Implement u2f attestation format #54
Merged
Conversation
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
Member
Yes, that would be good, since the format would be invalid without it anyway. |
Collaborator
Author
|
Then let me add that to libwebauthn first and rebase this PR, once it lands |
Member
|
Oh, sorry, already merged. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Registering and signing in with a U2F device should now work, too.
There is one problem in libwebauthn, that still needs a fix, though: "Discoverable Credential: Preferred" is not possible at the moment. We map this to "Required" and thus make the request not downgradeable to U2F, which makes the request fail.
It might also be worth thinking about changing
Ctap2AttestationStatement::FidoU2F()inside libwebauthn to only contain one non-optional certificate, removing the need for error checking here in the portal.