boring: Support validating certificates against CRLs #81
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jrose-signal
force-pushed
the
crl-support
branch
from
46fbadb
to
2ec42d7
Compare
Adds CRL types and validation of certificates against CRLs with a `X509Store/X509StoreContext`. Also enables customizing verification flags on the `X509Store`, required to enable CRL checking.
jrose-signal
force-pushed
the
crl-support
branch
from
2ec42d7
to
9d66031
Compare
|
Rebased on master. We have some follow-up work after this goes in to improve support for certificate extensions, but it depends what you want to do with this first. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Adds CRL types and validation of certificates against CRLs with
a
X509Store/X509StoreContext. Also enables customizing verificationflags on the
X509Store, required to enable CRL checking.Apologies for dropping such a large PR here without discussion first — please let me know if you'd prefer an alternate approach, I'm happy to rework this.