Thread (47 messages) flat view 47 messages, 12 authors, 2013-03-19

Wrong system clock vs X.509 date specifiers

From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Date: 2012-09-25 15:10:10
Also in: lkml

The X.509 certificate has a pair of times in it that delineate the valid
period of the cert, and I'm checking that the system clock is within the
bounds they define before permitting you to use the cert.  I've been setting
the expiry date to be 100 years in the future - by which time hopefully I
won't have to worry about it - but occasionally clock skew means a freshly
built kernel won't boot because the machine trying to boot doesn't think that
the start time has been reached yet.

Do we actually want to do this, however?  Or should we just ignore the times?
Or just the start time?

Unfortunately, the ASN.1 says the field are mandatory, and openssl doesn't
seem to give you a way to backdate the start time.

David
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help