[Feature]: Populate isOptional on DBX baseline entries where the field is absent
Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.
Evaluación
- Dificultad
- 3/5
- Tiempo estimado
- 1-2 días
- Aptitud para principiantes
- 55/100
- Tipo de issue
- Nueva funcionalidad
- Claridad
- Bastante claro
- Estado de actividad
- Activo
- Stack tecnológico
- json
- Área
- security
Línea de trabajo
Comienza con dbx_info_msft_latest.json y haz un inventario de cada entrada de revocación que carezca de isOptional. Determina si cada valor ausente es true o false, preservando los hashes, la atribución de la autoridad de firma y el orden; después, valida que cada entrada tenga un booleano explícito y que la línea base siga siendo JSON válido.
Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.
Descripción
Feature Overview
Populate isOptional on DBX baseline entries where the field is absent
Summary
In the global DBX baseline (dbx_info_msft_latest.json), some revocation entries carry an explicit isOptional flag while others omit it entirely. Consumers that parse this baseline have to infer optionality from the field's absence, which is ambiguous and error-prone. Please set isOptional explicitly on every entry so the field is always present with a defined boolean value.
Context
The baseline mixes mandatory and optional revocations (e.g., the BlackLotus-attributed hashes are marked isOptional). Today that distinction is only reliable for entries that already include the field. Entries missing it force consumers to guess whether absence means false, true, or "unspecified."
Request
- Add
isOptionalto all entries indbx_info_msft_latest.jsonthat currently lack it, with an explicittrue/falsevalue. - Treat the field as required going forward so future additions always include it.
Why it matters
Explicit, always-present optionality lets downstream tooling parse the baseline deterministically instead of relying on field absence as implicit signal. (Motivation on our side: our DBX parsing tooning consumes this baseline and currently has to special-case missing isOptional.)
Proposed change
For each entry without the field, add "isOptional": <true|false> reflecting its intended enforcement status. No change to hashes, signing-authority attribution, or ordering — field-population only.
Open questions
- For entries where the field is currently absent, what is the intended default —
false(mandatory), or should each be reviewed individually?
Solution Overview
In the global DBX baseline (dbx_info_msft_latest.json), the isOptional flag is present on some revocation entries but omitted on others. Consumers that parse this baseline currently have to infer optionality from the field's absence, which is ambiguous.
Please populate isOptional explicitly on every entry that currently lacks it, with a defined true/false value, and treat the field as required going forward so future additions always include it.
This makes the mandatory-vs-optional distinction (e.g., the BlackLotus-attributed hashes marked isOptional) parseable deterministically, instead of relying on field absence as an implicit signal. No change to hashes, signing-authority attribution, or ordering is requested — this is field-population only.
Alternatives Considered
Inferring optionality from field absence on the consumer side (treating missing isOptional as false). Rejected because absence is ambiguous — it could mean mandatory, optional, or unspecified — and requires every downstream tool to hard-code the same assumption rather than reading an explicit value from the baseline.
Urgency
Low
Are you going to implement the feature request?
I will implement the feature
Do you need maintainer feedback?
No maintainer feedback needed
Anything else?
No response
- Lenguaje dominante
- Python
- Estrellas
- 289
- Forks
- 89
- Merge medio
- 2 d 8 h
- PR fusionados (30 d)
- 5
Preparar el entorno
Primeros pasos
- Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
- Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
- Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
- Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.
Más de microsoft/secureboot_objects
-
Dificultad 5/5 Más de una semana Aptitud para principiantes 35/100
microsoft/secureboot_objects#471 ·
-
state:needs-owner state:needs-triage type:bug urgency:high
Dificultad 4/5 3-5 días Aptitud para principiantes 55/100
microsoft/secureboot_objects#467 · 3 comentarios ·
-
state:needs-triage type:feature-request urgency:low
Dificultad 4/5 3-5 días Aptitud para principiantes 48/100
microsoft/secureboot_objects#462 · 3 comentarios ·
-
state:needs-owner state:needs-triage type:bug urgency:low
Dificultad 3/5 1-2 días Aptitud para principiantes 68/100
microsoft/secureboot_objects#424 · 6 comentarios ·
-
state:needs-maintainer-feedback state:needs-owner state:needs-triage type:feature-request urgency:high
Dificultad 5/5 Más de una semana Aptitud para principiantes 20/100
microsoft/secureboot_objects#422 · 14 comentarios · 2 reacciones ·
Todos los issues de microsoft/secureboot_objects
Issues similares
-
pydanty:is-working
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 78/100
pydantic/pydantic-ai#8843 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
breaking change enhancement server
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 72/100
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
bug
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 88/100
sktime/sktime#11310 · 1 comentario ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 72/100
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
needs-triage
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 85/100
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día