On 02/02/2017 00:46, Kathleen Wilson wrote:
All,
I've added another Potentially Problematic Practice, as follows.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:Problematic_Practices#Issuer_Encoding_in_CRL
The encoding of the Issuer field in the CRL should be byte-for-byte equivalent
with the encoding of the Issuer in the certificate; that is, using the exact
same string types and field contents. The specs (RFC 2459, RFC 3280, RFC 5280)
permit them to mismatch, but that causes compatibility issues with various
clients -- in such cases client software might not find the entry for the
revoked certificate in the CRL.
As always, I will appreciate your thoughtful and constructive feedback.
We ran into this situation several times while adding entries to OneCRL for
revoked intermediate certificates, because our script pulled the data from the
CAs' CRLs where possible.
We have filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1330968 to update
the OneCRL client to be encoding agnostic when doing the Issuer comparisons.
What should a CA do if they have used different encodings of the same
issuer DN in different certs that point to the same CRL location?
Wouldn't a more proper set of rules be:
1. The encoding of the Issuer field in the CRL must be the same as in
the SubjectDN in the issuing certificate.
2. The IssuerDN in all future issued certificates must the same as in
the SubjectDN in the issuing certificate.
3. If any previously issued certificates did not follow rule 2, the CA
must publish a list of the exact IssuerDN encodings used in such
certificates.
Enjoy
Jakob
--
Jakob Bohm, CIO, Partner, WiseMo A/S. https://www.wisemo.com
Transformervej 29, 2860 Søborg, Denmark. Direct +45 31 13 16 10
This public discussion message is non-binding and may contain errors.
WiseMo - Remote Service Management for PCs, Phones and Embedded
_______________________________________________
dev-security-policy mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
