Are X.509 parsers supposed to check that the input is valid DER (as opposed to BER)? I haven't been able to find any implementation that does this. cc @BRIAN_____
-
-
Replying to @JethroGB
Both mozilla::pkix (C++) and webpki (Rust) do (try to), though they allow some exceptions (especially mozilla::pkix) for compatibility with existing certificates.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BRIAN_____
I checked the source of webpki and it doesn't look like it checks set ordering. I'll take another look at pkix
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JethroGB @BRIAN_____
Well I guess webpki never parses distinguished names so maybe it doesn't need to.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JethroGB
Also, people are working on a DN parser for webpki. What's the (security) advantage to validating set ordering? Does it allow the user of the library to make any useful (effort-saving or otherwise) assumptions?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BRIAN_____
Technically, if you accept BER, a DN comparison (for e.g. chain building) is not just a simple memcmp
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
It's true that you could have false negatives (certificate validation fails when it ought to succeed) but you'll never have false positives. If the CA follows good practices issues and subjects will always match byte-for-byte.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.