Implementing Containers’ Secure Supply Chain with Sigstore Part 2 – The Magic Behind
In my previous post, Implementing Containers’ Secure Supply Chain with Sigstore Part 1 – Signing with Existing Keys, I went over the Cosign experience of signing images with existing keys. As I concluded there, the signing was easy to achieve, with just a few hiccups here and there. It does seem that Cosign does a lot behind the scenes to make it easy. Though, after looking at the artifacts stored in the registry, I got curious of how the signatures and attestations are saved. Unfortunately, the Cosign specifications are a bit light on details, and it seems they were created after or evolved together with the implementation. Hence, I decided to go with the reverse-engineering approach to understand what is saved in the registry.
At this post’s end, I will validate the signatures using Cosign CLI and complete my first scenario.
The Mystery Behind Cosign Artifacts
First, to be able to store Cosign artifacts in a registry, you need to use an OCI-compliant registry. When Cosign signs a container image, an OCI artifact is created and pushed to the registry. Every OCI artifact has a manifest and layers. The manifest is standardized, but the layers can be anything that can be packed in a tarball. So, Cosign’s signature should be in the layer pushed to the registry, and the manifest should describe the signature artifact. For image signatures, Cosign tags the manifest with a tag that uses the following naming convention
From the examples in my previous post, when Cosign signed the
562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v1 image, it created a new artifact and tagged it
sha256-9bd049b6b470118cc6a02d58595b86107407c9e288c0d556ce342ea8acbafdf4.sig. Here are the details of the image that was signed.
And here are the details of the signature artifact.
What is Inside Cosign Signature Artifact?
I was curious about what the signature artifact looks like. Using Crane, I can pull the signature artifact. All files are available in my Github test repository.
# Sign into the registry $ aws ecr get-login-password --region us-west-2 | crane auth login --username AWS --password-stdin 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com # Pull the signature manifest $ crane manifest 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:sha256-9bd049b6b470118cc6a02d58595b86107407c9e288c0d556ce342ea8acbafdf4.sig | jq . > flasksample-v1-signature-manifest.json # Pull the signature artifact as a tarball and unpack it into ./sigstore-signature $ crane pull 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:sha256-9bd049b6b470118cc6a02d58595b86107407c9e288c0d556ce342ea8acbafdf4.sig flasksample-v1-signature.tar.gz $ mkdir sigstore-signature $ tar -xvf flasksample-v1-signature.tar.gz -C ./sigstore-signature $ cd sigstore-signature/ $ ls -al total 20 drwxrwxr-x 2 toddysm toddysm 4096 Oct 14 10:08 . drwxrwxr-x 3 toddysm toddysm 4096 Oct 14 10:07 .. -rw-r--r-- 1 toddysm toddysm 272 Dec 31 1969 09b3e371137191b52fdd07bdf115824b2b297a2003882e68d68d66d0d35fe1fc.tar.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 toddysm toddysm 319 Dec 31 1969 manifest.json -rw-r--r-- 1 toddysm toddysm 248 Dec 31 1969 sha256:00ce5fed483997c24aa0834081ab1960283ee9b2c9d46912bbccc3f9d18e335d $ tar -xvf 09b3e371137191b52fdd07bdf115824b2b297a2003882e68d68d66d0d35fe1fc.tar.gz tar: This does not look like a tar archive gzip: stdin: not in gzip format tar: Child returned status 1 tar: Error is not recoverable: exiting now
Surprisingly to me, the inner tarball (
09b3e371137191b52fdd07bdf115824b2b297a2003882e68d68d66d0d35fe1fc.tar.gz) does not seem to be a tarball, although it has the proper extensions. I assumed this was the actual signature blob, but I couldn’t confirm without knowing how to manipulate that archive. Interestingly, opening the file in a simple text editor reveals that it is a plain JSON file with an
.tar.gz extension. Looking into the other two files
sha256:00ce5fed483997c24aa0834081ab1960283ee9b2c9d46912bbccc3f9d18e335d it looks like all the files are some kind of manifests, but not very clear what for. I couldn’t find any specification explaining the content of the layer and the meaning of the files inside it.
Interestingly, Cosign offers a tool to download the signature.
$ cosign download signature 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v1 | jq . > flasksample-v1-cosign-signature.json
The resulting signature is available in the GitHub repository. The page linked above claims that you can verify the signature in another tool, but I couldn’t immediately find details on how to do that. I decided to leave this for some other time.
The following stand out from this experience.
- First (and typically a red flag when I am evaluating software), why the JSON file has a tarball file extension? Normally, this is malicious practice, and it’s especially concerning in this context. I am sure it will get fixed, and an explanation will be provided now that I have filed an issue for it.
- Why are there so many JSON files? Trying to look at all the available Cosign documentation, I couldn’t find any architectural or design papers that explain those decisions. It seems to me that those things got hacked on top of each other when a need arose. There may be GitHub issues discussing those design decisions, but I didn’t find any in a quick search.
- The signature is not in any of the files that I downloaded. The signature is stored as an OCI annotation in the manifest called
dev.cosignproject.cosign/signature. So, do I even need the rest of the artifact?
- Last but not least, it seems that Cosign tool is the only one that understands how to work with the stored artifacts, which may result in a tool lock-in. Although there is a claim that I can verify the signature in a different tool, without specification, it will be hard to implement such a tool.
What is Inside Cosign Attestation Artifact?
Knowing how the Cosign signatures work, I would expect something similar for the attestations. The mental hierarchy I have built in my mind is the following:
+ Image - Image signature + Attestation - Attestation signature
Unfortunately, this is not the case. There is no separate artifact for the attestation signature. Here are the steps to download the attestation artifact.
# Pull the attestation manifest $ crane manifest 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:sha256-9bd049b6b470118cc6a02d58595b86107407c9e288c0d556ce342ea8acbafdf4.att | jq . > flasksample-v1-attestation-manifest.json # Pull the attestation artifact as a tarball and unpack it into ./sigstore-attestation $ crane pull 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:sha256-9bd049b6b470118cc6a02d58595b86107407c9e288c0d556ce342ea8acbafdf4.sig flasksample-v1-attestation.tar.gz $ mkdir sigstore-attestation $ tar -xvf flasksample-v1-attestation.tar.gz -C ./sigstore-attestation/ sha256:728e26b36817753d90d7de8420dacf4fa1bcf746da2b54bb8c59cd047a682198 c9880779c90158a29f7a69f29c492551261e7a3936247fc75f225171064d6d32.tar.gz ff626be9ff3158e9d2118072cd24481d990a5145d10109affec6064423d74cc4.tar.gz manifest.json
All attestation files are available in my Github test repository. Knowing what was done for the signature, the results are somewhat what I would have expected. Also, I think I am getting a sense of the design by slowly reverse-engineering it.
manifest.json file describes the archive. It points to the config
sha256:728e26b36817753d90d7de8420dacf4fa1bcf746da2b54bb8c59cd047a682198 file and the two layers
ff626be9ff3158e9d2118072cd24481d990a5145d10109affec6064423d74cc4.tar.gz. I was not sure what the config file
sha256:728e26b36817753d90d7de8420dacf4fa1bcf746da2b54bb8c59cd047a682198 is used for, so I decided to ignore it. The two layer JSONs (which were both JSON files, despite the tar.gz extensions) were more interesting, so I decided to dig more into them.
The first thing to note is that the layer JSONs (here and here) for the attestations have a different format from the layer JSON for the signature. While the signature seems to be something proprietary to Cosign, the attestations have a payload type
application/vnd.in-toto+json, which hints at something more widely accepted. While this is not an official IANA media type, there is at least in-toto specification published. The payload looks a lot like a Base64 encoded string, so I gave it a try.
# This decodes the SLSA provenance attestation $ cat ff626be9ff3158e9d2118072cd24481d990a5145d10109affec6064423d74cc4.tar.gz | jq -r .payload | base64 -d | jq . > ff626be9ff3158e9d2118072cd24481d990a5145d10109affec6064423d74cc4.tar.gz.payload.json # And this decodes the SPDX SBOM $ cat c9880779c90158a29f7a69f29c492551261e7a3936247fc75f225171064d6d32.tar.gz | jq -r .payload | base64 -d | jq . > c9880779c90158a29f7a69f29c492551261e7a3936247fc75f225171064d6d32.tar.gz.payload.json
Both files are available here and here. If I want to get the SBOM or the SLSA provenance, I need to get the
predicate value from the above JSONs, JSON decode it, and then use it if I want. I didn’t go into that because that was not part of my goals for this experiment.
