Conflict with CA/B TLS requirements
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 115
- Forks
- 34
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
The CA/Browser baseline requirements for TLS certs in Section 7.1.2.7.12 "Subscriber Certificate Subject Alternative Name" requires that if a certificate contains an empty Subject then the Subject Alternative Name extension must be marked as critical.
When such a certificate is constructed, it fails to validate because the SAN extension is not present in this list:
What is the reason for having this restricted list in the first place? It seems to conflict with the API docs for validate_path() here:
https://github.com/wbond/certvalidator/blob/c594f0ef5f6f3e101525f40e19ea835d90fe45b0/certvalidator/validate.py#L31-L32
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start in validate.py around lines 667-681 and compare the restricted extension list with the validate_path() API documentation around lines 31-32. Check how critical Subject Alternative Name extensions are handled for certificates with an empty Subject, using the linked CA/Browser Forum requirement as the expected behavior. Done means the documented API and validation behavior no longer conflict.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- cryptography
- Issue type
- Bug
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100