Skip to content

fix: Support cosign v3 signature verification - #1968

Open
JasonPowr wants to merge 1 commit into
sigstore:mainfrom
securesign:add-support-for-cosignv3-signitures
Open

fix: Support cosign v3 signature verification#1968
JasonPowr wants to merge 1 commit into
sigstore:mainfrom
securesign:add-support-for-cosignv3-signitures

Conversation

@JasonPowr

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

  • Fix LogID encoding to store raw bytes instead of hex-encoded ASCII. cosign.GetTransparencyLogID() returns a hex string the old code stored it via []byte(logID) (ASCII bytes of the hex chars) instead of hex.DecodeString(logID) (actual binary). This caused key-lookup mismatches with sigstore-go / cosign v3.

  • Fix transparency log public key map lookups to use hex.EncodeToString() instead of string() on the now-correct raw byte LogIDs.

  • Add bundle-format verification path for keyless and RFC3161Timestamp authorities, routing to attestation verification when NewBundleFormat is set.

Release Note

  • Fixed LogID encoding in TrustRoot reconciliation to store raw bytes instead of hex-encoded ASCII, aligning with cosign v3 and sigstore-go expectations. This resolves transparency log key-lookup failures when verifying signatures against custom TrustRoot configurations.
  • Added support for cosign v3 bundle-format signature verification for keyless and RFC3161Timestamp authorities.

Documentation

Users verifying cosign v3 bundle-format signatures can now set signatureFormat: "bundle" on a keyless authority in their ClusterImagePolicy. No changes are required for existing policies using the legacy signature format.

Custom TrustRoot configurations with transparency log entries (Rekor/CTFE) will now produce correctly encoded LogIDs. Existing TrustRoot resources should be re-reconciled after upgrading to ensure LogIDs are stored in the correct format.

Signed-off-by: JasonPowr <japower@redhat.com>
@JasonPowr
JasonPowr marked this pull request as ready for review May 8, 2026 09:21
@JasonPowr

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@hectorj2f Sorry for the direct ping :), I seen you reviewed and approved the last pr that was merged into this repo, when you have the time, Could I get a review please :), thanks in advanced

@JasonPowr

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@codysoyland Thank you so much for the review on my other pr !, when you have a minute could I also get a review on this one ?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant