Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Message from discussion Bug#514807: a proposal for consideration for V1 CA certs in Etch (and Lenny?)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Daniel Kahn Gillmor  
View profile  
 More options Feb 21 2009, 2:20 pm
Newsgroups: linux.debian.bugs.dist
From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <d...@fifthhorseman.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 20:20:07 +0100
Local: Sat, Feb 21 2009 2:20 pm
Subject: Bug#514807: a proposal for consideration for V1 CA certs in Etch (and Lenny?)

On 02/21/2009 04:16 AM, Andreas Metzler wrote:

> On 2009-02-19 Daniel Kahn Gillmor <d...@fifthhorseman.net> wrote:
>> I've done a bit of research on this bug (dealing with V1 CA certificates
>> for gnutls in etch and/or lenny), and i do think that it is potentially
>> quite serious.

>> For example, the certificate used by https://mail.google.com/ appears to
>> be rooted in a v1 CA certificate:
> [...]

> Shouldn't gnutls-cli mark the certificate as unverified in that case?

I believe gnutls-cli (appropriately) sets
GNUTLS_VERIFY_ALLOW_X509_V1_CA_CRT, because the semantics of its
invocation indicate that the certificates passed to the trusted store
are explicitly limited to CA certificates, and cannot possibly be
end-entity certificates.

> ametzler@argenau:/etc/ssl/certs$ gnutls-cli --x509cafile /etc/ssl/certs/Verisign_Class_3_Public_Primary_Certification_Authority.pem  -p https mail.google.com
> Processed 1 CA certificate(s).

Your invocation told gnutls-cli that the certificate *was* a CA, so it
didn't have to guess whether you'd intended to use the attached
certificate as an end-entity certificate or not.

> cu and- mystified -reas

Hope this helps de-mystify somewhat.  Frankly, the V1 vs. V3 business
seems to me to be as much a problem with the GnuTLS API as it does with
the crusty old X.509v1 specification.  If GnuTLS certificate validation
were to use two different user-provided lists of certificates: one of
explicit CAs and one of potential peers (End Entities), this whole
discussion would be moot.

But of course, that's not what it does: applications provide the
verification code with a single list of pre-verified "trusted"
certificates, and GnuTLS distinguishes between End Entities and CAs
based on attributes *within* each cert in the list (and apparently V1
certs have no such distinguishing attributes).  In practice, i suspect
that many software authors who use GnuTLS haven't been aware of this
subtle distinction.

hth,

        --dkg

  signature.asc
< 1K Download

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.