lints: revert e_key_usage_and_extended_key_usage_inconsistent. #556
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
The `e_key_usage_and_extended_key_usage_inconsistent` lint's interpretation of RFC 5280 is under question (see zmap#553). We also had an integration test bug that resulted in massively under-estimating it's impact on our integration test corpus (see zmap#555). Let's remove this lint while we sort out the correct logic.
|
I was going to suggest exactly this this evening, thank you for jumping on it! (I've been sharing these threads with friends and colleagues with the spicy title |
christopher-henderson
approved these changes
Jan 29, 2021
|
Thanks for the quick 🔍 |
cpu
deleted the
cpu-revert-e_key_usage_and_extended_key_usage_inconsistent
branch
This was referenced Jan 29, 2021
Closed
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
e_key_usage_and_extended_key_usage_inconsistentlint's interpretation of RFC 5280 is under question (see #553).We also had an integration test bug that resulted in massively under-estimating its impact on our integration test corpus (see #555).
Let's remove this lint while we sort out the correct logic.