Tag / containers

In the last post of the series about Sigstore, I will look at the most exciting part of the implementation – ephemeral keys, or what the Sigstore team calls keyless signing. The post will go over the second and third scenarios I outlined in Implementing Containers’ Secure Supply Chain with Sigstore Part 1 – Signing with Existing Keys and go deeper into the experience of validating artifacts and moving artifacts between registries.

Using Sigstore to Sign with Ephemeral Keys

Using Cosign to sign with ephemeral keys is still an experimental feature and will be released in v1.14.0 (see the following PR). Signing with ephemeral keys is relatively easy.

$ COSIGN_EXPERIMENTAL=1 cosign sign 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v1
Generating ephemeral keys...
Retrieving signed certificate...
 Note that there may be personally identifiable information associated with this signed artifact.
 This may include the email address associated with the account with which you authenticate.
 This information will be used for signing this artifact and will be stored in public transparency logs and cannot be removed later.
 By typing 'y', you attest that you grant (or have permission to grant) and agree to have this information stored permanently in transparency logs.
Are you sure you want to continue? (y/[N]): y
Your browser will now be opened to:
https://oauth2.sigstore.dev/auth/auth?access_type=online&client_id=sigstore&code_challenge=e16i62r65TuJiklImxYFIr32yEsA74fSlCXYv550DAg&code_challenge_method=S256&nonce=2G9cB5h89SqGwYQG2ey5ODeaxO8&redirect_uri=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%3A33791%2Fauth%2Fcallback&response_type=code&scope=openid+email&state=2G9cB7iQ7BSXYQdKKe6xGOY2Rk8
Successfully verified SCT...
Warning: Tag used in reference to identify the image. Consider supplying the digest for immutability.
"562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample" appears to be a private repository, please confirm uploading to the transparency log at "https://rekor.sigstore.dev" [Y/N]: y
tlog entry created with index: 5133131
Pushing signature to: 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample

You are sent to authenticate using OpenID Connect (OIDC) via the browser. I used my GitHub account to authenticate.

Once authenticated, you are redirected back to localhost, where Cosign reads the code query string parameter from the URL and verifies the authentication.

Here is what the redirect URL looks like.

http://localhost:43219/auth/callback?code=z6dghpnzujzxn6xmfltyl6esa&state=2G9dbwwf9zCutX3mNevKWVd87wS

I have also pushed v2 and v3 of the image to the registry and signed them using the approach above. Here is the new state in my registry.

If you look at the console output, you will also see that one of the lines mentions tlog in it. This is the index in Rekor transaction log where the signature’s receipt is stored. For the three signatures that I created, the indexes are:

5133131 for v1
5133528 for v2
and 5133614 for v3

That is it! I have signed my images with ephemeral keys, and I have the tlog entries that correspond to the signatures. It is a fast and easy experience.

Verifying Images Signed With Ephemeral Keys

Verifying the images signed with ephemeral keys is built into the Cosign CLI.

$ COSIGN_EXPERIMENTAL=1 cosign verify 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v1 | jq . > flasksample-v1-ephemeral-verification.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
- Existence of the claims in the transparency log was verified offline
- Any certificates were verified against the Fulcio roots.

The outputs from the verification of flasksample:v1, flasksample:v2, and flasksample:v3 are available on GitHub. Few things to note about the output from the verification.

• The output JSON contains the logIndexas well as the logID, which I did assume I could use to search for the receipts in Rekor. I have some confusion about the logID purpose, but I will go into that a little later!
• There is a body field that I assume is the actual signature. This JSON field is not yet documented and is hard to know with such a generic name.
• The type field seems to be a free text field. I would expect it to be something more structured and the values to come from a list of possible and, most importantly, standardized types.

Search and Explore Rekor

The goal of my second scenario – Sign Container Images with Ephemeral Keys from Fulcio is not only to sign images with ephemeral keys but also to invalidate one of the signed artifacts. Unfortunately, documentation and the help output from the commands are scarce. Also, searching on Google how to invalidate a signature in Rekor yields no results. I decided to start exploring the Rekor logs to see if that may help.

There aren’t many commands that you can use in Rekor. The four things you can do are: get records; search by email, SHA or artifact; uploadentry or artifact; and verify entry or artifact. Using the information from the outputs in the previous section, I can get the entries for the three images I signed using the log indexes.

$ rekor-cli get --log-index 5133131 > flasksample-v1-ephemeral-logentry.json
$ rekor-cli get --log-index 5133528 > flasksample-v2-ephemeral-logentry.json
$ rekor-cli get --log-index 5133614 > flasksample-v3-ephemeral-logentry.json

The outputs from the above commands for flasksample:v1, flasksample:v2, and flasksample:v3 are available on GitHub.

I first noted that the log entries are not returned in JSON format by the Rekor CLI. This is different from what Cosign returns and is a bit inconsistent. Second, the log entries outputted by the Rekor CLI are not the same as the verification outputs returned by Cosign. Cosign verification output provides different information than the Rekor log entry. This begs the question: “How does Cosign get this information?” First, though, let’s see what else Rekor can give me.

I can use Rekor search to find all the log entries that I created. This will include the ones for the three images above and, theoretically, everything else I signed.

$ rekor-cli search --email toddysm_dev1@outlook.com
Found matching entries (listed by UUID):
24296fb24b8ad77aaf485c1d70f4ab76518483d5c7b822cf7b0c59e5aef0e032fb5ff4148d936353
24296fb24b8ad77a3f43ac62c8c7bab7c95951d898f2909855d949ca728ffd3426db12ff55390847
24296fb24b8ad77ac2334dfe2759c88459eb450a739f08f6a16f5fd275431fb42c693974af3d5576
24296fb24b8ad77a8f14877c718e228e315c14f3416dfffa8d5d6ef87ecc4f02f6e7ce5b1d5b4e95
24296fb24b8ad77a6828c6f9141b8ad38a3dca4787ab096dca59d0ba68ff881d6019f10cc346b660
24296fb24b8ad77ad54d6e9bb140780477d8beaf9d0134a45cf2ded6d64e4f0d687e5f30e0bb8c65
24296fb24b8ad77a888dc5890ac4f99fc863d3b39d067db651bf3324674b85a62e3be85066776310
24296fb24b8ad77a47fae5af8718673a2ef951aaf8042277a69e808f8f59b598d804757edab6a294
24296fb24b8ad77a7155046f33fdc71ce4e291388ef621d3b945e563cb29c2e3cd6f14b9ba1b3227
24296fb24b8ad77a5fc1952295b69ca8d6f59a0a7cbfbd30163c3a3c3a294c218f9e00c79652d476

Note that the result lists UUIDs that are different from the logID properties in the verification output JSON. You can get log entries using the UUID or the logIndex but not using the logID. The UUIDs are not present in the Cosign output mentioned in the previous section, while the logID is. However, it is unclear what the logID can be used for and why the UUID is not included in the Cosign output.

Rekor search command supposedly allows you to search by artifact and SHA. However, it is not documented what form those need to take. Using the image name or the image SHA yield no results.

$ rekor-cli search --artifact 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample
Error: invalid argument "562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample" for "--artifact" flag: Key: '' Error:Field validation for '' failed on the 'url' tag
$ rekor-cli search --sha sha256:9bd049b6b470118cc6a02d58595b86107407c9e288c0d556ce342ea8acbafdf4
no matching entries found
$ rekor-cli search --sha 9bd049b6b470118cc6a02d58595b86107407c9e288c0d556ce342ea8acbafdf4
no matching entries found

I think the above are the core search scenarios for container images (and other artifacts), but it seems they are either not implemented or not documented. Neither the Rekor GitHub repository, the Rekor public documentation, nor the Rekor Swagger have any more details on the search. I filed an issue for Rekor to ask how the artifacts search works.

Coming back to the main goal of invalidating a signed artifact, I couldn’t find any documentation on how to do that. The only apparent options to invalidate the artifacts are either uploading something to Rekor or removing the signature from Rekor. I looked at all options to upload entries or artifacts to Rekor, but the documentation mainly describes how to sign and upload entries using other types like SSH, X509, etc. It does seem to me that there is no capability in Rekor to say: “This artifact is not valid anymore”.

I thought that looking at how Rekor verifies signatures may help me understand the approach.

Verifying Signatures Using Rekor CLI

I decided to explore how the signatures are verified and reverse engineer the process to understand if an artifact signature can be invalidated. Rekor CLI has a verify command. My assumption was that Rekor’s verify command worked the same as the Cosign verify command. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

$ rekor-cli verify --artifact 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v1
Error: invalid argument "562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v1" for "--artifact" flag: Key: '' Error:Field validation for '' failed on the 'url' tag
$ rekor-cli verify --entry 24296fb24b8ad77a8f14877c718e228e315c14f3416dfffa8d5d6ef87ecc4f02f6e7ce5b1d5b4e95
Error: invalid argument "24296fb24b8ad77a8f14877c718e228e315c14f3416dfffa8d5d6ef87ecc4f02f6e7ce5b1d5b4e95" for "--entry" flag: Key: '' Error:Field validation for '' failed on the 'url' tag

Unfortunately, due to a lack of documentation and examples, I wasn’t able to figure out how this worked without browsing the code. While that kind of digging is always an option, I would expect an easier experience as an end user.

I was made aware of the following blog post, though. It describes how to handle account compromise. To put it in context, if my GitHub account is compromised, this blog post describes the steps I need to take to invalidate the artifacts. I do have two problems with this proposal:

1. As you remember, in my scenario, I wanted to invalidate only the flasksample:v2 artifact, and not all artifacts signed with my account. If I follow the proposal in the blog post, I will invalidate everything signed with my GitHub account, which may result in outages.
2. The proposal relies on the consumer of artifacts to constantly monitor the news for what is valid and what is not; which GitHub account is compromised and which one is not. This is unrealistic and puts too much manual burden on the consumer of artifacts. In an ideal scenario, I would expect the technology to solve this with a proactive way to notify the users if something is wrong rather than expect them to learn reactively.