Note one thing! As you remember from the beginning of the section, I expected to have signatures for the attestations, and I do! They are not where I expected though. The signatures are part of the layer JSONs (the ones with the strange extensions). If you want to extract the signatures, you need to get the
signatures value from them.
# Extract the SBOM attestation signature $ cat c9880779c90158a29f7a69f29c492551261e7a3936247fc75f225171064d6d32.tar.gz | jq -r .signatures > flasksample-v1-sbom-signatures.json # Extract the SLSA provenance attestation signature cat ff626be9ff3158e9d2118072cd24481d990a5145d10109affec6064423d74cc4.tar.gz | jq -r .signatures > flasksample-v1-slsa-signature.json
The SBOM signature and the SLSA provenance signature are available on GitHub. For whatever reason, the key ID is left blank.
Here are my takeaways from this experience.
- Cosign uses a myriad of nonstandard JSON file formats to store signatures and attestations. These still need documentation and to be standardized (except the in-toto one).
- To get to the data, I need to make several conversations from JSON to Base64 to JSON-encoded, which increases not only the computation power that I need to use but also the probability of errors and bugs, so I would recommend making that simpler.
- All attestations are stored in a single OCI artifact, and there is no way to retrieve a single attestation based on its type. In my example, if I need to get only the SLSA provenance (785 bytes), I still need to download the SBOM, which is 1.5 MB. This is 1500 times more data than I need. The impact will be performance and bandwidth cost, and at scale, would make this solution the wrong one for me.
Verifying Signatures and Attestations with Cosign
Cosign CLI has commands for signature and attestation verification.
# This one verifies the image signature $ cosign verify --key awskms:///61c124fb-bf47-4f95-a805-65dda7cd08ae 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v1 > sigstore-verify-signature-output.json Verification for 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v1 -- The following checks were performed on each of these signatures: - The cosign claims were validated - The signatures were verified against the specified public key # This one verifies the image attestations $ cosign verify-attestation --key awskms:///61c124fb-bf47-4f95-a805-65dda7cd08ae 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v1 > sigstore-verify-attestation-output.json Verification for 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v1 -- The following checks were performed on each of these signatures: - The cosign claims were validated - The signatures were verified against the specified public key
The output of the signature verification and the output of the attestation verification are available in Github. The signature verification is as expected. The attestation verification is more compelling, though. It is another JSON file in non-standard JSON. It seems as though the developer took the two JSONs from the blobs and concatenated them, perhaps unintentionally. Below is a screenshot of the output loaded in Visual Studio Code. Notice that there is no comma between lines 10 and 11. Also, the JSON objects are not wrapped in a JSON array. I’ve opened another issue for the non-standard JSON output from the verification command.
With this, I was able to complete my first scenario – Sign Container Images With Existing Keys Stored in a KMS.
Here is the summary for the second part of my experience:
- It seems that the Sigstore implementation grew organically, and some specs were written after the implementation was done. Though many pieces are missing specifications and documentation, it will be hard to develop third-party tooling or even maintain the code easily until those are written. The more the project grows, the harder and slower it will be to add new capabilities, and the risk of unintended side effects and even security bugs will grow.
- There are certain architectural choices that I would question. I have already mentioned the issue with saving all attestations in a single artifact and the numerous proprietary manifests and JSON files. I would also like to dissect the lack of separation between Cosign CLI and Cosign libraries. If they were separate, it would be easier to use them in third-party tooling to verify or sign artifacts.
- Finally, the above two tell me that there will be a lot of incompatible changes in the product going forward. I would expect this from an MVP but not from a V1 product that I will use in production. If the team wants to move to a cleaner design and more flexible architecture, a lot of the current data formats will change. This, of course, can be hidden behind the Cosign CLI, but that means that I need to take a hard dependency on it. It will be interesting to understand the plan for verification scenarios and how Cosign can be integrated with various policies and admission controllers. Incompatible changes in the verification scenario can, unfortunately, result in production outages.
My biggest concern so far is the inconsistent approach to the implementation and the lax architectural principles and documentation of the design decisions. On the bright side, verifying the signatures and the attestations using the Cosign CLI was very easy and smooth.
In my next post, I will look at the ephemeral key signing scenario and the capabilities to revoke signed artifacts. I will also look at the last scenario that involves the promotion and re-signing of artifacts.
One thought on “Implementing Containers’ Secure Supply Chain with Sigstore Part 2 – The Magic Behind”