You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It's fine to include both. We should tweak the logic, as we now assume kid = did. But it can be a did, but also a kid that is assocaited with e.g. a jwk or a x5c.
Need to make sure it can't lead to confusion attacks, where multiple valid key references are present and they can 'trick' our implementation to (e.g. x5c is present, but we only verified the kid with a did).
So we should probably first check for either jwk or x5c. Then optionally it can have a kid but that's meaningless in that case (just an identifier). Otherwise if both are not present, we expect the kid to be a did url.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It's fine to include both. We should tweak the logic, as we now assume kid = did. But it can be a did, but also a kid that is assocaited with e.g. a
jwk
or ax5c
.Need to make sure it can't lead to confusion attacks, where multiple valid key references are present and they can 'trick' our implementation to (e.g. x5c is present, but we only verified the
kid
with adid
).So we should probably first check for either
jwk
orx5c
. Then optionally it can have a kid but that's meaningless in that case (just an identifier). Otherwise if both are not present, we expect the kid to be a did url.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: