OpenSSL accepts both OID 2.5.8.1.1 and OID 1.2.840.113549.1.1.1 for RSA
public keys. The latter comes from RFC 3279 and is widely implemented.
The former comes from the ITU-T version of X.509. Interestingly,
2.5.8.1.1 actually has a parameter, which OpenSSL ignores:
rsa ALGORITHM ::= {
KeySize
IDENTIFIED BY id-ea-rsa
}
KeySize ::= INTEGER
Remove support for 2.5.8.1.1 completely. In tests with a self-signed
certificate and code inspection:
- IE11 on Win8 does not accept the certificate in a TLS handshake at
all. Such a certificate is fatal and unbypassable. However Microsoft's
libraries do seem to parse it, so Chrome on Windows allows one to
click through the error. I'm guessing either the X.509 stack accepts
it while the TLS stack doesn't recognize it as RSA or the X.509 stack
is able to lightly parse it but not actually understand the key. (The
system certificate UI didn't display it as an RSA key, so probably the
latter?)
- Apple's certificate library on 10.11.2 does not parse the certificate
at all. Both Safari and Chrome on Mac treat it as a fatal and
unbypassable error.
- mozilla::pkix, from code inspection, does not accept such
certificates. However, Firefox does allow clicking through the error.
This is likely a consequence of mozilla::pkix and NSS having different
ASN.1 stacks. I did not test this, but I expect this means Chrome on
Linux also accepts it.
Given IE and Safari's results, it should be safe to simply remove this.
Firefox's data point is weak (perhaps someone is relying on being able
to click-through a self-signed 2.5.8.1.1 certificate), but it does
further ensure no valid certificate could be doing this.
The following is the 2.5.8.1.1 certificate I constructed to test with.
The private key is key.pem from ssl/test/runner:
-----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----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-----END CERTIFICATE-----
BUG=522228
Change-Id: I031d03c0f53a16cbc749c4a5d8be6efca50dc863
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/6852
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <alangley@gmail.com>
f6094e05ef