feat(afj): enable revocation tests

[TimoGlastra]

Enables revocation tests for AFJ in the holder role. Will enable AFJ in the role of verifier soon.

I've added @RFC0441 to revocation tests that follow RFC0441, as we don't support revocation not adhering to the best practices.

There are still quite some tests failing, but would like to merge (once the PR in AFJ is merged) so we can get a daily update of the interop status for revocation.

It's weird as some tests are failing where it expects the verification to fail, but it actually succeeds. ACA-Py is the verifier so I'm not sure how it is possible for ACA-Py to return verified=true if the credential was revoked. Maybe AFJ is doing something incorrect, but ACA-Py shouldn't accept the presentation in that case. See this comment for more context. Will need to dig deeper into this

[TimoGlastra]

OK ready to merge. Currently this runs all revocation tests of which some won't work, but I will add more tags to filter out the cases AFJ can't handle soon.

Some context from @JamesKEbert as to what is happening with ACA-Py returning verified=true when it shouldn't:

I think I may have identified where the issue is arising--the RequestedCredentials supplied to indy for the Proof creation need to include timestamps (which are optional, obviously). We're currently doing this when we do getRequestedCredentialsForProofRequest()--so therefore, as I understand it, since we're not using AFJ to retrieve the credentials and manually injecting them in then the RequestedCredentials is missing the timestamps, which will correspondingly make proof of non revocation fail. So, I haven't explicitly tested the specific failing cases yet, but I'd suspect they would succeed when manually running AFJ against ACA-Py.
It is still concerning that ACA-Py is returning verified true when it should be false IMO.

So the good news here is I think AFJ could very well be performing as expected, with a false negative being reported from the AATH.
I can confirm that with running the mobile backchannel with a mobile agent with AFJ w/revocation that it passes all test cases, including revocation.

This seems related to this closed issue in ACA-Py: hyperledger/aries-cloudagent-python#1455. I'm going to keep the AFJ backchannel 'incorrect' for now, so we have a clear test case that shows ACA-Py is returning verified=true when it should return verified=false

@ianco @swcurran this seems quite crucial to fix ASAP.

[swcurran]

@shaanjot @ianco --- could the two of you look at @TimoGlastra 's last comment and decide who should fix it and priority? Per Timo -- it's related to this: hyperledger/aries-cloudagent-python#1455

[ianco]

Aca-py does some cleanup of timestamps in received proof presentations to prevent manipulation from a malicious client. Proof-of-non-revocation should include a timestamp and proofs that don't require proof-of-non-revocation shouldn't (as far as I recall).

Sounds from the above comments like aca-py is accepting a presentation with a revoked credential without a proof-of-non-revocation, but this should fail in the indy-sdk verification and nothing that aca-py is doing should make this pass. I'd need to dig into the specific test case to see what is being requested and presented.

[swcurran]

IMHO -- from a "business perspective" (e.g. I don't know what the Indy code is doing), a verifier should be able to ask for a proof WITHOUT asking for a revocation status, and a prover should be able to respond with claims from revocable or non-revocable credential. The question is whether if the prover responds with claims from a revocable credential, does the "proof of non-revocation" need to be included? My thought is the prover should decide and either should work. Is that the case here?

Likewise: A verifier should be able to ask for a proof INCLUDING asking for a revocation status, and a prover should be able to respond with claims from revocable or non-revocable credential. If the prover responds with claims from a non-revocable credential, the "proof of non-revocation" will not be included -- and that MUST work.

[ianco]

@TimoGlastra @JamesKEbert can you point to any specific tests? What's happening vs what's expected?

[nodlesh]

I'm not sure this is relevant to the conversion about the issue, but wanted to point you to https://github.com/sklump/aries-rfcs/tree/master/concepts/0441-present-proof-best-practices#semantics-of-non-revocation-interval-presence-and-absence
Specifically where it says The absence of any non-revocation interval applicable to a requested item signifies that the verifier has no interest in its credential's non-revocation status.
To me this means that when no interval is given by the verifier, then they do not care of the revocation status of the cred, and the holder could use a revoked credential.

[TimoGlastra]

@ianco the following test cases: @T006-HIPE0011,@T006.2-HIPE0011 - Proof should be unverified, but is verified

@nodlesh The issue here (as I understand it) is that ACA-Py requests a proof with non-revocation:

{
  "nonce": "634583947884382252947072",
  "name": "test proof",
  "version": "0.1.0",
  "requested_attributes": {
    "address_attrs": {
      "restrictions": [
        {
          "schema_name": "Schema_DriversLicense_Revoc",
          "schema_version": "1.1.0"
        }
      ],
      "name": "address"
    }
  },
  "requested_predicates": {},
  "non_revoked": { "to": 1644356194, "from": 1644356194 }
}

while AFJ makes a proof without non-revocation (because we strip the non_revoked from the proof request before giving the proof request to indy). If you look at the created proof it doesn't include the non_revoc_proof

{
  "proof": {
    "proofs": [
      {
        "primary_proof": {
          "eq_proof": {
            "revealed_attrs": {
              "address": "21751895109898684064665132381010603351785496039964583518083248344707107214824"
            },
            "a_prime": "35951694140173391187382984975312833053133269398945471140443956866014292443437180157021795855506085234619280222403945504171909454495448538993828950287078921910157120871212232549420607207973326118007426513324799348562424146976063537156906218966399368090477267784614388002291933067090791696790270764774476516047329458255824561370194002372999650164866349325627459102520156614487474466566224604842279287486030546926214884481488293461125152750242215887275481513561875317163951079812241942175232153462987080722844609252508491423173605670561904908328303832529311231483103805738792100983548602445188473322599816788062344895483",
            "e": "182816191046963617115316113252273659784079255429559237547775528711348740757728231488946255140070041184081122940836033415400870903181088610",
            "v": "48942573298623877827018040803166076598059146638876198516324295161079875753053908166945474683207552870190120728284014774283648143323077116351480344970810293185809500344833921949768833959667904351128201631449835011243923986939035589536863143524633301118275951414678187741136397319956236498294420116912190008399873524737566368254336977687374197450102601702839295390696830582691938246145152610347468847009702320766643464570999227099291582226639501500104098879117215077954058429576213722952137561505534608218454253577033949765865465893714450201053623592891792884846237597978471938106483796075750369951519131473531482879205948078901579969295280835810154711679832187415384661663356343354468567361001525634232916797597382022604065028369791359110458000327381778276576326616407537351476936238394176878652914784892291523073454860033486048891209502313559329690266432398882378396003378071448110625478581041610219742075126857660094564",
            "m": {
              "age": "6557787004113693124538755399218385029872350397170895310008224030114218805375297563176921033207841971383804920344741913460763793242426214242693211820398531381336496712161450451744",
              "master_secret": "6435591023206324734353112322772517005078559963369279218329463943267643550477224601965199242031743841443919193635024347873326158195575388024286362997264564940505492382588279602130",
              "dl_number": "2546217642122550478472232298439388459601226041411930259349861674001813118762618443397865340333151956203365606625613317412755644233379468217369795470740931020399698527425348218684",
              "expiry": "6975994867256434384218323298829091107642403219246322267833281640199044585243493218477379952077215003934687513907869878926092511425632310988045583907645650135368106020070640493382"
            },
            "m2": "4350513776990549372192451651957300165486458565819859036512101432784095655711035489224969151103459867910705970963187721051850109591983055171405537667302963837524747177677477510688"
          },
          "ge_proofs": []
        }
      }
    ],
    "aggregated_proof": {
      "c_hash": "85013567076856774462532618607322836223946623513776238687646533288200783680954",
      "c_list": [
        [
          1, 28, 202, 210, 147, 1, 137, 48, 163, 19, 93, 122, 110, 183, 180, 48,
          14, 175, 12, 95, 92, 218, 168, 89, 34, 243, 76, 168, 181, 28, 181,
          122, 2, 20, 7, 214, 16, 227, 3, 193, 112, 13, 117, 145, 21, 28, 117,
          129, 140, 160, 137, 9, 237, 232, 3, 185, 0, 141, 108, 217, 199, 212,
          147, 70, 253, 109, 146, 103, 99, 228, 168, 149, 200, 35, 227, 154, 76,
          255, 169, 27, 217, 30, 128, 190, 86, 56, 148, 192, 230, 87, 115, 144,
          98, 93, 192, 109, 38, 176, 0, 189, 179, 153, 13, 187, 140, 215, 237,
          202, 194, 32, 22, 85, 194, 238, 70, 89, 12, 153, 186, 54, 133, 163,
          238, 250, 110, 214, 180, 221, 142, 5, 198, 51, 181, 153, 160, 192,
          114, 0, 127, 45, 92, 84, 2, 224, 4, 239, 176, 80, 234, 244, 9, 158,
          190, 51, 18, 180, 20, 199, 205, 72, 9, 127, 212, 190, 59, 243, 242,
          131, 115, 36, 239, 222, 61, 2, 220, 237, 119, 205, 200, 141, 75, 150,
          191, 112, 107, 35, 54, 33, 245, 112, 155, 205, 165, 190, 4, 67, 215,
          94, 72, 198, 25, 66, 151, 152, 192, 54, 202, 65, 246, 169, 46, 71,
          142, 170, 229, 249, 75, 219, 98, 64, 194, 82, 147, 222, 230, 134, 146,
          162, 92, 206, 68, 91, 249, 105, 73, 56, 25, 37, 128, 45, 188, 32, 117,
          92, 217, 184, 248, 234, 129, 139, 220, 10, 231, 18, 20, 219, 251
        ]
      ]
    }
  },
  "requested_proof": {
    "revealed_attrs": {
      "address_attrs": {
        "raw": "9 6 st, Q Ontario Canada, K9O 3R5",
        "encoded": "21751895109898684064665132381010603351785496039964583518083248344707107214824",
        "sub_proof_index": 0
      }
    },
    "self_attested_attrs": {},
    "unrevealed_attrs": {},
    "predicates": {}
  },
  "identifiers": [
    {
      "schema_id": "PMUiB2ovzCTiqYrWrF5Kde:2:Schema_DriversLicense_Revoc:1.1.0",
      "cred_def_id": "PMUiB2ovzCTiqYrWrF5Kde:3:CL:147358:7294",
      "rev_reg_id": "PMUiB2ovzCTiqYrWrF5Kde:4:PMUiB2ovzCTiqYrWrF5Kde:3:CL:147358:7294:CL_ACCUM:d0d039af-ec4e-455c-a481-3a9059967a14"
    }
  ]
}

[ianco]

@ianco the following test cases: @T006-HIPE0011,@T006.2-HIPE0011 - Proof should be unverified, but is verified

Thanks @TimoGlastra I'll look into these 2 tests

[ianco]

@TimoGlastra please see PR: hyperledger/aries-cloudagent-python#1628