tags 745646 unreproducible
notfound 745646 34.0.1847.116-2
severity 745646 normal
thanks
Il 2014-04-30 20:30 Jonathan Nieder ha scritto:
However Vincent is right that the CRLSets[1] are a different mechanism
than OCSP revocation checking and that CRLSet checking is enabled by
default.
Yes, t
On 2014-04-30 11:30:39 -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> However Vincent is right that the CRLSets[1] are a different mechanism
> than OCSP revocation checking and that CRLSet checking is enabled by
> default. If it is broken then that would indeed be a serious bug.
On one of my machines, it seems
Hi,
Giuseppe Iuculano wrote:
> On 30/04/2014 19:49, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>> Bug 745646 is a different bug, specifically about the CRLSet system,
>> which is very broken.
>
> What you write is not a bug, if you want to do revocation check you must
> enable it in settings.
However Vincent is rig
On 30/04/2014 19:49, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Bug 745646 is a different bug, specifically about the CRLSet system,
> which is very broken.
What you write is not a bug, if you want to do revocation check you must
enable it in settings.
chromium --temp-profile
Go to settings and enable revocation
On 2014-04-30 19:22:25 +0200, Giuseppe Iuculano wrote:
> *Please stop to reopen this bug.*
The bug you're talking about has not been reopened.
Bug 745646 is a different bug, specifically about the CRLSet system,
which is very broken.
> That check is not enabled by default because it doesn't mean
Hi,
On 30/04/2014 02:28, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> No, Chromium developers tell users not to enable it, and consider
> it as an obsolete option that will be removed. Indeed, in case of
> real MITM attack, the attacker can block the OCSP server, in which
> case Chromium will silently consider the ce
On 2014-04-30 01:39:43 +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> Do you have 'Check for server certificate revocation' enabled in
> chrome://settings/?
No, Chromium developers tell users not to enable it, and consider
it as an obsolete option that will be removed. Indeed, in case of
real MITM attack, the
Hi,
On 30.04.2014 01:32, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
Another problem with Chromium...
I've done a test with my domain on
https://www.vinc17.net:4433/
which has the old certificate (which has been revoked, as this
can be confirmed by testing with Iceweasel, which uses OCSP).
But Chromium opens t
Another problem with Chromium...
I've done a test with my domain on
https://www.vinc17.net:4433/
which has the old certificate (which has been revoked, as this
can be confirmed by testing with Iceweasel, which uses OCSP).
But Chromium opens the page with no errors, even though I've
updated the
Control: reopen -1
On 2014-04-26 23:33:54 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> I haven't examined this in detail, but consider that Google probably
> doesn't want all chrome users hitting their servers at the same time.
After various tests, it doesn't seem to be the case (see below).
Note also that I
Processing control commands:
> reopen -1
Bug #745646 {Done: Michael Gilbert } [chromium] chromium:
CRLSet (for certificate revocation checking) silently remains outdated
Bug reopened
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #745646 to the same values
previously set
--
745646: http://bug
Processing control commands:
> reopen -1
Bug #745646 {Done: Michael Gilbert } [chromium] chromium:
CRLSet (for certificate revocation checking) silently remains outdated
Bug reopened
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #745646 to the same values
previously set
--
745646: http://bug
Control: reopen -1
On 2014-04-27 00:21:11 +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> Chromium automatically updated the CRLSets on my machines, so it looks
> like this does work under the right conditions.
Not on mine. Chromium didn't even try to update the CRLSet.
> You may be in the path of so
Control: retitle -1 CRLSet (for certificate revocation checking) silently
remains outdated
On 2014-04-23 20:07:34 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Certificate revocation is not checked: chromium gives no errors on
>
> https://www.cloudflarechallenge.com/
>
> contrary to Iceweasel. See attached
Package: chromium
Version: 34.0.1847.116-2
Severity: grave
Tags: security
Justification: user security hole
Certificate revocation is not checked: chromium gives no errors on
https://www.cloudflarechallenge.com/
contrary to Iceweasel. See attached snapshot.
It seems to be a Debian specific bu
15 matches
Mail list logo
