Conversation
This is part of deprecation described in ipfs/js-ipfs#4197 - record creation continues to create both V1 and V2 signatures - record validation no longer accepts V1 signatures Meaning: - modern nodes are 100% V2, they ignore V1 signatures - legacy nodes (go-ipfs < v0.9.0, js-ipfs before Jun 2021) are still able to resolve names created by js-ipns, because V1 is still present
lidel
force-pushed
the
fix/require-v2-signatures
branch
from
b93d957 to
caa95eb
Compare
lidel
added a commit
to ipfs/js-ipfs
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 12, 2022
lidel
force-pushed
the
fix/require-v2-signatures
branch
from
0cac700 to
5e60f5d
Compare
achingbrain
reviewed
Sep 16, 2022
|
|
||
| [](http://ipfs.io) | ||
| [](http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=%23ipfs) | ||
| [](https://ipfs.tech) |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Instead of making this change here, can you please PR these lines then running npx aegir check-project in the root of this repo will update the badges, etc.
achingbrain
approved these changes
Sep 16, 2022
Member
achingbrain
left a comment
achingbrain
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, just needs a BREAKING CHANGE: ... line in the commit message.
SgtPooki
previously requested changes
Sep 19, 2022
| { | ||
| value: Uint8Array, | ||
| signature: Uint8Array, | ||
| signature: Uint8Array, // V1 (legacy, ignored) |
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
imo unnecessary noise for readme – is someone wants to dig, they will be able to read specs: ipfs/specs#319
| } else { | ||
| signature = entry.signature ?? new Uint8Array(0) | ||
| dataForSignature = ipnsEntryDataForV1Sig(value, validityType, validity) | ||
| throw errCode(new Error('missing data or signatureV2'), ERRORS.ERR_SIGNATURE_VERIFICATION) |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe split if ((entry.signatureV2 != null) && (entry.data != null)) { with an escape hatch thrown error for missing data, and one for signature, instead of combining them?
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the more we combine errors, and the less detail we provide, the more problems we will run into like ipfs/interop#462 where it's much harder to track down issues than it needs to be.
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I prefer to keep it simple and have single error: these fields are all-or-nothing.
lidel
added a commit
to ipfs/aegir
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 20, 2022
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 20, 2022
## [3.0.0](v2.0.3...v3.0.0) (2022-09-20) ### ⚠ BREAKING CHANGES * IPNS V1 signatures are ignored, records without V2 signature are no longer marked as Valid. ### Bug Fixes * require V2 signatures ([#180](#180)) ([d522bcc](d522bcc))
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 3.0.0 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
lidel
added a commit
to ipfs/js-ipfs
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 20, 2022
lidel
added a commit
to ipfs/js-ipfs
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 20, 2022
ipfs/js-ipns#180 BREAKING CHANGE: IPNS V1 signatures are ignored, records without V2 signature are no longer marked as Valid.
achingbrain
pushed a commit
to ipfs/js-ipfs
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 22, 2022
Co-authored-by: achingbrain <alex@achingbrain.net> js-ipfs will now ignore V1 signatures when validating IPNS records, and always require V2. See ipfs/js-ipns#180 for low level details (needs that to be released before merging this) Closes #4197 BREAKING CHANGE: IPNS Records that do not have V2 but have V1 signature will no longer pass validation, even if V1 is correct. V2 is mandatory to pass validation. See "Record validation" in ipfs/specs#319 for details.
achingbrain
pushed a commit
to ipfs/aegir
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 22, 2022
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
to ipfs/aegir
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 22, 2022
## [37.5.4](v37.5.3...v37.5.4) (2022-09-22) ### Bug Fixes * update readme badges ([#1073](#1073)) ([d0e865b](d0e865b)), closes [/github.com/ipfs/js-ipns/pull/180#discussion_r972826024](https://github.com/ipfs//github.com/ipfs/js-ipns/pull/180/issues/discussion_r972826024)
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is part of deprecation described in ipfs/js-ipfs#4197
ipns.createcontinues to create records with both V1 and V2 signaturesipns.validateno longer accepts V1 signaturesMeaning: