[xmlsec] Verify signature after certificate expired
Aleksey Sanin
aleksey@aleksey.com
Thu, 10 Oct 2002 15:36:58 -0700
--------------030002020702030009060500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Igor made changes in the Win32 build and forgot that not everyone uses
Microsoft .Net Visual Studio :) MS VC 6.0 has no __FUNCTION__ and
this caused problems. I guess the correct path is:
326c326,327
! #if !defined(__GNUC__) && !defined(_MSC_VER)
---
! #if !defined(__GNUC__) && (!defined(_MSC_VER) || (_MSC_VER < 1300))
What do you think, Igor?
Aleksey.
Moultrie, Ferrell (ISSAtlanta) wrote:
>Aleksey:
> Thanks for making these changes. I've pushed aside what I was working
>on in my application so that I can work with this change. I pulled the
>XMLSec tips with your changes from CVS and built it on Win32. With one
>minor problem it builds and runs without any regression errors. I
>haven't yet tried the new function bit but that is next. As for the one
>build problem I had, I don't really understand the change you made but
>if I put it back like it was before, everything is fine. Here's the
>diff's:
>
>diff -b backup/errors.h errors.h
>326c326,327
>< #if !defined(__GNUC__) && !defined(_MSC_VER)
>---
>
>
>>#if !defined(__GNUC__)
>>
>>
>
>Without removing the !defined(_MSC_VER) and allowing the following line
>...
>#define __FUNCTION__
>... to be compiled, I get zillions of errors complaining about
>__FUNCTION__ being undefined.
>
>If this isn't the correct change, please let me know what I'm missing
>and I'll try that instead. More on the cert verification as soon as I
>can figure out your example and make the appropriate changes in my code
>to do something similar.
>Thanks!
> Ferrell
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Aleksey Sanin [mailto:aleksey@aleksey.com]
>Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 3:53 AM
>To: Moultrie, Ferrell (ISSAtlanta)
>Cc: xmlsec@aleksey.com
>Subject: Re: [xmlsec] Verify signature after certificate expired
>
>
>I understand the problem with using 0.9.7 and I am waiting for it
>for a very long time myself :) I've changed XMLSec library so now
>this "expired certs feature" is supported for both 0.9.6 and 0.9.7.
>Also I added a test case to my suite to test it. The code is not
>complicated but it's new code and I would appreciate if you will
>try this new feature in your environment. I would be glad to help
>you and fix any bugs you find. The fixed XMLSec version should
>be in tonight's snapshot or you can get it from GNOME CVS.
>
>Thank you in advance,
>Aleksey
>
>Moultrie, Ferrell (ISSAtlanta) wrote:
>
>
>
>>Aleksey:
>> I *must* have this stuff -- there's not really another way to do this
>>without using a never-expiring cert from a private CA -- and that has
>>it's own set of risks and hazards that are commisurate with, or greater
>>than, the risk you point out of not expiring a signature after it's
>>released. For a code and/or data signing application intended *only* to
>>say that the data was valid at the time it was signed -- and should
>>remain valid forever -- not having a signature expire is the
>>proper/desired/required behavior.
>>For your notes below:
>> (1) My XML has a timestamp in a predictable format that correspond
>>precisely to the time of signing so this isn't an issue in my case. Not
>>a problem.
>> (2) Yucky because this is extra work in the application which I was
>>avoiding -- but that's still not a big problem since verification setup
>>time isn't absolutely critical to my application.
>> (3) I believe I understand your POV and the tradeoffs -- they just
>>don't change how my application *must* behave.
>>
>> If you can either prototype the required code for 0.9.6g or give me
>>
>>
>as
>
>
>>good a pointer as you can to what should be done and where, I'll check
>>it out and test it with my application. I'm very appreciative of what
>>you've done so far -- but I just can't use 0.9.7 in our general-release
>>applications at this time. Too much testing -- too many unknowns -- too
>>hard to explain if it turns out to have a critical security
>>issue/bug/etc. Thanks again for whatever you can do to help me move
>>forward. Finding out about this today is painful/inconvenient -- but
>>much better than finding out about it next year when all our
>>applications suddenly shut down. Hopefully QA would have found this
>>
>>
>soon
>
>
>>(I just turned the X509 stuff over to them) but if we'd missed it, it
>>would have been very painful.
