At 9:27 AM -0400 7/18/08, Frank Hecker wrote: >Paul Hoffman wrote: > > Has anyone validated the ECC paramters they used? > >Not that I'm aware.
I think that's unfortunate. It is easy for all of us to test the parameters for RSA certs, but few of us have software for testing ECC certs. >There's a test site with a Comodo-issued ECC cert at > > https://comodoecccertificationauthority-ev.comodoca.com/ ...which no browser will let me into. :-) >and the Comodo ECC root CA cert itself is available at > > http://crt.comodoca.com/COMODOECCCertificationAuthority.crt Yup, I got that from the bug report. >Are those sufficient input to do validation against, or do we need >further information? They are not sufficient by theselves. See below. At 9:57 AM -0700 7/18/08, Wan-Teh Chang wrote: >On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Has anyone validated the ECC paramters they used? > >They use the NIST P-384 curve (secp384r1), which is in NSA Suite B. Wang-Teh: did you check that they actually used that curve with some software? Or did you simply see that OID in their cert? If you used software, which? Is the crypto library in the checking software the same as Comodo used to create the cert or genetically different? It would be nice to know that the signature on the certificate validates, and that the curve they claim they are using is in fact the curve that verifies with the signature. At 10:05 AM -0700 7/18/08, Wan-Teh Chang wrote: >Those are sufficient. ...only if they have been verified. If someone trusted has verified them, that's great; if not, we should do that. _______________________________________________ dev-tech-crypto mailing list dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-crypto
