Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

cabf.serverauth.ca_multiple_reserved_policy_oids duplicated #122

Closed
robstradling opened this issue Oct 14, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #123
Closed

cabf.serverauth.ca_multiple_reserved_policy_oids duplicated #122

robstradling opened this issue Oct 14, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #123
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@robstradling
Copy link
Contributor

Compare these...

https://github.com/digicert/pkilint/blob/main/pkilint/cabf/serverauth/finding_metadata.csv#L72
ERROR cabf.serverauth.ca_multiple_reserved_policy_oids Validates that the content of the certificate policies extension complies with BR 7.1.2.10.5.

https://github.com/digicert/pkilint/blob/main/pkilint/cabf/serverauth/finding_metadata.csv#L73
ERROR cabf.serverauth.ca_multiple_reserved_policy_oids Validates that the certificate policy OID(s) conform to BR 7.1.2.7.9.

Both of the citations are useful: section 7.1.2.7.9 is for Subscriber Certificates, whereas section 7.1.2.10.5 is for various types of CA Certificates. However, using the same code for both lints is problematic.

Is it possible to change the code for one of these lints by updating both the CSV entry and the corresponding python code?

@CBonnell
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks for filing this, @robstradling. It appears that the code for the Subscriber validation is incorrect: it should be cabf.serverauth.subscriber_multiple_reserved_policy_oids.

I'll get this fixed shortly.

@robstradling
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks @CBonnell. :-)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants