Jean-Marc Desperrier wrote:
> This looks like a valid crlExtensions as in a RFC-2459, but I'm not sure if OpenSSL
> pretends to support RFC-2459 fully.
Keon should probably take part of the blame for failing to set Version,
as required by RFC 2459:
5.1.2.1 Version
This optional field describes the version of the encoded CRL. When
extensions are used, as required by this profile, this field MUST be
present and MUST specify version 2 (the integer value is 1).
As Steven mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, versions of
OpenSSL previous to 0.9.5 would not handle CRL's that used extensions
without specifying the correct version number.
//oscar
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
