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, 03 Feb 2016 16:28:41 +0000
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	dhowells@...hat.com, 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

One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> 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.

Did you mean 24:00:01 or 23:59:61?

David