Account confirmers, Anti-spam team, Confirmed users, Bureaucrats and Sysops emeriti
4,925
edits
CA/PROCERT Issues: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Add RFC reference
(Remove draft status) |
(Add RFC reference) |
||
| Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
==Issue T: Inappropriate Key Usage Value of "Key Agreement" (October 2016 - August 2017)== | ==Issue T: Inappropriate Key Usage Value of "Key Agreement" (October 2016 - August 2017)== | ||
[https://crt.sh/?id=197347381&opt=cablint,x509lint This certificate] and [https://crt.sh/?iCAID=750&minNotBefore=2000-01-01&n=1000&cablint=734 21 others] all have a Key Usage of, among other things, "Key Agreement", which is inappropriate for an RSA public key. Many of these were revoked soon after they were issued. If the first ones were a problem, why was the problem not fixed? cablint marks this as an error, | [https://crt.sh/?id=197347381&opt=cablint,x509lint This certificate] and [https://crt.sh/?iCAID=750&minNotBefore=2000-01-01&n=1000&cablint=734 21 others] all have a Key Usage of, among other things, "Key Agreement", which is inappropriate for an RSA public key. Many of these were revoked soon after they were issued. If the first ones were a problem, why was the problem not fixed? cablint marks this as an error, as it's a violation of [https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3279#section-2.3.1 RFC 3279 section 2.3.1]. | ||
==Issue V: Failure to Respond Quickly To Problem Reports (August 2017)== | ==Issue V: Failure to Respond Quickly To Problem Reports (August 2017)== | ||