Re: [pkix] Private key usage period extension

Peter Gutmann <> Sat, 07 May 2016 05:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FAF812D18B for <>; Fri, 6 May 2016 22:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.196
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.196 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x2W0OMgZfzbO for <>; Fri, 6 May 2016 22:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BB3412D56E for <>; Fri, 6 May 2016 22:09:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=mail; t=1462597774; x=1494133774; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=jRTwbS11PLkARmI4oBr4cchp7ZXabWuPQ3g5bY/NiB4=; b=keP9mT1U5nhzEBsU/TdaX5CKWI3c2iM008854WqdwEIio5R/rXvKyqVS ccZmgfkonRNbYHy/xsV42kTx3nrhMfEdJ/fOwswqyoPMFUVOCd35fP8Fs bVfaIncLe++cgJ6lJpWWKfwgHwtBjM6qwrsV3Qn2y5FTXXlw5x1ivPJK6 UUFC1r5tFTDUNL+RQbUuHCjfCDjeVzClNC0URYylZRSL2rLij7LwthKe9 DMlaURc8Mi93gVdZS09OeU4O73jgUG79cyEiIF/YQQCT+UkUtvZVfGlP0 M8BV7lTO3BN8Rcski0fslqudioWAzGXV7MJDBkKbmNWCrHJIDwMZtaAMB A==;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,589,1454929200"; d="scan'208";a="84297369"
X-Ironport-Source: - Outgoing - Outgoing
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 07 May 2016 17:09:29 +1200
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0266.001; Sat, 7 May 2016 17:09:28 +1200
From: Peter Gutmann <>
To: Erik Andersen <>, Directory list <>, PKIX <>
Thread-Topic: [pkix] Private key usage period extension
Thread-Index: AdGncGsdQAln46LETNahao0LuhC7NwArgSjQ
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 05:09:28 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <000901d1a773$379e1680$a6da4380$>
In-Reply-To: <000901d1a773$379e1680$a6da4380$>
Accept-Language: en-NZ, en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-NZ
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [pkix] Private key usage period extension
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: PKIX Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 May 2016 05:09:38 -0000

Erik Andersen <> writes:

>This extension was included in RFC 3280 with a heavy health warning. It was
>omitted from RFC 5280 (except for A.2).

It's been deprecated since RFC 2459.  At that time no-one was ever able to
give a coherent explanation for this that got much beyond "PKIX doesn't do
that sort of thing" [0].
>In my mind, the validity of the private key should not spread outside the
>validity period of the certificate.

It's not meant for that, in fact it's the exact opposite, it's an extremely
useful extension for when you want to say that, for example, a signing key is
valid for one year but the certificate used to verify its signatures is valid
for ten years.  The lack of a capability for doing this has been plaguing
cert-based signatures for years, leading to all manner of workaround hacks to
deal with verifying signatures after the cert has expired.


[0] Years later people retconned explanations for it, but none of them were 
    terribly credible.