linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] X.509: Handle midnight alternative notation in GeneralizedTime

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:30:42 +0000
From:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	Rudolf Polzer <rpolzer@...gle.com>, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
	David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@...el.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] X.509: Handle midnight alternative notation in
 GeneralizedTime

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:20:00 +0000
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:

> Rudolf Polzer <rpolzer@...gle.com> wrote:
> 
> > As for 24:xx:yy times - I'm split about this. This code doesn't
> > require a bijective decoding anyway (and if it did, 24:00:00 and
> > 00:00:00 mapping to the same time64_t would be problem enough) so this
> > is sure safe. On the other hand, a cert with a 24:xx:yy time that's
> > not 24:00:00 probably should be regarded as invalid and not trusted
> > for that reason alone.
> 
> Feel free to argue that one with Linus:-/

Pedantic hat on 24:00:01 is also potentially valid. The ANSI and ISO
standards allow for double leap seconds even though CCIR-460 doesn't
allow it to actually happen.

Alan