Frank Hecker wrote:
I should point out the downside of not including the SHA-256 root. If you only include the SHA-1 certificate, then if any server sends the SHA-256 certificate, FF may not correctly validate the chain (certainly under the current cert validation code, that will not work). This is because NSS will chain to the SHA-256 cert which it received from the server, but would not trust it.Nelson B Bolyard wrote:However, Izenpe may want to consider only including the SHA1 root because many of their customers may be using operating systems that don’t yet support SHA256.<snip>I think that covers all the considerations that would go into a decision of whether to include only a SHA1-based cert, or whether to include a newer SHA256 cert. I will stop short of making a recommendation for Izenpe in this case.Kathleen, I think the best approach is to present Izenpe with Nelson's analysis (for which, thanks!) and let them decide. Personally I think the potential downside from including the SHA-256 root is pretty small.
In the case of FF, it seems like the best bet would be to include the SHA-256 certificate for the greatest compatibility.
bob
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- dev-tech-crypto mailing list dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-crypto
