[Pkg-openssl-devel] Bug#829272: Missing accessors

[Richard Levitte via RT]

On Fri Jul 22 07:38:25 2016, mattias.ellert at physics.uu.se wrote:
> tor 2016-07-21 klockan 09:51 +0000 skrev Richard Levitte via RT:
> > On Thu Jul 21 08:18:30 2016, mattias.ellert at physics.uu.se wrote:
> > >
> > > ons 2016-07-20 klockan 15:14 +0000 skrev Richard Levitte via RT:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon Jul 11 11:34:35 2016, mattias.ellert at physics.uu.se wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess having a more restrictive accessor that only sets the
> > > > > EXFLAG_PROXY bit could work. I suggested the more general
> > > > > solution
> > > > > of
> > > > > having set/clear accessors for arbitrary flags since it was -
> > > > > well
> > > > > more
> > > > > general.
> > > >
> > > > So let me ask this in a different manner, does OpenSSL 1.1 still
> > > > not
> > > > set the
> > > > EXFLAG_PROXY flag correctly? In what situations does that happen?
> > > > That may be
> > > > worth a bug report of its own.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Richard Levitte
> > > > levitte at openssl.org
> > > >
> > >
> > > The answer to this is related to Mischa's reply, which
> > > unfortunately
> > > was only sent to the Debian BTS and not the the OpenSSL RT. I quote
> > > it
> > > below. As indicated in the answer, setting the EXFLAG_PROXY allows
> > > handling non-RFC proxies in OpenSSL.
> > >
> > > mån 2016-07-11 klockan 14:53 +0200 skrev Mischa Salle:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Richard, Mattias, others,
> > > >
> > > > I agree with you that it would be nice if OpenSSL could figure
> > > > out
> > > > itself whether a cert needs to be treated as a proxy, but
> > > > currently
> > > > that
> > > > doesn't work reliably as far as I know.
> > > > The flag is certainly needed in the case of non-RFC3820 proxies,
> > > > also
> > > > known as legacy proxies. Unfortunately these are still very
> > > > widely
> > > > used
> > > > (majority of the proxies actually) and hence our code must be
> > > > able to
> > > > handle them correctly.
> > > >
> > > > Best wishes,
> > > > Mischa Sallé
> > > >
> >
> > Ok... From looking at the voms code that was linked to earlier, I can
> > see that
> > legacy proxy certs are recognised by an older OID (called
> > PROXYCERTINFO_V3 in
> > the code), 1.3.6.1.4.1.3536.1.222. Is there a spec for the extensions
> > in that
> > version, whether they are critical or not and so on, that I can
> > reach? Or is
> > the OID the only actual difference? If it's easy enough (and it
> > currently does
> > look quite easy), I can certainly see adding some code in OpenSSL to
> > recognise
> > those...
> >
> > --
> > Richard Levitte
> > levitte at openssl.org
>
> As far as I know there are three different kinds of proxies, usually
> called "legacy", "draft" and "rfc", or sometimes version 2, 3 and 4
> respectively.
>
> For example see "grid-proxy-init -help":
>
> -draft Creates a draft (GSI-3) proxy
> -old Creates a legacy globus proxy
> -rfc Creates a RFC 3820 compliant proxy
>
> The really tricky one is the old legacy version 2 proxy I think.

Ok, so after doing quite a bit of searching, I found some references to GT2
(old) in a 3.0 document:

http://toolkit.globus.org/toolkit/docs/3.0/gsi/GSI-message-specification-02.doc
(section 5)

As I understand it, the GT2 format is a simple EE cert, with just two
differences:

1. the issuer is also a EE (so it has the basic constraint CA set to false)...
or it's another GT2 proxy, which amounts to the same thing.
2. the subject name is the issuer name plus an appended 'CN=Proxy' or
'CN=LimitedProxy'

Good so far?

My main problem here is GT3 (draft) proxy certs. If I look at
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pkix-proxy-10, they look exactly the
same as RFC3820 proxy certs, down to the extension OID. If I look at a really
old draft
(http://sigillum.pl/upload/pdf/Internet%20X.509%20Public%20Key%20Infrastructure.%20Proxy%20Certificate%20Profile.pdf),
the difference is *wild*, and if look at a random shell script
(https://www.nikhef.nl/~janjust/proxy-verify/genproxy) I found while searching
for OID 1.3.6.1.4.1.3536.1.222, I find a third variant that has a slightly
different proycertinfo extension...

Btw, this should really become a new ticket, along the lines of "OpenSSL
doesn't recognise earlier proxy certs".

--
Richard Levitte
levitte at openssl.org

-- 
Ticket here: http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=4602
Please log in as guest with password guest if prompted