At this point in time, I will call this scenario incomplete. Yes, I am able to sign with ephemeral keys, but this doesn’t seem unique in this situation. The ease around the key generation is what they seem to be calling attention to, and it does make signing much less intimidating to new users, but I could still generate a new SSH or GPG key every time I need to sign something. Trusting Fulcio’s root does not automatically increase my security – I would even argue the opposite. Making it easier for everybody to sign does not increase security, either. Let’s Encrypt already proved that. While Let’s Encrypt made an enormous contribution to our privacy and helped secure every small business site, the ease, and accessibility with which it works means that every malicious site now also has a certificate. The lock in the address bar is no longer a sign of security. We are all excited about the benefits, but I bet very few of us are also excited for this to help the bad guys. We need to think beyond the simple signing and ensure that the whole end-to-end experience is secure.

I will move to the last scenario now.

Promoting Sigstore Signed Images Between Registries

In the last scenario I wanted to test the promotion of images between registries. Let’s create a v4 of the image and sign it using an ephemeral key. Here are the commands with the omitted output.

$ docker build -t 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v4 .
$ docker push 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v4
$ COSIGN_EXPERIMENTAL=1 cosign sign 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v4

The Rekor log index for the signature is 5253114. I can use Crane to copy the image and the signature from AWS ECR into Azure ACR.

$ crane copy 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v4 tsmacrtestcssc.azurecr.io/flasksample:v4
$ crane copy 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:sha256-aa2690ed4a407ac8152d24017eb6955b01cbb0fc44afe170dadedc30da80640a.sig tsmacrtestcssc.azurecr.io/flasksample:sha256-aa2690ed4a407ac8152d24017eb6955b01cbb0fc44afe170dadedc30da80640a.sig

Also, let’s validate the ephemeral key signature using the image in Azure ACR.

$ COSIGN_EXPERIMENTAL=1 cosign verify tsmacrtestcssc.azurecr.io/flasksample:v4 | jq .
Verification for tsmacrtestcssc.azurecr.io/flasksample:v4 --
The following checks were performed on each of these signatures:
 - The cosign claims were validated
 - Existence of the claims in the transparency log was verified offline
 - Any certificates were verified against the Fulcio roots.

Next, I will sign the image with a key stored in Azure Key Vault and verify the signature.

$ cosign sign --key azurekms://tsm-kv-usw3-tst-cssc.vault.azure.net/sigstore-azure-test-key-ec tsmacrtestcssc.azurecr.io/flasksample:v4
Warning: Tag used in reference to identify the image. Consider supplying the digest for immutability.
Pushing signature to: tsmacrtestcssc.azurecr.io/flasksample
$ cosign verify --key azurekms://tsm-kv-usw3-tst-cssc.vault.azure.net/sigstore-azure-test-key-ec tsmacrtestcssc.azurecr.io/flasksample:v4
Verification for tsmacrtestcssc.azurecr.io/flasksample:v4 --
The following checks were performed on each of these signatures:
 - The cosign claims were validated
 - The signatures were verified against the specified public key
[{"critical":{"identity":{"docker-reference":"tsmacrtestcssc.azurecr.io/flasksample"},"image":{"docker-manifest-digest":"sha256:aa2690ed4a407ac8152d24017eb6955b01cbb0fc44afe170dadedc30da80640a"},"type":"cosign container image signature"},"optional":null}]

Everything worked as expected. This scenario was very smooth, and I was able to complete it in less than a minute.

Summary

So far, I have just scratched the surface of what the Sigstore project could accomplish. While going through the scenarios in these posts, I had a bunch of other thoughts, so I wanted to highlight a few below:

• Sigstore is built on a good idea to leverage ephemeral keys for signing container images (and other software). However, just the ephemeral keys alone do not provide higher security if there is no better process to invalidate the signed artifacts. With traditional X509 certificates, one can use CRL (Certificate Revocation Lists) or OCSP (Online Certificate Status Protocol) to revoke certificates. Although they are critiqued a lot, the process of invalidating artifacts using ephemeral keys and Sigstore does not seem like an improvement at the moment. I look forward to the improvements in this area as further discussions happen.
• Sigstore, like nearly all open-source projects, would benefit greatly from better documentation and consistency in the implementation. Inconsistent messages, undocumented features, myriad JSON schemas, multiple identifiers used for different purposes, variable naming conventions in JSONs, and unpredictable output from the command line tools are just a few things that can be improved. I understand that some of the implementation was driven by requirements to work with legacy registries but going forward, that can be simplified by using OCI references. The bigger the project grows, the harder it will become to fix those.
• The experience that Cosign offers is what makes the project successful. Signing and verifying images using the legacy X.509 and the ephemeral keys is easy. Hiding the complexity behind a simple CLI is a great strategy to get adoption.

I tested Sigstore a year ago and asked myself the question: “How do I solve the SolarWinds exploit with Sigstore?” Unfortunately, Sigstore doesn’t make it easier to solve that problem yet. Having in mind my experience above, I would expect a lot of changes in the future as Sigstore matures.

Unfortunately, there is no viable alternative to Sigstore on the market today. Notary v1 (or Docker Content Trust) proved not flexible enough. Notary v2 is still in the works and has yet to show what it can do. However, the lack of alternatives does not automatically mean that we avoid the due diligence required for a security product of such importance.  Sigstore has had a great start, and this series proves to me that we’ve got a lot of work ahead of us as an industry to solve our software supply chain problems.

Today, the secure supply chain for software is on top of mind for every CISO and enterprise leader. After the President’s Executive Order (EO), many efforts were spun off to secure the supply chain. One of the most prominent is, of course, Sigstore. I looked at Sigstore more than a year ago and was excited about the idea of ephemeral keys. I thought it might solve some common problems with signing. Like, for example, reducing the blast radius if a signing key is compromised or signing identity is stolen.

Over the past twelve months, I’ve spent a lot of time working on a secure supply chain for containers at Microsoft and gained a deep knowledge of the use cases and myriad of scenarios. At the same time, Sigstore gained popularity, and more and more companies started using it to secure their container supply chains. I’ve followed the project development and the growth in popularity. In recent weeks, I decided to take another deep look at the technology and evaluate how it will perform against a few core scenarios to secure container images against supply chain attacks.

This will be a three-part series going over the Sigstore experience for signing containers. In the first part, I will look at the experience of signing with existing long-lived keys as well as adding attestations like SBOMs and SLSA provenance documents. In the second part, I will go deeper into the artifacts created during the signing and reverse-engineer their purpose. In the third part, I will look at the signing experience with short-lived keys as well as promoting signatures between registries.

Before that, though, let’s look at some scenarios that I will use to guide my experiment.

Containers’ Supply Chain Scenarios

Every technology implementation (I believe) should start with user scenarios. Signing container images is not a complete scenario but a part of a larger experience. Below are the experiences that I would like to test as part of my experiment. Also, I will do this using the top two cloud vendors – AWS and Azure.

Sign Container Images With Existing Keys Stored in a KMS

In this scenario, I will sign the images with keys that are already stored in my cloud key management systems (ASKW KMS or Azure Key Vault). The goal here is to enable enterprises to use existing keys and key management infrastructure for signing. Many enterprises already use this legacy signing scenario for their software, so there is nothing revolutionary here except the additional artifacts.

1. Build a v1 of a test image
2. Push the v1 of the test image to a registry
3. Sign the image with a key stored in a cloud KMS
4. Generate an SBOM for the container image
5. Sign the SBOM and push it to the registry
6. Generate an SLSA provenance attestation
7. Sign the SLSA provenance attestation and push it to the registry
8. Pull and validate the SBOM
9. Pull and validate the SLSA provenance attestation

A note! I will cheat with the SLSA provenance attestations because the SLSA tooling works better in CI/CD pipelines than with manual Docker build commands that I will use for my experiment.

Sign Container Images with Ephemeral Keys from Fulcio

In this scenario, I will test how the signing with ephemeral keys (what Sigstore calls keyless signing) improves the security of the containers’ supply chain. Keyless signing is a bit misleading because keys are still involved in generating the signature. The difference is that the keys are generated on-demand by Fulcio and have a short lifespan (I believe 10 min or so). I will not generate SBOMs and SLSA provenance attestations for this second scenario, but you can assume that this may also be part of it in a real-life application. Here is what I will do:

1. Build a v1 of a test image
2. Push the v1 of the test image to a registry
3. Sign the image with an ephemeral key
4. Build a v2 of the test image and repeat steps 2 and 3 for it
5. Build a v3 of the test image and repeat steps 2 and 3 for it
6. Invalidate the signature for v2 of the test image

The premise of this scenario is to test a temporary exploit of the pipeline. This is what happened with SolarWinds Supply Chain Compromise, and I would like to understand how we might be able to use Sigstore to prevent such an attack in the future or how it could reduce the blast radius. I don’t want to invalidate the signatures for v1 and v3 because this will be similar to the traditional signing approach with long-lived keys.

Acquire OSS Container Image and Re-Sign for Internal Use

This is a common scenario that I’ve heard from many customers. They import images from public registries, verify them, scan them, and then want to re-sign them with internal keys before allowing them for use. So, here is what I will do:

1. Build an image
2. Push it to the registry
3. Sign it with an ephemeral key
4. Import the image and the signature from one registry (ECR) into another (ACR)
   Those steps will simulate importing an image signed with an ephemeral key from an OSS registry like Docker Hub or GitHub Container Registry.
5. Sign the image with a key from the cloud KMS
6. Validate the signature with the cloud KMS certificate

Let’s get started with the experience.

Environment Set Up

To run the commands below, you will need to have AWS and Azure accounts. I have already created container registries and set up asymmetric keys for signing in both cloud vendors. I will not go over the steps for setting those up – you can follow the vendor’s documentation for that. I have also set up AWS and Azure CLIs so I can sign into the registries, run other commands against the registries and retrieve the keys from the command line. Once again, you can follow the vendor’s documentation to do that. Now, let’s go over the steps to set up Sigstore tooling.

Installing Sigstore Tooling

To go over the scenarios above, I will need to install the Cosign and Rekor CLIs. Cosign is used to sign the images and also interacts with Fulcio to obtain the ephemeral keys for signing. Rekor is the transparency log that keeps a record of the signatures done by Cosign using ephemeral keys.

When setting up automation for either signing or signature verification, you will need to install Cosign only as a tool. If you need to add or retrieve Rekor records that are not related to signing or attestation, you will need to install Rekor CLI.

You have several options to install Cosign CLI; however, the only documented option to install Rekor CLI is using Golang or building from source (for which you need Golang). One note: the installation instructions for all Sigstore tools are geared toward Golang developers.

The next thing is that on the Sigstore documentation site, I couldn’t find information on how to verify that the Cosign binaries I installed were the ones that Sigstore team produced. And the last thing that I noticed after installing the CLIs is the details I got about the binaries. Running cosign version and rekor-cli version gives the following output.

$ cosign version
  ______   ______        _______. __    _______ .__   __.
 /      | /  __  \      /       ||  |  /  _____||  \ |  |
|  ,----'|  |  |  |    |   (----`|  | |  |  __  |   \|  |
|  |     |  |  |  |     \   \    |  | |  | |_ | |  . `  |
|  `----.|  `--'  | .----)   |   |  | |  |__| | |  |\   |
 \______| \______/  |_______/    |__|  \______| |__| \__|
cosign: A tool for Container Signing, Verification and Storage in an OCI registry.

GitVersion:    1.13.0
GitCommit:     6b9820a68e861c91d07b1d0414d150411b60111f
GitTreeState:  "clean"
BuildDate:     2022-10-07T04:37:47Z
GoVersion:     go1.19.2
Compiler:      gc
Platform:      linux/amd64Sigstore documentation site

$ rekor-cli version
  ____    _____   _  __   ___    ____             ____   _       ___
 |  _ \  | ____| | |/ /  / _ \  |  _ \           / ___| | |     |_ _|
 | |_) | |  _|   | ' /  | | | | | |_) |  _____  | |     | |      | |
 |  _ <  | |___  | . \  | |_| | |  _ <  |_____| | |___  | |___   | |
 |_| \_\ |_____| |_|\_\  \___/  |_| \_\          \____| |_____| |___|
rekor-cli: Rekor CLI

GitVersion:    v0.12.2
GitCommit:     unknown
GitTreeState:  unknown
BuildDate:     unknown
GoVersion:     go1.18.2
Compiler:      gc
Platform:      linux/amd64

Cosign CLI provides details about the build of the binary, Rekor CLI does not. Using the above process to install the binaries may seem insecure, but this seems to be by design, as explained in Sigstore Issue #2300: Verify the binary downloads when installing from .deb (or any other binary release).

Here is the catch, though! I looked at the above experience as a novice user going through the Sigstore documentation. Of course, as with any other technical documentation, this one is incomplete and not updated with the implementation. There is no documentation on how to verify the Cosign binary, but there is one describing how to verify Rekor binaries. If you go to the Sigstore Github organization and specifically to the Cosign and Rekor release pages, you will see that they’ve published the signatures and the SBOMs for both tools. You will also find binaries for Rekor that you can download. So you can verify the signature of the release binaries before installing. Here is what I did for Rekor CLI version that I had downloaded:

$ COSIGN_EXPERIMENTAL=1 cosign verify-blob \
    --cert https://github.com/sigstore/rekor/releases/download/v0.12.2/rekor-cli-linux-amd64-keyless.pem \
    --signature https://github.com/sigstore/rekor/releases/download/v0.12.2/rekor-cli-linux-amd64-keyless.sig \
    https://github.com/sigstore/rekor/releases/download/v0.12.2/rekor-cli-linux-amd64

tlog entry verified with uuid: 38665ab8dc42600de87ed9374e86c83ac0d7d11f1a3d1eaf709a8ba0d9a7e781 index: 4228293
Verified OK

Verifying the Cosign binary is trickier, though, because you need to have Cosign already installed to verify it. Here is the output if you already have Cosign installed and you want to move to a newer version:

$ COSIGN_EXPERIMENTAL=1 cosign verify-blob \
    --cert https://github.com/sigstore/cosign/releases/download/v1.13.0/cosign-linux-amd64-keyless.pem 
    --signature https://github.com/sigstore/cosign/releases/download/v1.13.0/cosign-linux-amd64-keyless.sig 
    https://github.com/sigstore/cosign/releases/download/v1.13.0/cosign-linux-amd64

tlog entry verified with uuid: 6f1153edcc399b22b016709a218127fc7d5e9fb7071cd4812a9847bf13f65190 index: 4639787
Verified OK

If you are installing Cosign for the first time and downloading the binaries from the release page, you can follow a process similar to the one for verifying Rekor releases. I have submitted an issue to update the Cosign documentation with release verification instructions.

I would rate the installation experience no worse than any other tool geared toward hardcore engineers.

Let’s get into the scenarios.

Using Cosign to Sign Container Images with a KMS Key

Here are the two images that I will use for the first scenario:

$ docker images
REPOSITORY                                                 TAG       IMAGE ID       CREATED         SIZE
562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample   v1        b40ba874cb57   2 minutes ago   138MB
tsmacrtestcssc.azurecr.io/flasksample                      v1        b40ba874cb57   2 minutes ago   138MB

Using Cosign With a Key Stored in AWS KMS

Let’s go over the AWS experience first.

# Sign into the registry
$ aws ecr get-login-password --region us-west-2 | docker login --username AWS --password-stdin 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com
Login Succeeded

# And push the image after that
$ docker push 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v1

Signing the container image with the AWS key was relatively easy. Though, be careful when you omit the host and make sure you add that third backslash; otherwise, you will get errors. Here is what I got on the first attempt, which puzzled me a little.

$ cosign sign --key awskms://61c124fb-bf47-4f95-a805-65dda7cd08ae 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v1
Error: signing [562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v1]: getting signer: reading key: kms get: kms specification should be in the format awskms://[ENDPOINT]/[ID/ALIAS/ARN] (endpoint optional)
main.go:62: error during command execution: signing [562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v1]: getting signer: reading key: kms get: kms specification should be in the format awskms://[ENDPOINT]/[ID/ALIAS/ARN] (endpoint optional)

$ cosign sign --key awskms://arn:aws:kms:us-west-2:562077019569:key/61c124fb-bf47-4f95-a805-65dda7cd08ae 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v1
Warning: Tag used in reference to identify the image. Consider supplying the digest for immutability.
Error: signing [562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v1]: recursively signing: signing digest: getting fetching default hash function: getting public key: operation error KMS: GetPublicKey, failed to parse endpoint URL: parse "https://arn:aws:kms:us-west-2:562077019569:key": invalid port ":key" after host
main.go:62: error during command execution: signing [562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v1]: recursively signing: signing digest: getting fetching default hash function: getting public key: operation error KMS: GetPublicKey, failed to parse endpoint URL: parse "https://arn:aws:kms:us-west-2:562077019569:key": invalid port ":key" after host

Of course, when I typed the URIs correctly, the image was signed, and the signature got pushed to the registry.

$ cosign sign --key awskms:///61c124fb-bf47-4f95-a805-65dda7cd08ae 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v1
Warning: Tag used in reference to identify the image. Consider supplying the digest for immutability.
Pushing signature to: 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample

Interestingly, I didn’t get the tag warning when using the Key ID incorrectly. I got it when I used the ARN incorrectly as well as when I used the Key ID correctly. Also, I struggled to interpret the error messages, which made me wonder about the consistency of the implementation, but I will cover more about that in the conclusions.

One nice thing was that I was able to copy the Key ID and the Key ARN and directly paste them into the URI without modification. Unfortunately, this was not the case with Azure Key Vault 🙁 .

Using Cosign to Sign Container Images With Azure Key Vault Key

According to the Cosign documentation, I had to set three environment variables to use keys stored in Azure Key Vault. It looks as if service principal is the only authentication option that Cosign implemented. So, I created one and gave it all the necessary permissions to Key Vault. I’ve also set the required environment variables with the service principal credentials.

As I hinted above, my first attempt to sign with a key stored in Azure Key Vault failed. Unlike the AWS experience, copying the key identifier from the Azure Portal and pasting it into the URI (without the https:// part) won’t do the job.

$ cosign sign --key azurekms://tsm-kv-usw3-tst-cssc.vault.azure.net/keys/sigstore-azure-test-key/91ca3fb133614790a51fc9c04bd96890 tsmacrtestcssc.azurecr.io/flasksample:v1
Error: signing [tsmacrtestcssc.azurecr.io/flasksample:v1]: getting signer: reading key: kms get: kms specification should be in the format azurekms://[VAULT_NAME][VAULT_URL]/[KEY_NAME]
main.go:62: error during command execution: signing [tsmacrtestcssc.azurecr.io/flasksample:v1]: getting signer: reading key: kms get: kms specification should be in the format azurekms://[VAULT_NAME][VAULT_URL]/[KEY_NAME]

If you decipher the help text that you get from the error message: kms specification should be in the format azurekms://[VAULT_NAME][VAULT_URL]/[KEY_NAME], you would assume that there are two ways to construct the URI:

1. Using the key vault name and the key name like this
   azurekms://tsm-kv-usw3-tst-cssc/sigstore-azure-test-key
   The assumption is that Cosign automatically appends .vault.azure.net at the end.
2. Using the key vault hostname (not URL or identifier) and the key name like this
   azurekms://tsm-kv-usw3-tst-cssc.vault.azure.net/sigstore-azure-test-key

The first one just hung for minutes and did not complete. I’ve tried it several times, but the behavior was consistent.

