On Friday, 11 April 2014 4:46 PM, Amos wrote:
> On 11/04/2014 10:16 p.m., Amm wrote:
>> After this upgrade i.e. from 1.0.0 to 1.0.1, Firefox started giving
>> certificate error stating "sec_error_inadequate_key_usage".
>>
>> This does not happen for all domains but looks like happening ONLY
>> for google servers. i.e. youtube, news.google.com
>>
>> Certificate is issued for *.google.com with lots of alternate names.
>>
>> Is it Firefox bug or squid bug?
> Hard to say.
> "key_usage" is an explicit restriction on what circumstances and
> actions the certificate can be used for.
> What the message you are seeing indicates one of two things:
> Either, the website owner has placed some limitations on how their
> website certificate can be used and your SSL-bumping is violating those
> restrictions.
As I said, its google domains. You can check
https://news.google.com OR https://www.youtube.com
Both have same ceritificate. *.google.com is primary and
youtube.com is one of the many alternate names.
It worked before I upgraded to OpenSSL 1.0.1.
The sslbump configuration was working till yesterday. Today
too it works for all other domains (Yahoo, hotmail etc.)
Infact https://www.google.com also works, because it has
specific certificate and not same *.google.com cerificate.
> Or, the creator of the certificate you are using to sign the generated
> SSL-bump certificates has restricted your signing certificate
> capabilities. (ie the main Trusted Authorities prohibit using certs they
> sign as secondary CA to generate fake certs like SSL-bump does).
> Either case is just as likely.
Did OpenSSL 1.0.0 not support key_usage? And hence squid did not
use it either?
I wonder why other Firefox+sslbump users are not complaining about this?
I see only few people complaining. That too was in November 2013.
I used the patch here:
http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-users/201311/att-0310/squid-3.3.9-remove-key-usage.patch
And it fixes the issue.
But I would prefer to do it without patch.
If I am the only one facing this, then what could be wrong?
Amm.
Received on Fri Apr 11 2014 - 11:38:41 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Apr 11 2014 - 12:00:04 MDT