Matt Palmer via dev-security-policy <dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org> writes:
>If you generate a 64-bit random value, then discard some values based on any >sort of quality test, the end result is a 64-bit value with less-than-64-bits >of randomness. That's not what 7.1 says, merely: CAs SHALL generate non-sequential Certificate serial numbers greater than zero (0) containing at least 64 bits of output from a CSPRNG There's nothing there about whether you can, for example, discard values that you don't like and generate another one (in fact it specifically requires that you reject the value 0 and generate another one). In particular, for your objection, how is one totally random value different from another? Specifically, if I discard a totally random value that has the high bit set (because of ASN.1 encoding issues) and take the next value generated, how is that (a) not compliant with 7.1 and (b) different from another totally random value that happens to not have the high bit set in the first place? What if I call every cert that would end up with the sign bit set a test cert and only issue the ones where they're not set? Again, fully compliant with the wording of 7.1, but presumably not compliant with your particular interpretation of the wording (OK, it might be, I'm sure you'll let me know if it is or isn't). That's the problem with rules-lawyering, if you're going to insist on your own very specific interpretation of a loosely-worded requirement then it's open season for anyone else to find dozens of other fully compatible but very different interpretations. And, again, question zero: Given that the value of 64 bits was pulled out of thin air, why does it even matter? Can we just agree that the bikeshed can be any colour people want as long as you're not using lead-based paint and move on from this bottomless pit? Peter. _______________________________________________ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
