Skip to content
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

new at_onboarding package to remove code duplication between at_client_mobile and at_onboarding_cli #415

Closed
murali-shris opened this issue Sep 26, 2023 · 5 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@murali-shris
Copy link
Member

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

Onboarding and authentication logic is duplicated between at_client_mobile and at_onboarding_cli

Describe the solution you'd like

move the common logic between at_client_mobile and at_onboarding_cli to a new package.
write unit/test functional tests for the common logic

Describe alternatives you've considered

No response

Additional context

No response

@murali-shris murali-shris added the enhancement New feature or request label Sep 26, 2023
@murali-shris murali-shris self-assigned this Sep 26, 2023
@murali-shris
Copy link
Member Author

analysis and arch call discussion
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n24j3f73jBdMQLAmQRGcR1iCi7LrCixVA8_mObzGn1s/edit
started with impl of at_auth package. 30% complete.

@murali-shris
Copy link
Member Author

murali-shris commented Oct 6, 2023

@gkc
During initial onboard
"client stores two keys on the server via enroll request
default self encryption key - encrypted with APKAM symmetric key
default encryption private key - encrypted with APKAM symmetric key"
I was trying to replace the call to EncryptionUtil.encryptValue(..) with at_chops.encryptString(..)
I just realised that we were not setting IV while encrypting the keys.
Should we also send the IV along with the enroll request and then subsequently store IV in metadata while saving the keys on server?

@gkc
Copy link
Contributor

gkc commented Oct 6, 2023

Ideally yes, although it is not crucial right now, since we're not currently using that symmetric key for anything else.

@murali-shris
Copy link
Member Author

at_auth 1.0.0 published.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants