[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-6143?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14283561#comment-14283561
]
Akitoshi Yoshida commented on CXF-6143:
---------------------------------------
Hi Colm,
for the first part, while reading the page at https://publicsuffix.org/list/, I
saw the following passage:
-----
The copy on publicsuffix.org, linked below, is updated daily from mozilla.org's
source code management system. If you wish to make your app download an updated
list periodically, please use this URL and have your app download the list no
more than once per day. (The list usually changes a few times per month; more
frequent downloading is pointless and hammers our servers.)
-----
Fetching this file every time at each build and then including it statically in
the jar file seems to go against this advice?
regards, aki
> SSL/TLS hostname verification does not strictly follow HTTPS RFC2818
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CXF-6143
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-6143
> Project: CXF
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Transports
> Affects Versions: 3.0.2
> Reporter: Chad Loder
> Assignee: Colm O hEigeartaigh
> Labels: security,, ssl
> Fix For: 3.0.4, 2.7.15
>
>
> The HTTPS specification [RFC 2818, section
> 3.1|http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2818#section-3.1] states:
> {quote}
> If a subjectAltName extension of type dNSName is present, that MUST
> be used as the identity. Otherwise, the (most specific) Common Name
> field in the Subject field of the certificate MUST be used. Although
> the use of the Common Name is existing practice, it is deprecated and
> Certification Authorities are encouraged to use the dNSName instead.
> {quote}
> The current
> [CertificateHostnameVerifier|https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cxf.git;a=blob;f=rt/transports/http/src/main/java/org/apache/cxf/transport/https/CertificateHostnameVerifier.java]
> implementation in CXF does not follow this logic, even in STRICT mode.
> Instead, it builds an array of both CNs and subjectAltNames and checks each
> of them sequentially, in the order returned in the certificate.
> The proper approach would be to build a list of subjectAltNames having type
> dNSName. If the list is non-empty, matching should proceed against this list
> ONLY - and validation should fail if no subjectAltName matches. Otherwise,
> only if the subjectAltName list is empty, a list of CNs from the Subject
> field should be built, and perhaps sorted from most- to least-specific. A
> match should then proceed against this list, taking into account wildcards of
> course.
> Likewise, the [HostnameVerifier implementation in
> not-yet-commons-ssl|http://juliusdavies.ca/svn/viewvc.cgi/not-yet-commons-ssl/trunk/src/java/org/apache/commons/ssl/HostnameVerifier.java?revision=121&pathrev=172]
> has the same issue. However, since not-yet-commons-ssl is a generic SSL/TLS
> transport library, it should not be made to follow HTTPS application layer
> rules for all TLS connections - instead a STRICT_HTTPS mode could be
> implemented for this purpose.
> For more information, see http://tools.ietf.org/search/rfc6125 (for future
> reference and background on where implementations are going) and
> http://tersesystems.com/2014/03/23/fixing-hostname-verification/
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
