search

opentimestamps / opentimestamps.org

OpenTimestamps.org website
https://opentimestamps.org
24 stars 21 forks source link

decoupled proof validation from file validation #39

Closed fametrano closed 3 years ago

fametrano commented 5 years ago

ots proof (upgrade and) validation does not strictly require original file validation; nonetheless, the user is prompted to validate the original file ensuring hash matching

also, the opentimestamps.min.js library in the assets/javascripts/vendor folder has been updated according to the one currently deployed on the https://opentimestamps.org website (same as https://github.com/opentimestamps/opentimestamps.org/pull/36)

RCasatta commented 5 years ago

@petertodd what do you think?

petertodd commented 5 years ago

Seems reasonable to me to allow proof upgrades w/o file validation - the OTS proof files know what SHA256 hash they're for. I'd just suggest that you don't prune the proof files that are upgraded, to guard against deleting proof data in the event of brokenness/malice.

fametrano commented 5 years ago

Browser downloaded files cannot overwrite local files.

Anyway, to improve clarity the upgraded proof (if any) is now named originalFileName.ext.upgraded.ots (assuming the provided proof is named originalFileName.ext.ots). This is in line with the recently accepted PR at https://github.com/lvaccaro/javascript-opentimestamps-tools: see a deployment at www.dgi.io/ots-tutorial/ as opentimestamps.org/tools has not been upgraded yet.

fametrano commented 5 years ago

the proposed change is live at https://dgi.io/ots

petertodd commented 5 years ago

Right now it'll say "success" even if the attestation isn't complete; I don't think that's safe UI.

petertodd commented 5 years ago

Also, the way it says "verified" prior to actually verifying the file contents is dangerous.

It's probably be better to have two separate user flows than trying to do the same thing with one box.

fametrano commented 5 years ago

Right now it'll say "success" even if the attestation isn't complete; I don't think that's safe UI. This is the current opentimestamps.org website behavior ;-)

The new proposed UI at https://dgi.io/ots/ has been updated to more nuanced stamped / matched / warning / success / failure feedback.

Also, the way it says "verified" prior to actually verifying the file contents is dangerous.

I agree, it has been fixed

It's probably be better to have two separate user flows than trying to do the same thing with one box.

Originally, opentimestamps.org had 2 boxes; it moved to a single one quite a few months ago. Considering my training experience, I personally agree that a single box is a better user interface, provided that is accompanied by proper instructions / feedback

please check the new UI and provide comments. thx

petertodd commented 5 years ago

The problem is people don't read instructions very well; remember that this is security software and we're better off if users that are confused feel confused than users who are confused thinking they're not.

Secondly a nasty paper-cut of the "one-box" is that verifying causes the timestamp proof file to also be timestamped, resulting in an unnecessary and confusing download box.

BTW re color, I'd suggest a darker shade of yellow - the shade you're using is relatively hard to read as it has little contrast with the white background. The yellow on black is fine; it's the on white that's the problem.

petertodd commented 5 years ago

Regardless, the current version is an improvement over before!

fametrano commented 3 years ago

abandoned