$ cosign sign --key azurekms://tsm-kv-usw3-tst-cssc/sigstore-azure-test-key tsmacrtestcssc.azurecr.io/flasksample:v1
Warning: Tag used in reference to identify the image. Consider supplying the digest for immutability.
^C
$

I assume the problem is that it tries to connect to a host named tsm-kv-usw3-tst-cssc , but it seems that it was not timing out. The hostname one brought me a step further. It seems that the call to Azure Key Vault was made, and I got the following error:

$ cosign sign --key azurekms://tsm-kv-usw3-tst-cssc.vault.azure.net/sigstore-azure-test-key tsmacrtestcssc.azurecr.io/flasksample:v1
Warning: Tag used in reference to identify the image. Consider supplying the digest for immutability.
Error: signing [tsmacrtestcssc.azurecr.io/flasksample:v1]: recursively signing: signing digest: signing the payload: keyvault.BaseClient#Sign: Failure responding to request: StatusCode=403 -- Original Error: autorest/azure: Service returned an error. Status=403 Code="Forbidden" Message="The user, group or application 'appid=04b07795-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-02f9e1bf7b46;oid=f4650a81-f57d-4fb3-870c-e84fe859f68a;numgroups=1;iss=https://sts.windows.net/08c1c649-bfdd-439e-8e5b-5ff31c72ce4e/' does not have keys sign permission on key vault 'tsm-kv-usw3-tst-cssc;location=westus3'. For help resolving this issue, please see https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=2125287" InnerError={"code":"ForbiddenByPolicy"}
main.go:62: error during command execution: signing [tsmacrtestcssc.azurecr.io/flasksample:v1]: recursively signing: signing digest: signing the payload: keyvault.BaseClient#Sign: Failure responding to request: StatusCode=403 -- Original Error: autorest/azure: Service returned an error. Status=403 Code="Forbidden" Message="The user, group or application 'appid=04b07795-8ddb-461a-bbee-02f9e1bf7b46;oid=f4650a81-f57d-4fb3-870c-e84fe859f68a;numgroups=1;iss=https://sts.windows.net/08c1c649-bfdd-439e-8e5b-5ff31c72ce4e/' does not have keys sign permission on key vault 'tsm-kv-usw3-tst-cssc;location=westus3'. For help resolving this issue, please see https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=2125287" InnerError={"code":"ForbiddenByPolicy"}

Now, this was a very surprising error. And mainly because the AppId from the error message (04b07795-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-02f9e1bf7b46) didn’t match the AppId (or Client ID) of the environment variable that I have set as per the Cosign documentation.

$ echo $AZURE_CLIENT_ID
a59eaa16-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-dca100533b89

Note that I masked parts of the IDs for privacy reasons.

My first assumption was that the AppId from the error message was for my user account, with which I signed in using Azure CLI. This assumption turned out to be true. Not knowing the intended behavior, I filed an issue for the Sigstore team to clarify and document the Azure Key Vault authentication behavior. After restarting the terminal (it seems to restart is the norm in today’s software products 😉 ), I was able to move another step forward. Now, having only signed in with the service principal credentials, I got the following error:

$ cosign sign --key azurekms://tsm-kv-usw3-tst-cssc.vault.azure.net/sigstore-azure-test-key tsmacrtestcssc.azurecr.io/flasksample:v1
Warning: Tag used in reference to identify the image. Consider supplying the digest for immutability.
Error: signing [tsmacrtestcssc.azurecr.io/flasksample:v1]: recursively signing: signing digest: signing the payload: keyvault.BaseClient#Sign: Failure responding to request: StatusCode=400 -- Original Error: autorest/azure: Service returned an error. Status=400 Code="BadParameter" Message="Key and signing algorithm are incompatible. Key https://tsm-kv-usw3-tst-cssc.vault.azure.net/keys/sigstore-azure-test-key/91ca3fb133614790a51fc9c04bd96890 is of type 'RSA', and algorithm 'ES256' can only be used with a key of type 'EC' or 'EC-HSM'."
main.go:62: error during command execution: signing [tsmacrtestcssc.azurecr.io/flasksample:v1]: recursively signing: signing digest: signing the payload: keyvault.BaseClient#Sign: Failure responding to request: StatusCode=400 -- Original Error: autorest/azure: Service returned an error. Status=400 Code="BadParameter" Message="Key and signing algorithm are incompatible. Key https://tsm-kv-usw3-tst-cssc.vault.azure.net/keys/sigstore-azure-test-key/91ca3fb133614790a51fc9c04bd96890 is of type 'RSA', and algorithm 'ES256' can only be used with a key of type 'EC' or 'EC-HSM'."

Apparently, I have generated an incompatible key! Note that RSA keys are not supported by Cosign, as I documented in the following Sigstore documentation issue. After generating a new key, the signing finally succeeded.

