Re: crypto-policies not very useful, FUTURE too strict?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 17/12/16 17:05, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:

Maybe we need to rename FUTURE by QUITE_SOON instead, because the
error you have pointed is about sha-1 been deprecated:

According to this blog, chrome will remove support for sha-1
certificates on 1 January 2017 (it's an old post, so I don't know if
it's still current).
https://security.googleblog.com/2015/12/an-update-on-sha-1-certificates-in.html

the getfedora certificates is signed with sha-256, but the root CA has
signed the intermediate certificate with sha-1. That the issue.

As far as I can see both the intermediate and leaf certificates have SHA-256 signatures. It is only the root certificate that has an SHA-1 signature and that will still be allowed by chrome - to quote that blog post:

"At this point, sites that have a SHA-1-based signature as part of the certificate chain (not including the self-signature on the root certificate) will trigger a fatal network error.

So the self signature on the root certificate can still be SHA-1 because that certificate is in the root set and hence is valid simply by existing and it's signature algorithm doesn't really matter.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (tom@xxxxxxxxxx)
http://compton.nu/
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux