Re: [saag] [Cfrg] Further MD5 breaks: Creating a rogue CAcertificate

["Santosh Chokhani" <[e-mail]>]

I do not think canonical means only one way to represent.

Extensions have always been a SEQUENCE with their OID denoting what
extension is next and their syntax.

Actually, we find SET in the case of RDN problematic.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Laurie [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 2:40 PM
To: Santosh Chokhani
Cc: Paul Hoffman; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [saag] [Cfrg] Further MD5 breaks: Creating a rogue
CAcertificate

Santosh Chokhani wrote:
> We must fix X.509 since it is not broken.

I am not suggesting that we should fix X.509, I am pointing out, in my
own roundabout way, that X.509 certs are supposed to have a canonical
form. But it seems they do not.

Makes me wonder why we go to all the effort of using a supposedly
canonical encoding that isn't? If we can only rely on the original bits
in the cert when checking the signature, why bother?

-- 
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html           http://www.links.org/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
_______________________________________________
saag mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag