-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
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
Agent confusion issue #23
Comments
Good catch. I think it would be worth adding a test for this. |
I guess we should be adding a selector (is that the SparQL term?) that only regards statements about our particular subject (identified by the WebID IRI) when verifying, rather than querying by key only. |
@RubenVerborgh it seems you're the closest to make an assessment about it, I'm pretty much at loss here. |
Proposed solution is right; currently, it selects all keys in the file, does not filter webid. |
Agreed. Suggest the solution would be to add a test, with multiple webids in a single document. Then use sparql to follow your nose and fix the failing test.. |
OK, I'm unfamiliar with the code, and don't feel confident about fixing it, but concretely, this entails modifying the SPARQL query in |
Indeed; we can also just string manipulate the query. |
It seems that this implementation of the WebID TLS verifier does not handle fragment identifiers correctly.
Let us take the example snippet from the README, and modify the WebID URI (that represents a real person, not the Profile URI) so that it points to another fragment:
If we run the script, the verification passes:
The below is printed:
Even though there is no fragment "somebodyelse" in the file!
This is bad - if using an aggregated RDF file with multiple fragments representing different persons (a normal use case, according to WebID spec examples), we are able to impersonate any of them, provided that our key (modulus/exponent) exists anywhere in the same file.
The query used for finding the person fragment should probably be tweaked.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: