[Cryptography] Blue Coat has been issued a MITM encryption certificate

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie>
wrote:

>
>
> On 29/05/16 02:35, Henry Baker wrote:
> > FYI --
> >
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/27/blue_coat_ca_certs/
> >
> > A Controversial Surveillance Firm Was Granted a Powerful Encryption
> Certificate
> > Written by Joseph Cox, Contributor
>
> Yeah, two things strike me:
>
> 1 - yay for certificate transparency - CAs behaving oddly being spotted
>     and outed is good
>
> 2 - what kind of "testing" would require symantec to issue a CA
>     cert with path-len 0 and for symanetec to hold the private key? I
>     can't figure anything that makes sense unless symantec were thinking
>     of actively helping blue coat spoof web sites better, maybe at
>     run-time, or on a case-by-case basis  - or am I missing something?
>
> Cheers,
> S.


For the benefit of us who can't remember, what is the effect of path-len 0?

As in, what is the effect on systems out there in the wild as opposed to
what does the spec say. Is there a difference and if so for what systems?

Does 0 = infinity? Probably not in the spec but what about elsewhere?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20160531/d373f98a/attachment.html>