On 01/08/2013 05:07 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 01/08/2013 11:49 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote: >> Why was this chosen? Why is not -extensions v3_req used in the >> certificate creation? > Because it has to be able to sign itself? No. A self-signed cert need not and actually SHOULD not be a CA cert according to PKIX standards. CA is for signing other certs. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: Why is localhost self-signed cert a CA cert?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: CentOS mailing list <centos@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Why is localhost self-signed cert a CA cert?
- From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 18:22:11 -0500
- Delivered-to: centos@xxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <50EC9885.7070002@eburg.com>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
- References:
- Why is localhost self-signed cert a CA cert?
- From: Robert Moskowitz
- Re: Why is localhost self-signed cert a CA cert?
- From: Gordon Messmer
- Why is localhost self-signed cert a CA cert?
- Prev by Date: Re: Fencing a Dell T110 II
- Next by Date: Re: Why is localhost self-signed cert a CA cert?
- Previous by thread: Re: Why is localhost self-signed cert a CA cert?
- Next by thread: Re: Why is localhost self-signed cert a CA cert?
- Index(es):
 |