$ cosign sign --key azurekms://tsm-kv-usw3-tst-cssc.vault.azure.net/sigstore-azure-test-key-ec tsmacrtestcssc.azurecr.io/flasksample:v1
Warning: Tag used in reference to identify the image. Consider supplying the digest for immutability.
Pushing signature to: tsmacrtestcssc.azurecr.io/flasksample

OK! I was able to get through the first three steps of Scenario 1: Sign Container Images With Existing Keys from KMS. Next, I will add some other artifacts to the image – aka attestations. I will use only one of the cloud vendors for that because I don’t expect differences in the experience.

Adding SBOM Attestation With Cosign

Using Syft, I can generate an SBOM for the container image that I have built. Then I can use Cosign to sign and push the SBOM to the registry. Keep in mind that you need to be signed into the registry to generate the SBOM. Below are the steps to generate the SBOM (nothing to do with Cosign). The SBOM generated is also available in my Github test repo.

# Sign into AWS ERC
$ aws ecr get-login-password --region us-west-2 | docker login --username AWS --password-stdin 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com

# Generate the SBOM
$ syft packages 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v1 -o spdx-json > flasksample-v1.spdx

Cosign CLI’s help shows the following message how to add an attestation to an image using AWS KMS key.

cosign attest --predicate <FILE> --type <TYPE> --key awskms://[ENDPOINT]/[ID/ALIAS/ARN] <IMAGE>

When I was running this test, there was no explanation of what the --type <TYPE> parameter was. I decided just to give it a try.

$ cosign attest --predicate flasksample-v1.spdx --type sbom --key awskms:///arn:aws:kms:us-west-2:562077019569:key/61c124fb-bf47-4f95-a805-65dda7cd08ae 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v1
Error: signing 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v1: invalid predicate type: sbom
main.go:62: error during command execution: signing 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v1: invalid predicate type: sbom

Trying spdx-json as a type also doesn’t work. There were a couple of places here and here, where Cosign documentation spoke about custom predicate types, but none of the examples showed how to use the parameter. I decided to give it one last try.

$ cosign attest --predicate flasksample-v1.spdx --type "cosign.sigstore.dev/attestation/v1" --key awskms:///arn:aws:kms:us-west-2:562077019569:key/61c124fb-bf47-4f95-a805-65dda7cd08ae 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v1
Error: signing 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v1: invalid predicate type: cosign.sigstore.dev/attestation/v1
main.go:62: error during command execution: signing 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v1: invalid predicate type: cosign.sigstore.dev/attestation/v1

Obviously, this was not yet documented, and it was not clear what values could be provided for it. Here the issue asking to clarify the purpose of the --type <TYPE> parameter. From the documentation examples, it seemed that this parameter could be safely omitted. So, I gave it a shot! Running the command without the parameter worked fine and pushed the attestation to the registry.

$ cosign attest --predicate flasksample-v1.spdx --key awskms:///arn:aws:kms:us-west-2:562077019569:key/61c124fb-bf47-4f95-a805-65dda7cd08ae 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v1
Using payload from: flasksample-v1.spdx

One thing that I noticed with the attestation experience is that it pushed a single artifact with .att at the end of the tag. I will come back to this in the next post. Now, let’s push the SLSA attestation for this image.

Adding SLSA Attestation With Cosign

As I mentioned above, I will cheat with the SLSA attestation because I do all those steps manually and docker build doesn’t generate SLSA provenance. I will use this sample for the SLSA provenance attestation.

$ cosign attest --predicate flasksample-v1.slsa --key awskms:///arn:aws:kms:us-west-2:562077019569:key/61c124fb-bf47-4f95-a805-65dda7cd08ae 562077019569.dkr.ecr.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/flasksample:v1
Using payload from: flasksample-v1.slsa

Cosign did something, as we can see on the console as well as in the registry – the digest of the .att artifact changed.

The question, though, is what exactly happened?

In the next post of the series, I will go into detail about what is happening behind the scenes, where I will look deeper at the artifacts created by Cosign.

Summary

To summarize my experience so far, here is what I think.

• As I mentioned above, the installation experience for the tools is no worse than any other tool targeted to engineers. Improvements in the documentation would be beneficial for the first-use experience, and I filed a few issues to help with that.
• Signing with a key stored in AWS was easy and smooth. Unfortunately, the implementation followed the same pattern for Azure Key Vault. I think it would be better to follow the patterns for the specific cloud vendor. There is no expectation that each cloud vendor will follow the same naming, URI, etc. patterns; changing those may result in more errors than benefits for the user.
• While Cosign hides a lot of the complexities behind the scenes, providing some visibility into what is happening will be good. For example, if you create a key in Azure Key Vault, Cosign CLI will automatically create a key that it supports. That will avoid the issue I encountered with the RSA keys, but it may not be the main scenario used in the enterprise.

Next time, I will spend some time looking at the artifacts created by Cosign and understanding their purpose, as well as how to verify those using Cosign and the keys stored in the KMS.