Re: [TLS] Verifying X.509 Certificate Chains out of order

[Martin Rex <Martin.Rex at sap.com>]

Peter Gutmann wrote:
> 
> Martin Rex <Martin.Rex at sap.com> writes:
> 
> >All implementations that seriously care about (server) performance ought to
> >fail with an unordered certificate_list (and not try to reorder themselves).
> >Our OEM implementation does care.
> 
> Wow, how on earth did you manage to come up with an implementation where the
> overhead of doing this even registers?

(It's an OEM implemenation I happen to support, not my implementation.)

In a sensible PKI implementation there are distinct datatypes for
unordered bags of certs and an ordered certificate chain, and
the certificate chain verifier operates only on the ordered chain.
better modularisation of code, less bugs, less code, faster.

It makes perfect sense to require ordered lists in procotols such as in an
SSL certificate_list and X509PKIPathv1 in WS-Security and use unordered
lists only where performance has low importance (PKCS7/CMS) or usability
is desired (User interfaces).


-Martin
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls