| ▲ | aleksejs 2 days ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
That is not, in fact, the question. The whole point of storing signatures separately from the serialized bytes they sign is not having to rely on any properties of the serialization scheme. It does not matter whether your serialization is canonical or not if you don't need to parse the document before you've verified the signature on it. XML-DSig, to the contrary, requires that you parse the document, apply complex transformations to it, and then reserialize it before you can verify anything, which is what makes bugs like "oops the canonicalization method errored and now my library will accept a signature over the empty string as valid for any document" (https://portswigger.net/research/the-fragile-lock#void-canon...) possible. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | BaconVonPork 2 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
You are saying people shouldn't want what they want and since JSON has no standards for it you assume it won't happen. Not even X509 is interested in working with detached signatures. > It does not matter whether your serialization is canonical or not if you don't need to parse the document before you've verified the signature on it. It most certainly does. First or last duplicate key? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||