>>Ferrell
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--------------030002020702030009060500
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
Igor made changes in the Win32 build and forgot that not everyone uses<br>
Microsoft .Net Visual Studio :) MS VC 6.0 has no __FUNCTION__ and <br>
this caused problems. I guess the correct path is:<br>
<pre wrap="">326c326,327
! #if !defined(__GNUC__) && !defined(_MSC_VER)
---
! #if !defined(__GNUC__) && (!defined(_MSC_VER) || (_MSC_VER < 1300))
</pre>
<pre wrap=""><!----></pre>
<br>
What do you think, Igor?<br>
<br>
Aleksey.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Moultrie, Ferrell (ISSAtlanta) wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid121184A7DB1F9143BB5E3FACCB548757066408@atlmaiexcp02.iss.local">
<pre wrap="">Aleksey:
Thanks for making these changes. I've pushed aside what I was working
on in my application so that I can work with this change. I pulled the
XMLSec tips with your changes from CVS and built it on Win32. With one
minor problem it builds and runs without any regression errors. I
haven't yet tried the new function bit but that is next. As for the one
build problem I had, I don't really understand the change you made but
if I put it back like it was before, everything is fine. Here's the
diff's:
diff -b backup/errors.h errors.h
326c326,327
< #if !defined(__GNUC__) && !defined(_MSC_VER)
---
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">#if !defined(__GNUC__)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Without removing the !defined(_MSC_VER) and allowing the following line
...
#define __FUNCTION__
... to be compiled, I get zillions of errors complaining about
__FUNCTION__ being undefined.
If this isn't the correct change, please let me know what I'm missing
and I'll try that instead. More on the cert verification as soon as I
can figure out your example and make the appropriate changes in my code
to do something similar.
Thanks!
Ferrell
-----Original Message-----
From: Aleksey Sanin [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:aleksey@aleksey.com">mailto:aleksey@aleksey.com</a>]
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 3:53 AM
To: Moultrie, Ferrell (ISSAtlanta)
Cc: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:xmlsec@aleksey.com">xmlsec@aleksey.com</a>
Subject: Re: [xmlsec] Verify signature after certificate expired
I understand the problem with using 0.9.7 and I am waiting for it
for a very long time myself :) I've changed XMLSec library so now
this "expired certs feature" is supported for both 0.9.6 and 0.9.7.
Also I added a test case to my suite to test it. The code is not
complicated but it's new code and I would appreciate if you will
try this new feature in your environment. I would be glad to help
you and fix any bugs you find. The fixed XMLSec version should
be in tonight's snapshot or you can get it from GNOME CVS.
Thank you in advance,
Aleksey
Moultrie, Ferrell (ISSAtlanta) wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Aleksey:
I *must* have this stuff -- there's not really another way to do this
without using a never-expiring cert from a private CA -- and that has
it's own set of risks and hazards that are commisurate with, or greater
than, the risk you point out of not expiring a signature after it's
released. For a code and/or data signing application intended *only* to
say that the data was valid at the time it was signed -- and should
remain valid forever -- not having a signature expire is the
proper/desired/required behavior.
For your notes below:
(1) My XML has a timestamp in a predictable format that correspond
precisely to the time of signing so this isn't an issue in my case. Not
a problem.
(2) Yucky because this is extra work in the application which I was
avoiding -- but that's still not a big problem since verification setup
time isn't absolutely critical to my application.
(3) I believe I understand your POV and the tradeoffs -- they just
don't change how my application *must* behave.
If you can either prototype the required code for 0.9.6g or give me
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->as
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">good a pointer as you can to what should be done and where, I'll check
it out and test it with my application. I'm very appreciative of what
you've done so far -- but I just can't use 0.9.7 in our general-release
applications at this time. Too much testing -- too many unknowns -- too
hard to explain if it turns out to have a critical security
issue/bug/etc. Thanks again for whatever you can do to help me move
forward. Finding out about this today is painful/inconvenient -- but
much better than finding out about it next year when all our
applications suddenly shut down. Hopefully QA would have found this
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->soon
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">(I just turned the X509 stuff over to them) but if we'd missed it, it
would have been very painful.
Ferrell
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------030002020702030009060500--