Re: implement subject alternative names support for SSL connections
От | Alexey Klyukin |
---|---|
Тема | Re: implement subject alternative names support for SSL connections |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAAS3tyKFogdifD13-jCoXcOoAg2h2cAfF-s1QRBj1Wcoc3rbJA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: implement subject alternative names support for SSL connections (Alexey Klyukin <alexk@hintbits.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: implement subject alternative names support for SSL
connections
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Alexey Klyukin <alexk@hintbits.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Heikki Linnakangas > <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote: >> Yeah, I think a certificate without CN should be supported. See also RFC 6125, section 4.1. "Rules" [for issuers of certificates]: >> >>> 5. Even though many deployed clients still check for the CN-ID >>> within the certificate subject field, certification authorities >>> are encouraged to migrate away from issuing certificates that >>> represent the server's fully qualified DNS domain name in a >>> CN-ID. Therefore, the certificate SHOULD NOT include a CN-ID >>> unless the certification authority issues the certificate in >>> accordance with a specification that reuses this one and that >>> explicitly encourages continued support for the CN-ID identifier >>> type in the context of a given application technology. >> >> >> Certificates without a CN-ID are probably rare today, but they might start to appear in the future. > > Ok, I will change a patch to add support for this clause. Attached is a new version. I've changed the logic to check for the SAN names first, and only check the common name if there is no match. The error when the common name is missing is only shown if SAN section does not contain any DNS names as well. The tricky part is the error message if no match was found: initially, it only listed a single common name, but now tracking all DNS names just for the sake of the error message makes the code more bloated, so I'm wondering if simply stating that there was no match, as implemented in the attached patch, would be good enough? -- Regards, Alexey Klyukin
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: