News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Forthcoming OpenSSL releases by antsar on Monday July 06, 2015 @12:54PM (#9840449)
AFAIK it was built-in from the start, as far as the X.509 protocol is concerned. Its just not used anywhere.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280#section-4.2.1.10

Re:Forthcoming OpenSSL releases by nothrabannosir on Monday July 06, 2015 @04:34PM (#9842011)
Oh my God! What? How is this not a major, major thing? How are Mozilla and Google not pushing hard for government CAs to have these, like, stat? And for OpenSSL to actually check them?

I am bewildered. What happened? Is this just apathy?

http://blog.codekills.net/2012/04/08/adventures-in-x509-the-...

Unbelievable. This is SRV for HTTP all over again. The Betamax of the 21st century.

Re:Forthcoming OpenSSL releases by ab on Tuesday July 07, 2015 @09:18PM (#9849203)
Enforcement of nameConstraints is inconsistent at best.

I experimented with name constraints a couple years ago for a private CA project, with the idea that I could restrict the private CA to issuing only names within a chosen subdomain.

I remember being able to enforce nameConstraints on the subjectAltName, but I was never able to get it to enforce anything on the subject Common Name. In theory new certificates should always have a critical subjectAltName extension, but this makes it worthless in practice.

It's also possible that my X.509 foo is not strong enough, or that I was testing with an older version of OpenSSL that doesn't implement it.

http://blog.codekills.net/2012/04/08/adventures-in-x509-the-...