Re: Certification Authorities are recommended to stop using MD5 altogether
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008, Micah Anderson wrote:
> Does anyone have a legitimate reason to trust any particular Certificate
> Authority?
Right. Thing is it's not straight forward to remove package
ca-certificates. On my systems, some 60 other packages depend on it :(
The alternative may be to reconfigure and deactivate all:
$ dpkg-reconfigure ca-certificates
...
1. yes 2. no 3. ask
Trust new certificates from certificate authorities? 3
...
Certificates to activate:
Still, the original question was (sort of) whether MD5 signed certificates
like this one:
Certificate:
Data:
Version: 3 (0x2)
Serial Number: 1 (0x1)
Signature Algorithm: md5WithRSAEncryption
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Issuer: C=ZA, ST=Western Cape, L=Cape Town, O=Thawte Consulting cc, OU=Certification Services Division, CN=Thawte Server CA/emailAddress=server-certs@thawte.com
Validity
Not Before: Aug 1 00:00:00 1996 GMT
Not After : Dec 31 23:59:59 2020 GMT
Subject: C=ZA, ST=Western Cape, L=Cape Town, O=Thawte Consulting cc, OU=Certification Services Division, CN=Thawte Server CA/emailAddress=server-certs@thawte.com
Subject Public Key Info:
Public Key Algorithm: rsaEncryption
RSA Public Key: (1024 bit)
Modulus (1024 bit):
00:d3:a4:50:6e:c8:ff:56:6b:e6:cf:5d:b6:ea:0c:
68:75:47:a2:aa:c2:da:84:25:fc:a8:f4:47:51:da:
85:b5:20:74:94:86:1e:0f:75:c9:e9:08:61:f5:06:
6d:30:6e:15:19:02:e9:52:c0:62:db:4d:99:9e:e2:
6a:0c:44:38:cd:fe:be:e3:64:09:70:c5:fe:b1:6b:
29:b6:2f:49:c8:3b:d4:27:04:25:10:97:2f:e7:90:
6d:c0:28:42:99:d7:4c:43:de:c3:f5:21:6d:54:9f:
5d:c3:58:e1:c0:e4:d9:5b:b0:b8:dc:b4:7b:df:36:
3a:c2:b5:66:22:12:d6:87:0d
Exponent: 65537 (0x10001)
X509v3 extensions:
X509v3 Basic Constraints: critical
CA:TRUE
Signature Algorithm: md5WithRSAEncryption
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
07:fa:4c:69:5c:fb:95:cc:46:ee:85:83:4d:21:30:8e:ca:d9:
a8:6f:49:1a:e6:da:51:e3:60:70:6c:84:61:11:a1:1a:c8:48:
3e:59:43:7d:4f:95:3d:a1:8b:b7:0b:62:98:7a:75:8a:dd:88:
4e:4e:9e:40:db:a8:cc:32:74:b9:6f:0d:c6:e3:b3:44:0b:d9:
8a:6f:9a:29:9b:99:18:28:3b:d1:e3:40:28:9a:5a:3c:d5:b5:
e7:20:1b:8b:ca:a4:ab:8d:e9:51:d9:e2:4c:2c:59:a9:da:b9:
b2:75:1b:f6:42:f2:ef:c7:f2:18:f9:89:bc:a3:ff:8a:23:2e:
70:47
should be distributed at all.
Cheers,
--
Cristian
Reply to: