-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 113
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Auto-detect key_identifier_method / add SHA1 support. #196
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think rather than trying to detect the key ID method by trying a series of digest algorithms and detecting a match
from_ca_cert_der
should always pull in the exact subject key ID that was found in the cert and carry it forward. It seems plausible to me based on RFC 5280 that there are SKIs in the wild that don't use any of theseKeyIdMethods
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was thinking about that too... But on the other hand it is also weird when the certificate file is read into params, and then the
key_identifier_method
(which is a public field) doesn't match the reality because it defaults toSha256
....Do I understand your feedback correctly that you had something like this in mind:
Then add an
key_identifier_digest
field to the params struct with typeOption<Vec<u8>>
, which gets populated if the extension is detected?If you think that would be a better approach, then I could create a separate PR using that approach.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I haven't given this a ton of thought yet, so be wary that I might be sending you on a goose chase 😅 My rough idea was extending
KeyIdMethod
with aPreSpecified(Vec<u8>)
variant that carries a specific value to use. I think that might be nicer than a separate field likekey_identifier_digest
since as you point out ideally it should be in sync - we don't want a pre-specified value and then aKeyIdMethod::Sha256
that isn't used and out of correspondence with the value.WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I like it, it is even simpler :) Please see #197 with the suggested approach implemented.