-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 110
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
Lint for S/MIME BR 7.1.2.3.g #797
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you @bitlux!
I have some small suggestions. I believe that the code snippet below implements them. Let me know what you think.
func (l *authorityKeyIdentifierCorrect) CheckApplies(c *x509.Certificate) bool {
return true
}
func (l *authorityKeyIdentifierCorrect) Execute(c *x509.Certificate) *lint.LintResult {
var keyID keyIdentifier
ext := util.GetExtFromCert(c, util.AuthkeyOID)
if ext == nil {
return &lint.LintResult{Status: lint.Error, Details: "missing authorityKeyIdentifier"}
}
if ext.Critical {
return &lint.LintResult{Status: lint.Error}
}
if _, err := asn1.Unmarshal(ext.Value, &keyID); err != nil {
return &lint.LintResult{
Status: lint.Fatal,
Details: fmt.Sprintf("error unmarshalling authority key identifier extension: %v", err),
}
}
hasKeyID := len(keyID.KeyIdentifier.Bytes) > 0
hasCertIssuer := len(keyID.AuthorityCertIssuer.Bytes) > 0
hasCertSerial := len(keyID.AuthorityCertSerialNumber.Bytes) > 0
if !hasKeyID {
return &lint.LintResult{Status: lint.Error, Details: "keyIdentifier not present"}
}
if hasCertIssuer {
return &lint.LintResult{Status: lint.Error, Details: "authorityCertIssuer is present"}
}
if hasCertSerial {
return &lint.LintResult{Status: lint.Error, Details: "authorityCertSerialNumber is present"}
}
return &lint.LintResult{Status: lint.Pass}
}
func (l *authorityKeyIdentifierCorrect) Execute(c *x509.Certificate) *lint.LintResult { | ||
var keyID keyIdentifier | ||
|
||
// ext is assumed not-nil based on CheckApplies. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So from the language authorityKeyIdentifier SHALL be present
I reckon that CheckApplies
should always return true and that nil AKI here would be an error condition.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done. Thanks for the review.
if !hasKeyID { | ||
return &lint.LintResult{Status: lint.Error} | ||
} | ||
if hasCertIssuer || hasCertSerial { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The Details
member of the lint.LintResult
type is quite useful when a lint such as this has multiple error scenarios. Otherwise, operators are left guess as to which one triggered the issue.
Here is my own take on this code block.
if !hasKeyID {
return &lint.LintResult{Status: lint.Error, Details: "keyIdentifier not present"}
}
if hasCertIssuer {
return &lint.LintResult{Status: lint.Error, Details: "authorityCertIssuer is present"}
}
if hasCertSerial {
return &lint.LintResult{Status: lint.Error, Details: "authorityCertSerialNumber is present"}
}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done.
} | ||
|
||
func (l *authorityKeyIdentifierCorrect) CheckApplies(c *x509.Certificate) bool { | ||
return util.IsExtInCert(c, util.AuthkeyOID) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
return util.IsExtInCert(c, util.AuthkeyOID) | |
return true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we want to at least check that it's a subscriber cert and an S/MIME cert, which was missing from the original commit.
…. Use error details.
Address review comments.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
No description provided.