by appending an entry of
the same type to the eventlog. Don't worry about events that come before the
EV_SEPARATOR for now.
This is being prototyped in an internal package as we start to open
source. This code will either live in attest, or in a separate eventlog
package in the future.
Currently the activation challenge lets a caller supply a source of
randomness other than crypto/rand, but it's not used in some places.
Plumb the source through the call chain.
This PR adds:
* Renames 'PlatformEK' to 'EK'
* More consistant support of EKs without certificates
* Removes HTTP GET to Intel EK certificate service
* Always populates EK.Public
This PR adds event log parsing logic. It's main goal is to require
validation at the same time as parsing, so structured events are always
verified against a quote. This new API replaces the exisitng "verifier"
package.
It's not a goal of this PR to parse the event data. This will be a
follow up, but since different users might want to parse different
events based on the OS, this API lets users of this package implement
custom event data parsing if they absolutely need to.
Event log parsing requires knowning both the public key and signing
parameters. Symmantically, this information should be from an attested
public key blob, not additional data passed by the client.
Introduce a new method for parsing an AIK's public key blob, returning
a new AIKPublic struct.
Was going through the godoc and it's not clear that this is ever used.
To clean up the API, remove KeyPurpose for now. This could probably be
an internal validation anyway, right?
