[gnutls-devel] DER decoding errors due to time format

Peter Williams home_pw at msn.com
Mon May 29 23:21:26 CEST 2017

Der compliance is required by pkix rfc compliance. It is unambiguous in dates. It has been unambiguous for 30+ years.

Assuming this community cares about pkix compliance. Netscape-compliance is also commonly accepted.

In general in the USA, anything to do with money (or insurance or warranty) requires pkix compliance.

Posting a rant to your blog site can be Netscape compliant.

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 29, 2017, at 12:54 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <n.mavrogiannopoulos at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Kurt Roeckx <kurt at roeckx.be> wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 02:07:55PM +0200, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
>>> <n.mavrogiannopoulos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Kurt Roeckx <kurt at roeckx.be> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 02:48:08PM +0200, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> gnutls 3.5.x is more strict in certificate decoding and performs
>>>>>> various checks in the Time fields to ensure they are properly DER
>>>>>> formatted. However, it is seems that this caused regressions with
>>>>>> certain certificates generated by ovirt as seen in [0]. I am not sure
>>>>>> which software was used to generate the problematic ones, however, it
>>>>>> is most likely openssl, or some other open source software. Are you
>>>>>> aware of other or similar decoding issues which were a result of 3.5.x
>>>>>> being more strict in DER rules?
>>>>>> The options we have are:
>>>>>> 1. Ignore the error and insist on DER correctness in input certificates.
>>>>>> 2. Allow incorrect formatted time fields in certificates
>>>>>> unconditionally, e.g., with a special libtasn1 flag:
>>>>>> https://gitlab.com/gnutls/libtasn1/commit/16bad0c72dcdfbe5512cdd6b46b251ab7484e5dc
>>>>>> any other option I've missed? While I favor the first for its
>>>>>> simplicity, reality has shown over the years we must yield towards the
>>>>>> 'work' part.
>>>>> NSS is strict in what it accepts. We've recently changed openssl to be
>>>>> more strict too (commit 80770da39ebba0101079477611b7ce2f426653c5,
>>>>> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/2620), but maybe not
>>>>> strict enough yet.
>>>> Thank you, that is really helpful. It seems that Kurt
>>> Sorry, I meant to write Tim here!
>> And today someone filed this in Debian:
>> https://bugs.debian.org/862335
> I have a patch set which will tolerate incorrectly formatted dates to
> work around these issues in openssl:
> https://gitlab.com/gnutls/gnutls/merge_requests/400
> I am still not sure that tolerating invalid formatted data is a good
> thing, however, in case of infrastructure already deployed based on
> openssl tools, there is not much an administrator/user can do. What
> I'm thinking to do is set a cut-off date after which the original
> strict behavior will be re-instated, though I cannot see how would
> that help eliminating that issue.
> regards,
> Nikos
> _______________________________________________
> Gnutls-devel mailing list
> Gnutls-devel at lists.gnutls.org
> http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnutls-devel

More information about the Gnutls-devel mailing list