Am 19.01.2015 um 05:29 schrieb Uri Blumenthal via RT:
Well, technically youre correct - but from semantic point of view,
how different is an empty list, and a list presented as ASN.1 NULL?
Dont we have an empty list in both cases? And arent these two the
only two ways to represent an empty
On Sun 2015-01-18 06:58:27 -0500, Uri Blumenthal via RT wrote:
OpenSSL 1.0.1k and 1.0.1l. Problem: good certificates fail verification (test
certificate and its CA cert that illustrate the problem are attached, as well
as the patch/workaround).
Here’s how the problem manifests itself:
$
On Sun 2015-01-18 06:58:27 -0500, Uri Blumenthal via RT wrote:
OpenSSL 1.0.1k and 1.0.1l. Problem: good certificates fail verification (test
certificate and its CA cert that illustrate the problem are attached, as well
as the patch/workaround).
Here’s how the problem manifests itself:
$
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 04:08:38PM +0100, Daniel Kahn Gillmor via RT wrote:
this suggests that Uri is reporting a regression in 1.0.1k and 1.0.1l.
I haven't tested those version yet.
The change in behaviour seems to be this commit:
commit a8565530e27718760220df469f0a071c85b9e731
Author: Dr.
I think it is not a regression, because the reported problem existed for as
long as crypto/asn1/a_type.c has been around in its current shape. This commit
in the 1.0.1k patch manifested (exposed) this problem, possibly for the first
time.
Yes I think Kurt is perfectly correct pointing at the
In the example you gave the signature and signatureAlgorithm fields in the
certificate don't match.
Well, technically you’re correct - but from semantic point of view, how
different is an empty list, and a list presented as ASN.1 NULL? Don’t we have
an empty list in both cases? And aren’t
