include SignatureValidation filter with FileBackedHTTPMetadataProvider

[Tom Scavo]

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Cantor, Scott <cantor.2 at osu.edu> wrote:
>
> If the file is signed, then you should use the filter, if not, not.

Yes of course. Basically what I'm trying to say is: If the file is NOT
signed, you should not use FileBackedHTTPMetadataProvider.

> And, really, nobody uses the HTTPMetadataProvider to begin with (should we even be exposing it?), but if you did, you certainly wouldn't omit the signature check if the file was signed.

Sure, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. If the file is not signed,
presumably TLS is providing security, in which case use
HTTPMetadataProvider (not FileBackedHTTPMetadataProvider).

Remember when the SP started to have trouble verifying the signature
on large files? Deployers were advised to disable signature
verification upon startup, assuming they could live with the loss of
security.

Same here. If the file is NOT signed, don't use
FileBackedHTTPMetadataProvider since there is no integrity check at
startup.

I could be missing something, I guess. I'm happy to revert the edit if
that turns out to be the case.

Tom