-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11
Feature/issue 278 verify signed messages #998
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
24 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
3b48906
issue #278 add verificationPubKeys param to decryptMessage
sosnovsky 0ec75cd
Merge branch 'master' into feature/issue-278-verify-signed-messages
sosnovsky a95193c
Merge branch 'master' into feature/issue-278-verify-signed-messages
sosnovsky 015ce31
Merge branch 'master' into feature/issue-278-verify-signed-messages
sosnovsky c19ee80
issue #278 add signature badge to messages
sosnovsky a1901d3
issue #278 hide signature for plain messages
sosnovsky a7a6846
Merge branch 'master' into feature/issue-278-verify-signed-messages
sosnovsky 8c8c7d6
issue #278 verify signature when processing message
sosnovsky 5786189
issue #278 add new states to MessageSignature
sosnovsky e304d43
issue #278 update signature verification
sosnovsky 742db13
issue #278 add 'encrypted' badge to messages
sosnovsky e7ac65e
issue #278 return all keys in fetchVerificationPubKeys
sosnovsky d239d2e
Merge branch 'master' into feature/issue-278-verify-signed-messages
sosnovsky bd13d3d
issue #278 add signature verification retry
sosnovsky 6a858ef
Merge branch 'master' into feature/issue-278-verify-signed-messages
sosnovsky e66c059
Merge branch 'master' into feature/issue-278-verify-signed-messages
sosnovsky e1653fe
issue #278 separate remote pub keys fetching
sosnovsky b784347
Merge branch 'master' into feature/issue-278-verify-signed-messages
sosnovsky 0929c08
issue #278 improve message processing
sosnovsky 69bcd84
issue #278 handle verify retry errors
sosnovsky 769fa5a
Merge branch 'master' into feature/issue-278-verify-signed-messages
sosnovsky 91bfca4
issue #278 add signature error localization
sosnovsky 8ceee78
issue #278 delete MessageViewController
sosnovsky 5af9969
issue #278 remove unused code
sosnovsky File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is likely the reason why signed-only messages are not recognized as signed - per above code, if they are not encrypted, they are always rendered as "not signed".
Would it be possible to always use
processedMessage.signature.messageregardless if encrypted or not? If that is missing, sounds like an error as well (since when signature is missing,processedMessage.signature.messageis supposed to be there withnotSignedcase or similar)Can address later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
#1020
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, initially I thought that all signed messages are encrypted, and haven't implemented signature state check for this case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Check the browser extension - next to the send button, there is a chevron. That's how a signed-only message could be sent.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh, didn't know about such feature 👍