After clarification and discussions with cfu, ACK.
On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 15:13 +1000, Fraser Tweedale wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:02:49PM -0500, Ade Lee wrote:
> Couple of comments ..
>
> 1. First off, there is a typo in the comments on the method. I
> think
> you mean ..
>
> 3. Either we WERE the issuing CA, or we .. rather than "were
> not"
>
> 2. We can go with the heuristic of taking the first CA, but I do
> not
> think we should leak information about other certs if the CA is
> incorrect. The way the code is now, we will still return data on
> whether a particular cert serial number is valid -- even if that
> cert
> was not issued on that CA.
>
> A simple solution is to simply pass code to processRequest() to
> ignore
> the request if the issuer is not correct and not return a response
> for
> that request.
>
RFC 6960 says:
The response MUST include a SingleResponse for each certificate
in the request.
So the best we can do is return 'unknown' status in this case.
I've attached updated patch 0051-2 - the only change is the comment
fixup - and two new patches: 0074 refactors digest lookup and adds
support for SHA-2 algos, and 0075 changes the OCSP behaviour to
return 'unknown' cert status for certs that from a different issuer.
Cheers,
Fraser