I’m surprised at the question. I don’t know PGP/GPG all that well, but I checked and the IETF standard for X-509 certificates (RFC5280) requires CAs to use UTC in the signature time fields, and CMS (RFC5682) requires UTC in the SigningTime (in both cases, up to the year 2049).
Does this become an issue because the signatures in the RIPE database are doing something different? —Sandy > On Feb 11, 2019, at 11:41 AM, Edward Shryane via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote: > > Hi Denis, > >> On 11 Feb 2019, at 16:53, denis walker <ripede...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> Hi Ed >> >> Thanks for following up on this. Just one question, have you taken into >> account time zones? If an update is signed now in Dubai it is 19:51. If the >> update is processed on Amsterdam time, it is 16:51. Will this update fail >> because it is 3 hours in the future? >> >> cheers >> denis >> co-chair DB-WG >> > > Good question. We rely on the Bouncy Castle cryptography library to provide > the signing time for the message, and it does appear to take the timezone > into account. > > I tested by signing a message inside a virtual machine set to a different > timezone (EST), and the signature creation time was correctly mapped to the > local timezone (within a minute rather than hours). > > The signed updates in production appear to confirm this - only 24 messages > were more than 1 hour old, out of 118,183 (from October to December 2018), > and none of these appeared to be offset by a multiple of hours. > > Regards > Ed >
