4 ms·
There's nothing wrong with client certs (other than insane complexity). However ultimately s2n is likely to need to support operation as a client too at which p
by richm44 11y ago
There's nothing wrong with client certs (other than insane complexity). However ultimately s2n is likely to need to support operation as a client too at which point things like certificate validation etc. will be needed and the amount of code will increase.
- cperciva 11y agoInsane complexity is exactly why supporting client certs is a bad idea.
- richm44 11y agoCertainly true if you don't need them. However since code using the library as a TLS client is already partially present, support for certificate verification is definitely going to need to be added. At the moment, I'm not that impressed with the testing since even making it build actually requires patching it! This is just due to one of the examples, but from the git history it's been broken since January.
- marcosdumay 11y agoNo, sorry. The insane complexity is on the requirements. If you need client certs, anything you do to satisfy the need will be at least as complex.
- cperciva 11y agoYes, but 99.999% of web servers don't need client certs.
- Tepix 11y agoSource?
- Natsu 11y agoOther than the government, nobody trying to do client certs actually runs the CA that issues them that I've seen. Instead, they trust some random set of commercial CAs, ignorant of the fact that openssl s_client -connect will dump out that list to any passer-by. I've even seen them trusting the "domain control validated only" certs, without any indication of "maybe this is a bad idea, because anyone who can buy a cert can auth to us because we don't even check." So for every case I've seen, they'd have been ahead to issue credentials themselves and just skip client certs.
- tedunangst 11y ago99.999% of web servers.
- aaronbrethorst 11y agoI think cperciva's opinion is a sufficiently valid source on this sort of issue, which is probably why you're being down voted.
- cperciva 11y agoThank you for the vote of confidence, but you're wrong. The question of "real world usage of TLS" is one where I would immediately defer to tptacek without question... and you've been around long enough to know that's something I don't do very often.
- marcosdumay 11y agoOf course. But they'll end up implementing it anyway, because of the 00.001%.
- JoachimSchipper 11y agoEh, just dumping X509 for something easier-to-parse would cut out a huge chunk of code. Being compatible is hard, but we stick with what we have because of switching cost, not because it's the best we can do.
- ctz 11y agoPractical use of client certs usually implies support for renegotiation too.