Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

OCSP Stapling #1364

Closed
rugk opened this issue Nov 4, 2016 · 6 comments
Closed

OCSP Stapling #1364

rugk opened this issue Nov 4, 2016 · 6 comments

Comments

@rugk
Copy link

rugk commented Nov 4, 2016

It would be nice if ejabberd would support OCSP Stapling. Nowadays there is even a way to force this stapling via special certificates, but for this to work you should support OCSP Stapling.
OCSP Stapling is very much recommend and is going to be the default in the web today.

@zinid
Copy link
Contributor

zinid commented Nov 5, 2016

We have this in ebe (commercial version of ejabberd), I'm not sure if the featrue is supposed to be ported to open source version.

BTW, in the meantime Google is getting rid of OCSP support in Chrome :)

@rugk
Copy link
Author

rugk commented Nov 5, 2016

BTW, in the meantime Google is getting rid of OCSP support in Chrome :)

OCSP is different to OCSP Stapling. AFAIK "OCSP Stapling" is still used by Chrome if supplied.

In any way this is really a basic feature of TLS, so I'd highly suggest to make this available in the open source version. All web bigger web servers (see here) have it and for an XMPP server it would also be very useful.

@zinid
Copy link
Contributor

zinid commented Nov 6, 2016

OK, my bad, commercial version has pure "OCSP" support, i.e. it has PKIX client authentication support with OCSP/CRL validation.
OCSP Stapling looks like much better way to validate at least server certificates.

@rugk
Copy link
Author

rugk commented Nov 6, 2016

OCSP Stapling looks like much better way to validate at least server certificates.

It is also a much better solution concerning privacy (as the CA does not have to be contacted) and it is faster too.

@strugee
Copy link
Contributor

strugee commented Jan 23, 2017

I'm interested in working on this. My guess is that the change to fix this should be introduced in fast_tls, right?

@zinid
Copy link
Contributor

zinid commented Jan 23, 2017

I don't know. Maybe in fast_tls, maybe in xmpp_stream_pkix, depending on complexity.

@mremond mremond closed this as completed Jul 20, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants