Hacktoberfest 2026: los issues que los mantenedores marcaron para octubre, abiertos y aptos para principiantes. Explorar issues de Hacktoberfest

Implementation report: six verifiers written from the v0.2 text alone, run over 2,816 inputs (four findings)

Abierto
  • ¿Algo no está bien?
#591 4 comentarios 0 reacciones 0 asignados Ver en GitHub

Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día

Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.

Evaluación

Dificultad
5/5
Tiempo estimado
Más de una semana
Aptitud para principiantes
20/100
Tipo de issue
Error
Claridad
Bastante claro
Estado de actividad
Activo
Stack tecnológico
json, python
Área
documentation, security

Línea de trabajo

Start by reading trace-v0.2.md, especially §§3.1, 3.1.5, 3.3 and the §5 phase table, alongside trace-claim.json; compare these with the conformance vectors and examples named in the report. Reproduce the four findings against the repository verifier and determine which specification clauses or expected verdicts need correction. Done means the text, schema, verifier behavior and vectors agree on the reported cases; the full protocol and per-input tables are not yet linked.

Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.

Descripción

bug needs-review:HIGH

Repository state: commit 473045fd (2026-10-18), trace-v0.2.md and trace-claim.json as given in the repo at that commit. Reference used: verify_record from the same commit (installed from source) and, as a second oracle, the PyPI release agentrust-trace 0.11.0.

Method, briefly. Six fresh language-model agents (two runs each of three models) were each given only the two files above and a fixed function interface, were forbidden to read anything else or to use the network (audited from their tool logs), and had to log every point the text did not decide. Their implementations were run with the reference over 133 real records (your conformance vectors, examples, registry entries, two of our intake fixtures), re-signed twins of the 32 records both oracles accept, and single-point mutants of those twins labelled by the clause they probe. Every disagreement was attributed to a clause and classified independently by two raters who saw only the text and the disagreement. This is part of a measurement study across three specifications (RFC 8785 is the control); the full protocol, corpora, implementations and ratings will be posted with a DOI and I will link it here.

Findings, in the order of how much of the corpus they move.

  1. Required fields: text and schema disagree, and the disagreement decides 30% of the corpus. §3.1 says "All fields are required unless marked OPTIONAL" and its table does not mark tool_transcript or transparency; trace-claim.json omits both from required and describes tool_transcript as "OPTIONAL for Phase 1 records"; the §5 phase table lists transparency among Phase 1 fields and tool_transcript from Phase 2; the Authority clause says the schema is the defective artefact when they disagree. No conformance vector or example carries either field. Four of six implementations followed the schema and agree with verify_record on 97.7% of inputs; two followed §3.1 and reject 857 and 1,029 of the 1,035 inputs the reference accepts. Both raters classified this as self-contradicting text. One edit to either side resolves it; as written, the text's own precedence rule points to the side the vectors do not take.

  2. Trust anchor at the signature step. §3.3 step 1 says the binding is verified against the key in cnf. verify_record raises when no trusted key is supplied; four of six implementations, following step 1 literally, verify against the record's own cnf key and accept (32 of 32 such calls), and no implementation refuses for want of an anchor. The text does not say whether a verifier with no external anchor must refuse, or whether a later appraisal step is meant to carry the anchor. If the intent is that a record checked only against its own key is not valid, the text should say so at step 1; if the intent is that the anchor comes from appraisal, the step should say that too. Both raters classified this as silence.

  3. §3.1.5 measurement rule is not enforced by verify_record. Two of the repo's own example records have appraisal.platform_measurement.measurement different from runtime.measurement; the vector envelope expects rejection; all six implementations reject; verify_record at 473045fd accepts, because the rule lives in a separate component that function does not call. Of the 56 vectors carrying an expected verdict, the four schema-side implementations reproduce 56, verify_record 54, the PyPI release 38.

  4. Embedded-form algorithm set. The text lists ES256 for JWT contexts and fixes no algorithm set for the embedded signature form; 32 records with an EC P-256 cnf key and a raw r||s signature are refused by the reference ("unsupported JWK kty 'EC'; expected 'OKP'") and verified by four of six implementations. Both raters: silence.

Also noted: the PyPI release 0.11.0 ships a schema older than the repo's and rejects 21 of the repo's newer example records for an unknown property (platform_measurement), so anyone pinning the release gets different verdicts from anyone pinning the repo; the two oracles differ on 53 of the 2,816 inputs.

What I am not claiming: that any of the six implementations is correct, or that these are vulnerabilities in a deployed verifier. Each is an input on which two readers of the same text reach different verdicts. Happy to share the per-input tables now if useful, and the full package once it has a DOI.

Disclosure: our intake tooling consumes TRACE records (two fixtures above are ours), and we maintain a companion layer for cA2A and a terms layer that judges TRACE records; no product of ours is evaluated in this study.

Lenguaje dominante
Python
Estrellas
37
Forks
33
Merge medio
1 d 4 h
PR fusionados (30 d)
122

Preparar el entorno

Primeros pasos

  1. Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
  2. Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
  3. Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
  4. Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.

Más de agentrust-io/trace-spec

Todos los issues de agentrust-io/trace-spec

Issues similares

Más issues de Python

Recibe los nuevos issues en tu correo

Un resumen breve de issues de GitHub para principiantes.