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

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

 



On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 06:05:49PM +0100, 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.

Storing the root keys as certificates makes sense from an implementation
standpoint -- it conveniently associates the keys with the subject DNs
and other properties like key usage, but the self signature (or
otherwise) is already nonsense -- either I already trust the key (thus I
don't need to validate it) or I don't (in which case the signature can't
be trusted either).

Thus, if the signature on the certs in the trust store matter, that's a
bug.  The presence of the keys in the trust store should be all that's
required for them to be trusted -- the details of the signature
algorithm can't be irrelevant.

<<attachment: smime.p7s>>

_______________________________________________
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