]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:50 AM
Subject: Re: [openssl.org #323] Bug in authorityKeyIdentifier extension ?
Well Microsoft support tells me it's openssl's fault, and you tell me it's
microsoft's
convince them !
Cheers !
- Original Message -
From: Frédéric Giudicelli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:50 AM
Subject: Re: [openssl.org #323] Bug in authorityKeyIdentifier extension ?
Well Microsoft support tells me it's
In message 03f201c28a97$38a075d0$0200a8c0@station1 on Tue, 12 Nov 2002 23:02:41
+0100, Frédéric Giudicelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
groups I'm guessing that M$ is wrong, that would not be the first time, howerver
groups the real question now, is how do you contact M$, the report the bug, the guy
Subject: Re: [openssl.org #323] Bug in authorityKeyIdentifier extension ?
In message 03f201c28a97$38a075d0$0200a8c0@station1 on Tue, 12 Nov 2002
23:02:41 +0100, Frédéric Giudicelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
groups I'm guessing that M$ is wrong, that would not be the first time,
howerver
groups
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Frédéric Giudicelli wrote:
Well I hope MS will be able to get into an adult argumentation, I think it's
mostly about the comprehension of the RFC, since it's really not clear the
way IETF expresses it.
The best solution would be that one of you big people, contact IETF,
I've been very pleasantly surprised, in the last few months, at the
responsiveness of MS support people and developers whom I have
encountered by submitting support requests related to Kerberos and
X.509. If someone would turn down the flame-meter a notch or two and
construct a concise document
convince them !
Cheers !
- Original Message -
From: Frédéric Giudicelli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:50 AM
Subject: Re: [openssl.org #323] Bug in authorityKeyIdentifier extension ?
Well Microsoft support tells me it's
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Frédéric Giudicelli via RT wrote:
ROOT CA's authorityKeyIdentifier extension gives its own DN as issuer (normal)
INTERMEDIATE CA's authorityKeyIdentifier extension gives ROOT CA's DN as issuer
(normal)
A certificate signed by INTERMEDIATE CA, gives ROOT CA's DN as issuer
On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, Vadim Fedukovich wrote:
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 12:51:24AM +0100, Frédéric Giudicelli via RT wrote:
Well Microsoft support tells me it's openssl's fault, and you tell me it's
microsoft's ?
It's dead end, what am I supposed to tell my clients ?
Well, Microsoft and
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, [iso-8859-1] Frédéric Giudicelli wrote:
Well Microsoft support tells me it's openssl's fault, and you tell me it's
microsoft's ?
It's dead end, what am I supposed to tell my clients ?
Well. Since Microsoft's history if full of bugs, security problems, and
non-comformity to
Frédéric Giudicelli via RT wrote:
Well Microsoft support tells me it's openssl's fault, and you tell me it's
microsoft's ?
It's dead end, what am I supposed to tell my clients ?
Well... altough PKIX recommends the use of the authorityKeyId, and that the
French Government says you must to have
architecture ?
That's a non sense.
- Original Message -
From: Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: [openssl.org #323] Bug in authorityKeyIdentifier extension ?
In message
]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:23 AM
Subject: Re: [openssl.org #323] Bug in authorityKeyIdentifier extension ?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 31 Oct 2002
23:19:17 +0100 (MET), Frédéric Giudicelli via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rt All I know, is that MS Windows 2000 SP3 consider
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 1 Nov 2002 00:51:24
+0100 (MET), Frédéric Giudicelli via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rt Well Microsoft support tells me it's openssl's fault, and you tell
rt me it's microsoft's?
I'm basing what I say, not only on the way it's implemented, but also
on what's
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 1 Nov 2002 00:51:24
+0100 (MET), Frédéric Giudicelli via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rt Well Microsoft support tells me it's openssl's fault, and you tell
rt me it's microsoft's?
I'm basing what I say, not only on the way it's implemented, but also
on
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 12:51:24AM +0100, Frédéric Giudicelli via RT wrote:
Well Microsoft support tells me it's openssl's fault, and you tell me it's
microsoft's ?
It's dead end, what am I supposed to tell my clients ?
Well, Microsoft and openssl are not the only code available.
Would you
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 31 Oct 2002 22:44:33
+0100 (MET), Frédéric Giudicelli via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rt The authorityKeyIdentifier extension seems to behave weirdly...
rt
rt I have a two level CA architecture:
rt ROOT CA
rt INTERMEDIATE CA
rt For both CA:
rt
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 31 Oct 2002 22:44:33
+0100 (MET), Frédéric Giudicelli via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rt The authorityKeyIdentifier extension seems to behave weirdly...
rt
rt I have a two level CA architecture:
rt ROOT CA
rt INTERMEDIATE CA
rt For both CA:
rt
architecture ?
That's a non sense.
- Original Message -
From: Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: [openssl.org #323] Bug in authorityKeyIdentifier extension ?
In message
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 31 Oct 2002 23:19:17
+0100 (MET), Frédéric Giudicelli via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rt All I know, is that MS Windows 2000 SP3 consider the chain broken,
rt it links the EndUser Cert with the ROOT CERT, and since the issuer
rt of the EndUser Cert is not ROOT
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 31 Oct 2002 23:19:17
+0100 (MET), Frédéric Giudicelli via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rt All I know, is that MS Windows 2000 SP3 consider the chain broken,
rt it links the EndUser Cert with the ROOT CERT, and since the issuer
rt of the EndUser Cert is not
]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:23 AM
Subject: Re: [openssl.org #323] Bug in authorityKeyIdentifier extension ?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 31 Oct 2002
23:19:17 +0100 (MET), Frédéric Giudicelli via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rt All I know, is that MS Windows 2000 SP3 consider
22 matches
Mail list logo
