<div dir="auto">Hi,<div dir="auto">Thanks for the clarification. Per the spec, then, a certificate designated to sign OCSP responses is required to have the ocsp-sign bit in the key usage extensions set.</div><div dir="auto">How does openssl handle cases where this requirement is violated?</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sep 12, 2017 3:27 PM, "Mischa Salle" <<a href="mailto:mischa.salle@gmail.com">mischa.salle@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi,<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:46 AM, Winter Mute <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:zshrdlu@gmail.com" target="_blank">zshrdlu@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hello,<br></div><span style="font-family:Tahoma,Verdana,Arial;font-size:14px">The <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6960#section-4.2.2.2" target="_blank">RFC</a> states that:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
OCSP signing delegation SHALL be designated by the inclusion of<br>
id-kp-OCSPSigning in an extended key usage certificate extension<br>
included in the OCSP response signer's certificate.</blockquote><div>The use of "SHALL" rather than "MUST" indicates that this recommendation can be ignored.<br></div><div></div></span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>SHALL is equivalent to MUST, see RFC2119:<br> .... MUST   This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL"...<br></div><div>I think you're thinking of SHOULD.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,<br></div><div>Mischa<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:Tahoma,Verdana,Arial;font-size:14px"><div>How does openssl handle OCSP responses signed by certificates that do not have <span style="font-family:Tahoma,Verdana,Arial;font-size:14px">id-kp-OCSPSigning in the extended
 key usage certificate extension when the responses are not signed by the issuing CA directly?<br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:Tahoma,Verdana,Arial;font-size:14px">What informs this decision/policy?<br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:Tahoma,Verdana,Arial;font-size:14px">Are there any security implications in including or excluding OCSP-sign in the extended key usage extension?<br></span></div></span></div>
<br>--<br>
openssl-dev mailing list<br>
To unsubscribe: <a href="https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mta.openssl.org/mailma<wbr>n/listinfo/openssl-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
<br>--<br>
openssl-dev mailing list<br>
To unsubscribe: <a href="https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mta.openssl.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div></div>