[x500standard] Re: [pkix] DER encoding of certificates
- From: Santosh Chokhani <SChokhani@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "mrex@xxxxxxx" <mrex@xxxxxxx>, Carl Wallace <carl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 09:56:43 -0400
Do not need to re-encode. Always keep the blob around.
-----Original Message-----
From: pkix-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:pkix-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Martin
Rex
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 9:40 AM
To: Carl Wallace
Cc: x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; t09sg17q11@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; pkix@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [pkix] DER encoding of certificates
Carl Wallace wrote:
>
> No. For one reason, verifiers may not know how to DER encode some
> extensions. It'd be better to require DER or require verification to use
> toBeSigned bytes as they appear (be they BER or DER).
Expecting verifiers to parse and re-encode certs before being able
to verify a digital certificate seems like a very bad idea with
respect to performance, reliability and complexity.
The other problem is that there are too many defective ASN.1 encoders
out there, some of them actively used by certificate issuers.
GlobalSign has been distributing a RootCA cert in browsers that
was using incorrect ASN.1 DER -- and that caused verification
failures on some occasions. IIRC, the bug was in the ASN.1
encoding of the KeyUsage BIT STRING, which is a NamedBitList
(and according to X.690 11.2 + X.680 21.7 tailing 0 bits must
be removed in ASN.1 DER from a NamedBitList during encoding.)
-Martin
_______________________________________________
pkix mailing list
pkix@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix
-----
www.x500standard.com: The central source for information on the X.500 Directory
Standard.
Other related posts:
