Sets an X.509-accurate issuer representation #7
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
samlown
approved these changes
Dec 27, 2023
I'm afraid not. The only certificate I found affected by these changes is the production one. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The method we were using to extract the X.509 issuer description wasn't accurate. This was causing
SigningCertificateerrors with certificates that had other than the common elements.This PR sets the X.509-accurate issuer representation using the method described in the relevant docs.
I would love to add a test for the cases affected by these changes, but for that we would need a test certificate with non-common elements, which I'm not sure what's the best way to get (feedback welcome!).